Originally posted by Tzeentch
Can you hook me up with a link to where you saw the eligibility requirements? I've been looking on google for a whole 15 seconds and I can't find anything.
The plan’s provisions are very simple. Adults would get $1,200 each and children $500 each. At higher incomes, the checks would get smaller: The benefit would start decreasing at a rate of $5 for every additional $100 in income. The phaseout starts at $75,000 in adjusted gross income for singles, $112,500 for heads of household, and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly; it would phase out entirely by $99,000 for singles and $198,000 for couples (with no children).
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/23/21190955/stimulus-checks-from-government-approved
Also found this, covers similar to above, but it adds the provision for people who make so little they don't file taxes:
The text of the bill has not yet been released, but under an earlier draft of the bill, many American tax filers would receive one-time payments of $1,200, or $2,400 for married couples who filed their 2018 taxes jointly. Families would also receive an additional $500 for each child. Meanwhile, under the earlier proposed legislation, individuals with very low income with little or no tax liability would receive $600 each. -snip
Do wonder if that covers people who already live on government assistance.
Wasn't part of the Democrat's veto logic that they wanted larger payouts?
It's definitely one of those situations where it's better then nothing, but I agree more needs to be done. Personally I'll be okay even without any payout at all, because I'm still working, but for the average person you're right that 1200 isn't going to go very far.
Originally posted by Robtard
Just looking at a single person, a one-time payment of $1,200.00 isn't going to go very far, if you're someone who will be out a job for even two months.
This is where a UBI is important. It's a moderate libertarian economic idea for a reason.
If we already had a UBI, this economic tragedy wouldn't really have happened.
The UBI should be $1500 a month with locality pay adjustments similar to the per diem adjustments federal workers get when they travel and work.
https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates
For example, base is $1500. But you live in San Francisco:
Comes out to this:
The state with the lowest cost of living should be the baseline of $1500 a month. Then ever dollar amount in the per diem figure, by percentage, over the cheapest place, would be multiplied again $1500.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cheapest-states-to-live-in/
For example, Mississippi has the lowest cost of living in the US.
Cost indiex of MS is 86.1. They become "1." Every index gets an automatic +13.9.
"But, dadudemon, this will encourage people to live in expensive cities." Nope, it will drive up costs. It should be done by state instead of cities.
That way, people don't flock to San Fran to get a higher UBI payout.
Originally posted by TzeentchThey're giving people crumbs, so they don't make a stink about the other 1.66trillion going to the already rich. 2008 all over again.
Wasn't part of the Democrat's veto logic that they wanted larger payouts?It's definitely one of those situations where it's better then nothing, but I agree more needs to be done. Personally I'll be okay even without any payout at all, because I'm still working, but for the average person you're right that 1200 isn't going to go very far.
Giving money to poor people and middle class people is communism.
Originally posted by Robtard
They're giving people crumbs, so they don't make a stink about the other 1.66trillion going to the already rich. 2008 all over again.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Giving money to poor people and middle class people is communism.Yeah. People have been giving the Dems shit for the past week for vetoing the first bill, but this puts things in perspective.
👆
And giving money to the corporations is also socialism.
All of it is socialism. One is a populace socialism. The other is a corporatist socialism.
Both are the collective use of public funds to support people and groups in a nation.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
NO. Corporations earned government subsidies by being successful, ambitious, innovative risk-takers and job creators.
I'm not sure if this a troll moment but anyone that can remember back to 2008 and look at the financial fiasco knows that isn't an accurate statement.
Corporations can get grants just from having ideas and massive amounts of $$ for legal teams to focus on getting said funds and using lobbyists to influence govt spending and taxes.
I'm not denying success but I'm also not eating the shit sandwich that "corporations" (large entities not small mom and pop s/c-corps) somehow make it without govt influence.
Large corporations put their thumbs on the scale of capitalism to help control regulation, taxes, laws/rules that limits free market competition.
Anyhow...yeah Corporations!