What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Yang Plan (1 Viewer)

Joe Mammy

Joe Mammy

Footballguy
If you were president right now, how would you design a coronavirus-specific basic income relief plan? 

I would do a flat $1,000 per individual adult and then $500 per child under 18 and do it for three months. I like the earned income tax credit, but it doesn’t capture everyone that it would need to, and you don’t have much time in this kind of crisis. The downsides of being under-inclusive are high, so you’d want to err on the side of completeness if you can. Just say, ‘Look, if you’re an adult you get $1,000, and for every child you get an additional $500.’ That would secure more people’s ability to weather this storm.

 
I don't think $1000 would go far enough. Maybe something along the lines of $500 a week or so could cover people a bit better. 

 
huthut said:
I don't think $1000 would go far enough. Maybe something along the lines of $500 a week or so could cover people a bit better. 
Click to expand...
Someone making $10 an hour makes grosses like $1700/month if they’re lucky enough to get 40 hours

you don’t think $1000 a month would help them 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
HellToupee said:
I wouldn’t, would you?
Click to expand...
I think I would.  By way of example, I don't need the $1,000, and receiving it wouldn't affect my consumption during this crisis in the least.  Given that I'm not a one-percenter, I would think there are a whole lot of folks like me out there.  I'd rather use those funds for other relief efforts and assistance than giving money to the affluent who don't need it.

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
bigbottom said:
Put simply, would you have taxpayers fund giving $1,000 per month to rich people?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "rich"?  Who draws that line?  What is the "rich" line?

If you're Bernie, for example, the "rich" (despite having millions of dollars himself and 3 houses) is always the guy making more than you - it's never you personally.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
What do you mean by "rich"?  Who draws that line?  What is the "rich" line?

If you're Bernie, for example, the "rich" (despite having millions of dollars himself and 3 houses) is always the guy making more than you - it's never you.
Click to expand...
Trump just drew the line at people making more than a million dollars per year.

 
BladeRunner said:
Fantastic.

That means we can get more?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your question.  But if you mean that people who are more in need can get higher payouts, that's precisely what means testing implies.  And I'm good with that if there is a feasible way to accomplish it.

 
BladeRunner said:
If you're Bernie, for example, the "rich" (despite having millions of dollars himself and 3 houses) is always the guy making more than you - it's never you personally.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, my post upthread expressly stated that "it's me personally."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
I think I would.  By way of example, I don't need the $1,000, and receiving it wouldn't affect my consumption during this crisis in the least.  Given that I'm not a one-percenter, I would think there are a whole lot of folks like me out there.  I'd rather use those funds for other relief efforts and assistance than giving money to the affluent who don't need it.
Click to expand...
I posted this in the other thread, but I agree. They should have an option to decline. Or an opt-in provision or something.

I would decline. And I don't make $1mm per year.

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
Maybe the easiest way to do it is to send it to everyone and encourage people to donate it if they don't need it. I don't know.

 
whoknew said:
I posted this in the other thread, but I agree. They should have an option to decline. Or an opt-in provision or something.

I would decline. And I don't make $1mm per year.
Click to expand...
Neither do I.  Not even close.

And I just saw your post and liked it.

 
HellToupee said:
Why not donate it to local businesses by spending it when things open again
Click to expand...
Maybe. But my biggest concern right now is people who live paycheck to paycheck being able to afford their rent. So I'd rather donate it to some place that helps with that.

 
HellToupee said:
Why not donate it to local businesses by spending it when things open again
Click to expand...
That's a good idea.  But unfortunately, many local/small businesses may not open again after all is said and done.  It's a really depressing state of affairs for small businesses that will be impacted by this.

 
The best thing about UBI is that our economy has always been trickle-up, it's consumer driven. Maybe some people use their UBI for buying smokes and alcohol; Maybe some use it on a car loan. Some might save their UBI and start a business. Some might invest it in the market. For those who use it wisely, the gains are taxed, for those who piss it away it goes into another's hands. The money doesn't go away. There is an absolute return on investment. 

 
Instead we got two fossils battling it out and both have a good chance of not lasting 4 more years. This guy is smarter than those 2 combined yet D's can only keep rolling out old used up career politicians with no new ideas. 

 
bigbottom said:
Put simply, would you have taxpayers fund giving $1,000 per month to rich people?
Click to expand...
Isn't the idea that the stipend isn't necessarily to keep people afloat but instead to rejuvenate the economy? 

I would put myself in the same boat as you financially. We aren't 1%s, but we will be okay. Nonetheless, I'm definitely cutting down on some of my more frivolous expenses. but, if my wife and I each got $1,000, we would probably spend it on non-essentials - which are likely the industries most badly hit. 

 
lod001 said:
Instead we got two fossils battling it out and both have a good chance of not lasting 4 more years. This guy is smarter than those 2 combined yet D's can only keep rolling out old used up career politicians with no new ideas. 
Click to expand...
The party that demands diversity, excoriates men in general (and white men in particular) and believes everything a woman says regardless is putting up two ancient MALE fossils as their choices.

Guess diversity is only something everyone else is supposed to practice.

 
Zow said:
Isn't the idea that the stipend isn't necessarily to keep people afloat but instead to rejuvenate the economy? 

I would put myself in the same boat as you financially. We aren't 1%s, but we will be okay. Nonetheless, I'm definitely cutting down on some of my more frivolous expenses. but, if my wife and I each got $1,000, we would probably spend it on non-essentials - which are likely the industries most badly hit. 
Click to expand...
Getting an extra $1,000 per month would not affect my consumption one iota during this crisis. I will likely donate it, however. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Nope.

The great thing about universal entitlements is that they become progressive when you pay for them with progressive tax policies.  So yeah, Jeff Bezos doesn't need UBI.  But he should be paying more for everyone's UBI anyway.  
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about a temporary coronavirus relief plan, not a permanent UBI program. But you may feel the same regardless. 

 
I want 1000 per adult.  Full unemployment for 99 weeks minimum.  Free food stamps and mortgage principal forgiveness.  

I mean we can do it right??

 
bigbottom said:
Getting an extra $1,000 per month would not affect my consumption one iota during this crisis. I will likely donate it, however. 
Click to expand...
I anticipate being pretty bored at times. I am very confident I'd spend that extra thousand on some unnecessary Amazon purchases, more expensive takeout, a new golf club, etc. that I otherwise wouldn't. 

 
lod001 said:
Instead we got two fossils battling it out and both have a good chance of not lasting 4 more years. This guy is smarter than those 2 combined yet D's can only keep rolling out old used up career politicians with no new ideas. 
Click to expand...
Three fossils.  There's one already in the White House.  

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden tags Yang as his VP.

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: JAA
Yang's plan does not seem so far fetched now. Vote tomorrow should let us know what the number is. They're bandying about up to $2000 per citizen with more on the way.

 
lod001 said:
Man, that could get my vote because Biden is almost incapacitated. That puts Yang in charge.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to lay Biden on deaths door.....but I think Bidens VP choice is MUCH more important than ones in the past 20 years; at the least for the idea that I don't see Biden running two terms and whomever is the VP will/should end up being the titular head of the Democratic Party for 2024.  

 
Yang isn't a woman, so Biden would need to retract his commitment to having a  woman as VP.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Z Machine
California's $100b budget surplus
Replies
21
Views
761
the moops
the moops
GordonGekko
Biden Administration Considering Sending Gas Rebate Cards To Millions Of Americans (6/18/22 19:28 PST)
Replies
43
Views
1K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries
GordonGekko
Do Democrats Intentionally Ignore How Much Fossil Fuel It Takes To Power Electric Cars? (6/7/22 1:10 PST)
Replies
13
Views
703
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top