[chrisk]

Snap loan sounds sleazier than bailout.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

Are they going to send checks to everybody and claw back from the "undeserving" based on 2020 income on the 2020 tax return. As pointed out earlier, there can be a significant difference between 2018 and 2020 income.

[chrisk]

Snap loan sounds sleazier than bailout.

---

How is distributing money to the unemployed less efficient than sending money to everybody?  You can immediately give money to the unemployed in less time than it takes to send meaningless checks to everybody.

If 20% are unemployed, they can get closer to survival level than if $500 billion is sent to people who don't need it.

This is not rocket science.

You can do both.  I’d top up the state unemployment insurance and further increase unemployment payments to 90% of wages lost (to a max).  But I’d also get money into the economy as fast as I can.

BC

There is no place to do discretionary spending now.  Sending money to somebody working and earning $150K will only sit in the bank.  A low-wage unemployed worked would put it into the economy immediately.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation website explains why sending widespread checks is bad economic and tax policy.

It would be helpful if you linked that site, or engaged like at all with the rationale I put up above. As far as I can see there is literally no downside to having the Fed print and mail checks to literally everyone.

And just for the record, lots of people making $150k/year would spend it. Have you not even heard of the housing costs in the bay area?

Money should be sent to everyone. 

First, the people who are going to get lost by having arbitrary cutoffs (even unemployment as a cutoff) are the people already on the edges of society. Means testing is a great way to keep people who need it the most out of reach.

Second, when the money is sent to everyone it takes the wind out of the sails of the people who would likely complain about spending tax money on the poor. Read less class conflict. Read less objection from either side of the aisle.

Third, agree with above, it would be much faster. The poor in this country vastly outnumber the rich, so it isn't like giving the top 10% the money is going to break the bank (when the bank is already broken).

Are they going to send checks to everybody and claw back from the "undeserving" based on 2020 income on the 2020 tax return. As pointed out earlier, there can be a significant difference between 2018 and 2020 income.