coronabill v4 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: coronabill v4 (/thread-19695.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: coronabill v4 (/thread-19695.html)
coronabill v4 - BostonCard - 05-12-2020
House version certainly doesn't lack ambition.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-updates-house-democrats-unveil-3-trillion-relief-bill.html
BC
RE: coronabill v4 - Farm93 - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 03:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: House version certainly doesn't lack ambition.It is pretty obvious that is their negotiating wish list.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-updates-house-democrats-unveil-3-trillion-relief-bill.html
BC
It is also likely to be the foundation for their political ads in Sep, Oct & Nov should the economy tank as expected.
The problem with the earlier rounds of aid has been it was distributed unevenly and that creating give away losers. Many very small companies (10-50 employees) were at the back of the line for various reasons and never got money. Now those companies are going to close, so giving out more small business money now won't reach that group of companies or their former employees. Those loser types will see winning "small" companies that got loans thrive. There will be anger and envy and the Dems will show their ideas to level the playing field were killed by McConnell.
That's the theory I suspect. All part of the sausage process.
I am OK with all of that political back and forth as long as someone, somewhere is working on scaling up testing (and PPE supplies for the Fall wave).
RE: coronabill v4 - OutsiderFan - 05-12-2020
Just do what John Oliver suggested about the Post Office.
RE: coronabill v4 - BigEasyCard - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 03:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote: House version certainly doesn't lack ambition.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-updates-house-democrats-unveil-3-trillion-relief-bill.html
BC
While I find many of the proposed expenditures to be worthwhile, I have a hard time seeing an economic justification for the proposed $6K/person transfer payments.
Assuming unemployment rises to even 30%, the majority of families still are drawing their paychecks. In fact, it appears that consumer saving has increased by five percentage points during the pandemic as people stay at home and reduce discretionary expenditures. So why indiscriminately hand out $6K payments to families whose economic circumstances have not worsened?
Let's keep the focus on areas of need, as done in many other provisions of the bill.
RE: coronabill v4 - Mick - 05-12-2020
(05-12-2020, 05:07 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Just do what John Oliver suggested about the Post Office.
Don't watch John Oliver. What did he suggest?
RE: coronabill v4 - 2006alum - 05-13-2020
Hopefully there's something for landlords in there. This Bloomberg article identifies why smalltime landlords are destined to be losers, and Wall Street winners, as more and more tenants (legally) refuse to pay rent. Once again going against my CardBoard typecast leftie role, I find calls to cancel rent and mortgages so misguided - what do these people think will happen to the property owners who themselves have mortgages to pay?
One thing I think the House Bill gets right is the need for more transfer payments to those in need (so that, among other things, they can and DO pay rent). Maybe we need to find ways to make such payments more need-based so that they aren't blanket giveaways that BigEasy rightly notes will create problems of their own. But I honestly can't believe how few in the media seem to be emphasizing the millions and millions of people who will have no income and no employment by mid-summer. The PPP-mandated retention of employees will expire in a few weeks, and then the grossed-up unemployment benefits are scheduled to end on July 31. WTF are those millions of Americans going to do then?
RE: coronabill v4 - stupac2 - 05-13-2020
(05-12-2020, 08:55 PM)BigEasyCard Wrote: While I find many of the proposed expenditures to be worthwhile, I have a hard time seeing an economic justification for the proposed $6K/person transfer payments.
Assuming unemployment rises to even 30%, the majority of families still are drawing their paychecks. In fact, it appears that consumer saving has increased by five percentage points during the pandemic as people stay at home and reduce discretionary expenditures. So why indiscriminately hand out $6K payments to families whose economic circumstances have not worsened?
Let's keep the focus on areas of need, as done in many other provisions of the bill.
Lots of people who still have jobs might have been hit by a reduction in hours, they could still lose their job in the future, etc. And the point of the stimulus is to, uh, stimulate. Giving people are relatively secure more money means they're more likely to spend it.
But really, what's the harm? The worst-case scenario is inflation, which we need anyway. Targeting makes the funds take longer to go out and is more likely to miss edge cases. Just make it universal, the benefits from means testing are really minor, and the downsides obvious and large.
RE: coronabill v4 - burger - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 08:56 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(05-12-2020, 08:55 PM)BigEasyCard Wrote: While I find many of the proposed expenditures to be worthwhile, I have a hard time seeing an economic justification for the proposed $6K/person transfer payments.
Assuming unemployment rises to even 30%, the majority of families still are drawing their paychecks. In fact, it appears that consumer saving has increased by five percentage points during the pandemic as people stay at home and reduce discretionary expenditures. So why indiscriminately hand out $6K payments to families whose economic circumstances have not worsened?
Let's keep the focus on areas of need, as done in many other provisions of the bill.
Lots of people who still have jobs might have been hit by a reduction in hours, they could still lose their job in the future, etc. And the point of the stimulus is to, uh, stimulate. Giving people are relatively secure more money means they're more likely to spend it.
But really, what's the harm? The worst-case scenario is inflation, which we need anyway. Targeting makes the funds take longer to go out and is more likely to miss edge cases. Just make it universal, the benefits from means testing are really minor, and the downsides obvious and large.
I agree. People with jobs are hesitant to spend money now, and the savings rate is increasing. If you give people free money, they will spend more, and that will create jobs (or prevent their loss at least).
Remember, the inflation-adjusted interest rate for federal borrowing is negative right now. People are paying us to borrow money. Let's do it.
As for future inflation, all of the scary "inflation is coming" warnings we saw with the response to the 08-09 crisis came to nothing. I think the inflation chicken littles are going to be wrong again.
RE: coronabill v4 - chrisk - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 08:56 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(05-12-2020, 08:55 PM)BigEasyCard Wrote: While I find many of the proposed expenditures to be worthwhile, I have a hard time seeing an economic justification for the proposed $6K/person transfer payments.
Assuming unemployment rises to even 30%, the majority of families still are drawing their paychecks. In fact, it appears that consumer saving has increased by five percentage points during the pandemic as people stay at home and reduce discretionary expenditures. So why indiscriminately hand out $6K payments to families whose economic circumstances have not worsened?
Let's keep the focus on areas of need, as done in many other provisions of the bill.
Lots of people who still have jobs might have been hit by a reduction in hours, they could still lose their job in the future, etc. And the point of the stimulus is to, uh, stimulate. Giving people are relatively secure more money means they're more likely to spend it.
But really, what's the harm? The worst-case scenario is inflation, which we need anyway. Targeting makes the funds take longer to go out and is more likely to miss edge cases. Just make it universal, the benefits from means testing are really minor, and the downsides obvious and large.
More to the rich ultimately means less to the poor. Maybe not immediately but over time.
RE: coronabill v4 - JustAnotherFan - 05-13-2020
About targeted payments vs some sort of unemployment focus. One, there are a lot of people who live on the margins of society who are not going to be applying for unemployment. They are perpetually unemployed. Trying to parse out who deserves money and who does not means they do not. Two, I'm still working for nothing as an entrepreneur. I live hand to mouth. I'm not applying for unemployment. But people who lost their $150,000 a year job are. Not sure why I should get nothing just because I didn't apply for unemployment. Although I expect I'll get nothing either way.
RE: coronabill v4 - 2006alum - 05-13-2020
Powell seems to think more needs to be done, too:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/business/status/1260567236760264704?s=20[/tweet]
RE: coronabill v4 - Farm93 - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 06:47 AM)2006alum Wrote: Hopefully there's something for landlords in there. This Bloomberg article identifies why smalltime landlords are destined to be losers, and Wall Street winners, as more and more tenants (legally) refuse to pay rent. Once again going against my CardBoard typecast leftie role, I find calls to cancel rent and mortgages so misguided - what do these people think will happen to the property owners who themselves have mortgages to pay?I definitely can imagine a family with 2-5 real estate properties, each with mortgage debt, really having a tough time if tenants are not paying rent. And that could be particularly difficult if their personal employment income came from industries also devastated by the pandemic.
Blanket cash payments to every USA citizen feels unfocused to me, especially in states that have very few COVID deaths and never had restrictions on business activities. And yet, finding the right families to assign aid would be so hard and time consuming.
We are so outside the bounds of the government processes that I understand some errors will be made, especially given the need for speed. I am also confident some of those errors will allow some companies to exploit the system to grab lots of money.
RE: coronabill v4 - oregontim - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 06:47 AM)2006alum Wrote: Hopefully there's something for landlords in there. This Bloomberg article identifies why smalltime landlords are destined to be losers, and Wall Street winners, as more and more tenants (legally) refuse to pay rent. Once again going against my CardBoard typecast leftie role, I find calls to cancel rent and mortgages so misguided - what do these people think will happen to the property owners who themselves have mortgages to pay?
I know very well a couple in their early 30s, both making decent incomes, who chose after marriage two years ago to invest in rental houses instead of the stock market. They are exactly the smalltime landlords your post worries about. If tenants stop paying rents, they are screwed. Both of their rental houses have mortgages on them. I have my fingers crossed on this one, because renter protection without mortgage protection seems a popular option. Exactly as you suggest, it will hit the middle classes, not the wealthy.
RE: coronabill v4 - stupac2 - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 09:49 AM)chrisk Wrote: More to the rich ultimately means less to the poor. Maybe not immediately but over time.
Meh, you could just raise top tax rates slightly to fix that (and the federal tax code is pretty progressive anyway). A few $2k payments (or whatever) are pretty easy to claw back from people making lots of money. The general point is that the time to do this isn't now, when everything is on fire, but later when things get calm. Being skeptical of that happening given our politics is fair, but I don't think that should really matter right now.
RE: coronabill v4 - Mick - 05-13-2020
(05-13-2020, 03:00 PM)oregontim Wrote:(05-13-2020, 06:47 AM)2006alum Wrote: Hopefully there's something for landlords in there. This Bloomberg article identifies why smalltime landlords are destined to be losers, and Wall Street winners, as more and more tenants (legally) refuse to pay rent. Once again going against my CardBoard typecast leftie role, I find calls to cancel rent and mortgages so misguided - what do these people think will happen to the property owners who themselves have mortgages to pay?
I know very well a couple in their early 30s, both making decent incomes, who chose after marriage two years ago to invest in rental houses instead of the stock market. They are exactly the smalltime landlords your post worries about. If tenants stop paying rents, they are screwed. Both of their rental houses have mortgages on them. I have my fingers crossed on this one, because renter protection without mortgage protection seems a popular option. Exactly as you suggest, it will hit the middle classes, not the wealthy.
Very minor quibble...I think it will hit the poor -- the renters -- more than the middle class who own 1-2 rental properties. Chairman of the Fed Jay Powell said that 40% of those hit make less than $40k per household.
RE: coronabill v4 - OutsiderFan - 05-14-2020
John Oliver on saving the USPS. The whole segment is informative while trying to be humorous about it, but watch at 5:52 to see why it is struggling and how easy it is to fix.
https://youtu.be/IoL8g0W9gAQ
RE: coronabill v4 - oregontim - 05-14-2020
(05-13-2020, 05:42 PM)Mick Wrote:(05-13-2020, 03:00 PM)oregontim Wrote: I know very well a couple in their early 30s, both making decent incomes, who chose after marriage two years ago to invest in rental houses instead of the stock market. They are exactly the smalltime landlords your post worries about. If tenants stop paying rents, they are screwed. Both of their rental houses have mortgages on them. I have my fingers crossed on this one, because renter protection without mortgage protection seems a popular option. Exactly as you suggest, it will hit the middle classes, not the wealthy.
Very minor quibble...I think it will hit the poor -- the renters -- more than the middle class who own 1-2 rental properties. Chairman of the Fed Jay Powell said that 40% of those hit make less than $40k per household.
Not a quibble. You make an important addition there and I agree with you. Of course this hurts the poor more than the middle class. That's a fact of life in this country. And it is well worth adding.