US economy thread (1 Viewer)

[Stoneworker]

I don’t know the net effect but there’s also going to be a lot of former government workers spending a whole lot less

What sort of unemployment benefits are we gonna be on the hook for too?

We? Are you an employer?

 

[SFBayDuck]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

Calling it "disingenuous" is ridiculous. The gov't spends plenty on consumer items. Ever hear of a paper clip?

I have heard of a paper clip, although like most households I probably haven't purchased a single one since about 2013. But in any case, I hope someone here can share the data on the contribution of paper clips to the CPI as that could really help bring this discussion to a mutually agreed upon resolution.

And after this discussion I'm also now adding #bigpaperclip to my **** list along with #bigshampoo. We must take a stand. Enough is enough.

 

[djmich]

Breaking news: We just found a way to use AI to perform the job that 80,000 IRS agents are currently using an abacus for. We’re gonna give some of that money we were spending on irs agents back to the people.

FBG: But now everyone is gonna have more money, and want to eat more eggs, which means they’ll have to spend some of that money we gave them on more expensive eggs. This sounds bad.

 

[Stoneworker]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

Calling it "disingenuous" is ridiculous. The gov't spends plenty on consumer items. Ever hear of a paper clip?

I have heard of a paper clip, although like most households I probably haven't purchased a single one since about 2013. But in any case, I hope someone here can share the data on the contribution of paper clips to the CPI as that could really help bring this discussion to a mutually agreed upon resolution.

And after this discussion I'm also now adding #bigpaperclip to my **** list along with #bigshampoo. We must take a stand. Enough is enough.

Well according to your logic (or lack therof), the military spending for Vietnam War and WWII had no impact whatsoever on the significant inflation of those periods because...O-rings.

 

[TheAristocrat]

I could be a good door-to-door paperclip salesman

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Tax revenue collected by year (in trillions)

2014: $3.02
2015: $3.25
2016: $3.27
2017: $3.32
-------------2017 tax cuts------------
2018: $3.33
2019: $3.46
2020: $3.42
2021: $4.05
--------------IRS Hiring begins--------
2022: $4.95
2023: $4.44
2024: $4.92

I think it takes an extreme leap in logic to look at those trends and decide that the $4.92 figure in 2024 is a result of the 2017 tax cuts, but that the IRS Hiring had no effect.

The reality is the largest factor was probably covid, which generated tons of extra tax revenue via inflation, increased corporate profits, and realized capital gains tax as the market exploded. Capital gains revenue for the government, for instance, was double in 2021 what it was in 2017 or 2018.

Regardless, comparing 2017 revenue to 2024 and implying that it's probably because of the tax cuts while ignoring the years in between is an incomplete and likely disingenuous comparison when applied to the point of arguing causality of the tax cuts. Tax revenue was fairly flat after the tax cuts until covid hit. It wasn't until covid and the IRS hiring that the number really blew up. How much of that was attributable to either of those (Covid vs. IRS Hiring) I have no idea, probably more covid if I had to guess. But to imply it was because of the 2017 tax cuts seems like a very very large stretch.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Breaking news: We just found a way to use AI to perform the job that 80,000 IRS agents are currently using an abacus for. We’re gonna give some of that money we were spending on irs agents back to the people.

FBG: But now everyone is gonna have more money, and want to eat more eggs, which means they’ll have to spend some of that money we gave them on more expensive eggs. This sounds bad.

Tax revenue collected by year (in trillions)

2014: $3.02
2015: $3.25
2016: $3.27
2017: $3.32
-------------2017 tax cuts------------
2018: $3.33
2019: $3.46
2020: $3.42
2021: $4.05
--------------IRS Hiring begins--------
2022: $4.95
2023: $4.44
2024: $4.92

I think it takes an extreme leap in logic to look at those trends and decide that the $4.92 figure in 2024 is a result of the 2017 tax cuts, but that the IRS Hiring had no effect.

The reality is the largest factor was probably covid, which generated tons of extra tax revenue via inflation, increased corporate profits, and realized capital gains tax as the market exploded. Capital gains revenue for the government, for instance, was double in 2021 what it was in 2019 even though 2019 was a great year for the market.

Regardless, comparing 2017 revenue to 2024 and implying that it's probably because of the tax cuts while ignoring the years in between is an inco mplete and likelydisingenuous comparison. Tax revenue was fairly flat after the tax cuts until covid hit. It wasn't until covid and the IRS hiring that the number really blew up. How much of that was attributable to either of those (Covid vs. IRS Hiring) I have no idea, but to imply it was because of the 2017 tax cuts seems like a very very large stretch.

I'll give you a hint: most economists surveyed say the tax cut reduced revenue.

"As part of its regular polling of economic experts in the U.S., the Clark Center for Global Markets at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in November 2023 asked the panel whether they agreed that “[f]ederal tax revenues are substantially lower now as a result of the passage of the TCJA than they would have been had the TCJA not been passed, and all else was equal.” Of the 29 experts who answered, 24 said they either agreed or strongly agreed (83%). Four said they were uncertain, and only one expert disagreed."

 

[the moops]

I don’t know the net effect but there’s also going to be a lot of former government workers spending a whole lot less

What sort of unemployment benefits are we gonna be on the hook for too?

We? Are you an employer?

I was asking for the collective we, as in the taxpayers. I honestly don't know how it works with the feds though.

 

[Stoneworker]

I don’t know the net effect but there’s also going to be a lot of former government workers spending a whole lot less

What sort of unemployment benefits are we gonna be on the hook for too?

We? Are you an employer?

I was asking for the collective we, as in the taxpayers. I honestly don't know how it works with the feds though.

My understanding is that employers fund both state and federal unemployment programs. Taxpayers are not directly affected (although there may be handful of state outliers who may require employees contribute to the SUTA)

According to the IRS, "Only the employer pays FUTA tax; it is not deducted from the employee's wages"

 

[Stoneworker]

Tax revenue collected by year (in trillions)

2014: $3.02
2015: $3.25
2016: $3.27
2017: $3.32
-------------2017 tax cuts------------
2018: $3.33
2019: $3.46
2020: $3.42
2021: $4.05
--------------IRS Hiring begins--------
2022: $4.95
2023: $4.44
2024: $4.92

I think it takes an extreme leap in logic to look at those trends and decide that the $4.92 figure in 2024 is a result of the 2017 tax cuts, but that the IRS Hiring had no effect.

The reality is the largest factor was probably covid, which generated tons of extra tax revenue via inflation, increased corporate profits, and realized capital gains tax as the market exploded. Capital gains revenue for the government, for instance, was double in 2021 what it was in 2017 or 2018.

Regardless, comparing 2017 revenue to 2024 and implying that it's probably because of the tax cuts while ignoring the years in between is an incomplete and likely disingenuous comparison when applied to the point of arguing causality of the tax cuts. Tax revenue was fairly flat after the tax cuts until covid hit. It wasn't until covid and the IRS hiring that the number really blew up. How much of that was attributable to either of those (Covid vs. IRS Hiring) I have no idea, probably more covid if I had to guess. But to imply it was because of the 2017 tax cuts seems like a very very large stretch.

I would submit that the huge jump in 2022 had a whole lot more to do with 2021 economic uptick such as a) unemployment rate going from 8.06% to 5.35%, b) S&P 500 gaining 28.7% (capital gains) and c) corporate profits going from 2.5 trillion to 3.4 trillion than anything meaningful to do with IRS hiring.

Similarly the variations in 2023 and 2024 can be traced largely to economic activity.

Also, most of the IRS efforts to date have been focused on back taxes, which only turned up an extra ~$1B by mid-2024.

In addition, the IRS has had issues with hiring since 2019:

"A previous IG report found that despite its new funding, revenue agent staffing had actually decreased by 8%, or more than 650 employees, between the end of fiscal 2019 and March 2023. IRS had planned to bring on 3,833 revenue agents in fiscal 2023, but in the first six months officials had recruited just 34." Source: Gov't Executive

 

[the moops]

My understanding is that employers fund both state and federal unemployment programs. Taxpayers are not directly affected (although there may be handful of state outliers who may require employees contribute to the SUTA)

According to the IRS, "Only the employer pays FUTA tax; it is not deducted from the employee's wages"

Yea but if the employer is the government does that mean that taxpayers are paying it? No idea if it is a substantial number, just something I was thinking on

 

[uwillbsoon]

Tax revenue collected by year (in trillions)

2014: $3.02
2015: $3.25
2016: $3.27
2017: $3.32
-------------2017 tax cuts------------
2018: $3.33
2019: $3.46
2020: $3.42
2021: $4.05
--------------IRS Hiring begins--------
2022: $4.95
2023: $4.44
2024: $4.92

I think it takes an extreme leap in logic to look at those trends and decide that the $4.92 figure in 2024 is a result of the 2017 tax cuts, but that the IRS Hiring had no effect.

The reality is the largest factor was probably covid, which generated tons of extra tax revenue via inflation, increased corporate profits, and realized capital gains tax as the market exploded. Capital gains revenue for the government, for instance, was double in 2021 what it was in 2017 or 2018.

Regardless, comparing 2017 revenue to 2024 and implying that it's probably because of the tax cuts while ignoring the years in between is an incomplete and likely disingenuous comparison when applied to the point of arguing causality of the tax cuts. Tax revenue was fairly flat after the tax cuts until covid hit. It wasn't until covid and the IRS hiring that the number really blew up. How much of that was attributable to either of those (Covid vs. IRS Hiring) I have no idea, probably more covid if I had to guess. But to imply it was because of the 2017 tax cuts seems like a very very large stretch.

I would submit that the huge jump in 2022 had a whole lot more to do with 2021 economic uptick such as a) unemployment rate going from 8.06% to 5.35%, b) S&P 500 gaining 28.7% (capital gains) and c) corporate profits going from 2.5 trillion to 3.4 trillion than anything meaningful to do with IRS hiring.

Similarly the variations in 2023 and 2024 can be traced largely to economic activity.

Also, most of the IRS efforts to date have been focused on back taxes, which only turned up an extra ~$1B by mid-2024.

In addition, the IRS has had issues with hiring since 2019:

"A previous IG report found that despite its new funding, revenue agent staffing had actually decreased by 8%, or more than 650 employees, between the end of fiscal 2019 and March 2023. IRS had planned to bring on 3,833 revenue agents in fiscal 2023, but in the first six months officials had recruited just 34." Source: Gov't Executive

What's the timeframe for the 1B?

And that's total between all 4000 revenue agents?

Trying to understand the ROI of an agent.

 

[SFBayDuck]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

Calling it "disingenuous" is ridiculous. The gov't spends plenty on consumer items. Ever hear of a paper clip?

I have heard of a paper clip, although like most households I probably haven't purchased a single one since about 2013. But in any case, I hope someone here can share the data on the contribution of paper clips to the CPI as that could really help bring this discussion to a mutually agreed upon resolution.

And after this discussion I'm also now adding #bigpaperclip to my **** list along with #bigshampoo. We must take a stand. Enough is enough.

Well according to your logic (or lack therof), the military spending for Vietnam War and WWII had no impact whatsoever on the significant inflation of those periods because...O-rings.

Much like I don't blame spending on the Vietnam War for the Bucks trading Kareem to the Lakers just after the war ended. Just because two things were happening at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.

The oil embargo, loose monetary policy to try and avoid another recession, the removal of wage and price controls in '74, and the break from the gold standard were the primary drivers of the early 70s inflation. Military spending's contribution might not be zero, but it would be waaaay down the list. Food shocks were also a part of the bouts of inflation of both the 40s and the 70s, but neither had much to do with military spending. In '46 and '47 they removed the Office of Price Control's war time controls over food prices, and costs skyrocketed. Obviously those controls were put in place as a result of WWII, but they weren't because we'd been paying Rosie the Riveter to churn out out war ships in the previous few years.

 

[Stoneworker]

Also, most of the IRS efforts to date have been focused on back taxes, which only turned up an extra ~$1B by mid-2024.

In addition, the IRS has had issues with hiring since 2019:

"A previous IG report found that despite its new funding, revenue agent staffing had actually decreased by 8%, or more than 650 employees, between the end of fiscal 2019 and March 2023. IRS had planned to bring on 3,833 revenue agents in fiscal 2023, but in the first six months officials had recruited just 34." Source: Gov't Executive

What's the timeframe for the 1B?

And that's total between all 4000 revenue agents?

Trying to understand the ROI of an agent.

What I know is "1,500 revenue officers working on 1,600 cases" and "so far" between Fall 2023 and July 2024 with the IRS "expecting the $1B number to grow in the coming months."

Feel free to correct the math, but at $1 billion / (1,500 agents * assumed 100K / year salary * 0.8 yrs) that would be a measly 8 bucks / agent as incremental profit. So hopefully the $1B number grew by a whole lot. And/or the 1,500 agents also were working on lots of other projects

IRS tops $1 billion in past-due taxes collected from millionaires

 

[Stoneworker]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

So what you're saying doesn't justify how inflation would increase on a relative basis

On the other hand, if a taxpayer used their $5K to buy 200 egg-laying chickens, I'm pretty sure that would help reduce egg prices even though the gov't deficit increased

This might be true if "the government" and consumers are buying the same things. But if the government doesn't spend the money on weapons and SpaceX contracts (lol), and instead households are given a bunch of extra money to spend on eggs and la-z-boys, the prices of eggs and la-z-boys won't go up? The price of a rocket o-ring may go down, but I don't have that on my shopping list so that doesn't help much.

If eggs and lazy boys are part of the CPI, then it would probably go up. But if O-rings are as well then it would be a wash

And that's exactly the point - pretty sure O-rings sold to rocket companies are not figured in the CPI. It's literally in the name, Consumer Price Index. So it's disingenuous to pretend that it would be "a wash".

Calling it "disingenuous" is ridiculous. The gov't spends plenty on consumer items. Ever hear of a paper clip?

I have heard of a paper clip, although like most households I probably haven't purchased a single one since about 2013. But in any case, I hope someone here can share the data on the contribution of paper clips to the CPI as that could really help bring this discussion to a mutually agreed upon resolution.

And after this discussion I'm also now adding #bigpaperclip to my **** list along with #bigshampoo. We must take a stand. Enough is enough.

Well according to your logic (or lack therof), the military spending for Vietnam War and WWII had no impact whatsoever on the significant inflation of those periods because...O-rings.

Much like I don't blame spending on the Vietnam War for the Bucks trading Kareem to the Lakers just after the war ended. Just because two things were happening at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.

The oil embargo, loose monetary policy to try and avoid another recession, the removal of wage and price controls in '74, and the break from the gold standard were the primary drivers of the early 70s inflation. Military spending's contribution might not be zero, but it would be waaaay down the list. Food shocks were also a part of the bouts of inflation of both the 40s and the 70s, but neither had much to do with military spending. In '46 and '47 they removed the Office of Price Control's war time controls over food prices, and costs skyrocketed. Obviously those controls were put in place as a result of WWII, but they weren't because we'd been paying Rosie the Riveter to churn out out war ships in the previous few years.

It is well-documented that the money supply increased substantially relative to the economy to finance the military spending in both wars. It is also well documented that excessively printing money results in inflation.

 

[djmich]

In summary:

It’s questionable if tax cuts increase revenue. Let’s call it a draw

Also, most of the IRS efforts to date have been focused on back taxes, which only turned up an extra ~$1B by mid-2024.

In addition, the IRS has had issues with hiring since 2019:

"A previous IG report found that despite its new funding, revenue agent staffing had actually decreased by 8%, or more than 650 employees, between the end of fiscal 2019 and March 2023. IRS had planned to bring on 3,833 revenue agents in fiscal 2023, but in the first six months officials had recruited just 34." Source: Gov't Executive

What's the timeframe for the 1B?

And that's total between all 4000 revenue agents?

Trying to understand the ROI of an agent.

What I know is "1,500 revenue officers working on 1,600 cases" and "so far" between Fall 2023 and July 2024 with the IRS "expecting the $1B number to grow in the coming months."

Feel free to correct the math, but at $1 billion / (1,500 agents * assumed 100K / year salary * 0.8 yrs) that would be a measly 8 bucks / agent as incremental profit. So hopefully the $1B number grew by a whole lot. And/or the 1,500 agents also were working on lots of other projects

IRS tops $1 billion in past-due taxes collected from millionaires

I got closer to 560,000 per agent. 100k per agent is too low, but if 1,500 people can get a billion dollars that’s good roi

 

[uwillbsoon]

In summary:

It’s questionable if tax cuts increase revenue. Let’s call it a draw

Also, most of the IRS efforts to date have been focused on back taxes, which only turned up an extra ~$1B by mid-2024.

In addition, the IRS has had issues with hiring since 2019:

"A previous IG report found that despite its new funding, revenue agent staffing had actually decreased by 8%, or more than 650 employees, between the end of fiscal 2019 and March 2023. IRS had planned to bring on 3,833 revenue agents in fiscal 2023, but in the first six months officials had recruited just 34." Source: Gov't Executive

What's the timeframe for the 1B?

And that's total between all 4000 revenue agents?

Trying to understand the ROI of an agent.

What I know is "1,500 revenue officers working on 1,600 cases" and "so far" between Fall 2023 and July 2024 with the IRS "expecting the $1B number to grow in the coming months."

Feel free to correct the math, but at $1 billion / (1,500 agents * assumed 100K / year salary * 0.8 yrs) that would be a measly 8 bucks / agent as incremental profit. So hopefully the $1B number grew by a whole lot. And/or the 1,500 agents also were working on lots of other projects

IRS tops $1 billion in past-due taxes collected from millionaires

I got closer to 560,000 per agent. 100k per agent is too low, but if 1,500 people can get a billion dollars that’s good roi

We'll have to agree to disagree about these specific tax cuts and revenue. The experts (economists) almost overwhelmingly believe the tax cuts reduced revenue from what was projected. But I agree the data is messy (COVID, inflation, stimulus) which muddies the water.

Completely agree on tax agents being good ROI. Even if the original assessment ($8) was accurate, I'd be happy. That's $8 per agent to get high earners who don't pay their taxes or those who didn't file taxes.

I can't really understand why anyone would be pro-tax cheats.

Can the IRS be more efficient? No doubt. But part of that is the tax code. Seems all roads lead back to our ineffective Congress.

 

[Mitchie]

In summary:

It’s questionable if tax cuts increase revenue. Let’s call it a draw

Also, most of the IRS efforts to date have been focused on back taxes, which only turned up an extra ~$1B by mid-2024.

In addition, the IRS has had issues with hiring since 2019:

"A previous IG report found that despite its new funding, revenue agent staffing had actually decreased by 8%, or more than 650 employees, between the end of fiscal 2019 and March 2023. IRS had planned to bring on 3,833 revenue agents in fiscal 2023, but in the first six months officials had recruited just 34." Source: Gov't Executive

What's the timeframe for the 1B?

And that's total between all 4000 revenue agents?

Trying to understand the ROI of an agent.

What I know is "1,500 revenue officers working on 1,600 cases" and "so far" between Fall 2023 and July 2024 with the IRS "expecting the $1B number to grow in the coming months."

Feel free to correct the math, but at $1 billion / (1,500 agents * assumed 100K / year salary * 0.8 yrs) that would be a measly 8 bucks / agent as incremental profit. So hopefully the $1B number grew by a whole lot. And/or the 1,500 agents also were working on lots of other projects

IRS tops $1 billion in past-due taxes collected from millionaires

I got closer to 560,000 per agent. 100k per agent is too low, but if 1,500 people can get a billion dollars that’s good roi

We'll have to agree to disagree about these specific tax cuts and revenue. The experts (economists) almost overwhelmingly believe the tax cuts reduced revenue from what was projected. But I agree the data is messy (COVID, inflation, stimulus) which muddies the water.

Completely agree on tax agents being good ROI. Even if the original assessment ($8) was accurate, I'd be happy. That's $8 per agent to get high earners who don't pay their taxes or those who didn't file taxes.

I can't really understand why anyone would be pro-tax cheats.

Can the IRS be more efficient? No doubt. But part of that is the tax code. Seems all roads lead back to our ineffective Congress.

Some things are hard to understand but this is one of those things I just can't even begin to wrap my head around.

 

[guru_007]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

 

[Max Power]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

Congress would need to approve the rebate and there is almost a zero percent chance of that happening, so the rebate conversations are just talking points now.

However, in your hypothetical, I'd say you're right that 90% would vote for their money back.

 

[djmich]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

Option 3 would win: Debt, what debt?

 

[Mitchie]

Chances are about 1000 x greater of an asteroid hitting earth (now at ~3% in 2032) than everyone receiving a $5000 rebate check.

 

[the moops]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

Congress would need to approve the rebate and there is almost a zero percent chance of that happening, so the rebate conversations are just talking points now.

However, in your hypothetical, I'd say you're right that 90% would vote for their money back.

Are we sure congress would need to approve?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

Right. This wasn't the argument though. The argument was giving the money to the people vs keeping it out of the economy (i.e. paying down debt). You're giving me hypos over and over again that don't apply to the comments I made.

 

[Stoneworker]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

Right. This wasn't the argument though. The argument was giving the money to the people vs keeping it out of the economy (i.e. paying down debt). You're giving my hypos over and over again that don't apply to the comments I made.

No idea at this point what you're talking about. Carry on.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

Right. This wasn't the argument though. The argument was giving the money to the people vs keeping it out of the economy (i.e. paying down debt). You're giving my hypos over and over again that don't apply to the comments I made.

No idea at this point what you're talking about. Carry on.

It's pretty simple.....dump a whole bunch of money into the economy that isn't needed and inflation is going to go up. We are living the tail end of that exact scenario from the COVID fiasco. WE JUST went through it. Another $5000 check like that will cause inflation to go up again. Far better to take the "savings" and apply towards debt and keep it out of the economy.

 

[djmich]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

Right. This wasn't the argument though. The argument was giving the money to the people vs keeping it out of the economy (i.e. paying down debt). You're giving my hypos over and over again that don't apply to the comments I made.

No idea at this point what you're talking about. Carry on.

It's pretty simple.....dump a whole bunch of money into the economy that isn't needed and inflation is going to go up. We are living the tail end of that exact scenario from the COVID fiasco. WE JUST went through it. Another $5000 check like that will cause inflation to go up again. Far better to take the "savings" and apply towards debt and keep it out of the economy.

You continuously ignore the fact that through the elimination of government spend that money is being taken out of the economy. Yes, pay down the debt, but some balance to ensure we don't drive the economy into the ditch is good as well.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If the dollars were going to be spent by the gov't anyway, then giving the savings to the taxpayers to spend has no net effect on what inflation would have otherwise been. It's simply a difference in who is doing the spending.

Right. This wasn't the argument though. The argument was giving the money to the people vs keeping it out of the economy (i.e. paying down debt). You're giving my hypos over and over again that don't apply to the comments I made.

No idea at this point what you're talking about. Carry on.

It's pretty simple.....dump a whole bunch of money into the economy that isn't needed and inflation is going to go up. We are living the tail end of that exact scenario from the COVID fiasco. WE JUST went through it. Another $5000 check like that will cause inflation to go up again. Far better to take the "savings" and apply towards debt and keep it out of the economy.

You continuously ignore the fact that through the elimination of government spend that money is being taken out of the economy. Yes, pay down the debt, but some balance to ensure we don't drive the economy into the ditch is good as well.

Only if it pays down the debt otherwise Stoneworkers scenario is legit. Doesn't matter if the govt is spending the $5000 or giving it to you to spend the $5000. That's $5000 in the economy that doesn't need to be there.

 

[Max Power]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

Congress would need to approve the rebate and there is almost a zero percent chance of that happening, so the rebate conversations are just talking points now.

However, in your hypothetical, I'd say you're right that 90% would vote for their money back.

Are we sure congress would need to approve?

If its in the form of a stimulus payment it would be. At least according to the guy who initially floated the idea.

 

[Max Power]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

 

[the moops]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

 

[Max Power]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

 

[Nugget]

They could actually do it as a payroll tax holiday through executive order. That would allow for them to have a work requirement. The optics of defunding SS or Medicare isn't ideal, but if DOGE showed the savings were all going to support SS/Medicare, they could probably do something like this with broad support.

 

[MAC_32]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

That's what we did with covid money. Well, technically, we spent it, but it was on home improvements, so it went towards assets. I've always assumed we were the outlier though.

 

[uwillbsoon]

They could actually do it as a payroll tax holiday through executive order. That would allow for them to have a work requirement. The optics of defunding SS or Medicare isn't ideal, but if DOGE showed the savings were all going to support SS/Medicare, they could probably do something like this with broad support.

So the idea is to defund Medicaid to the tune of 800 billion over ten years and give half that to the middle/upper class immediately?

Interesting. The political optics to a large swath of their voters who rely on Medicaid wouldn't be good if a certain opposition party could message their way out of a paper bag.

 

[Nugget]

They could actually do it as a payroll tax holiday through executive order. That would allow for them to have a work requirement. The optics of defunding SS or Medicare isn't ideal, but if DOGE showed the savings were all going to support SS/Medicare, they could probably do something like this with broad support.

So the idea is to defund Medicaid to the tune of 800 billion over ten years and give half that to the middle/upper class immediately?

Interesting. The political optics to a large swath of their voters who rely on Medicaid wouldn't be good if a certain opposition party could message their way out of a paper bag.

More like the US is transferring $1T in DOGE savings to SS/Medicare found through eliminating the FDA and base closures, and we are providing a $200B payroll tax credit to the working class.

They won't go for it is there aren't checks with giant signatures, but it would get around congress.

 

[The Duff Man]

It is important to remember that this money isn’t “savings” it is borrowed money due to the deficit.

Does it make sense to borrow money and give it to your citizens?

Under certain scenarios yes, but the long term benefit to the country needs to surpass the long term cost.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that deficit hawks suddenly want to give historical stimulus checks when unemployment is 4%, the stock market is at all time highs, and inflation is a lingering problem.

WTF?

 

[the moops]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

Is this really a theory? Seems to be just one guy suggesting this on twitter. Theory seems like the wrong word. Musings? Throw **** against the wall and see if it sticks? Fever dreams?

 

[Orange&Blue]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that deficit hawks suddenly want to give historical stimulus checks when unemployment is 4%, the stock market is at all time highs, and inflation is a lingering problem.

WTF?

it's like roman rulers giving bread to the starving masses at gladiator games. it's a distraction so they maintain the popular support.

 

[Orange&Blue]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

can we vote for tesla/musk/other billionaires to pay taxes?

 

[Sand]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that deficit hawks suddenly want to give historical stimulus checks when unemployment is 4%, the stock market is at all time highs, and inflation is a lingering problem.

WTF?

Giving taxpayers skin in the game by returning 20% of saved funds is pretty smart. I'd rather they retire those funds, but garnering support by cutting taxpayers in isn't the worst idea I've heard. And it shouldn't be inflationary as that money is just partially redirected rather than printed.

it's like roman rulers giving bread to the starving masses at gladiator games. it's a distraction so they maintain the popular support.

If you go back and read about historical Roman figures or the Roman empire there was a lot of argument and activity over the grain dole (Cura Annonae if you wanted to read about it) to the lower classes. This isn't a 1:1 to this percentage rebate, but it is analogous to SNAP and other social assistance. Which is fascinating that 2000 years have passed and almost identical social dynamics are occurring.

BTW - great book that does have some discussion of that (but much more about how Caesar was maybe the most badass guy in history) -

Amazon.com: Caesar: Life of a Colossus eBook : Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith : Kindle Store

Amazon.com: Caesar: Life of a Colossus eBook : Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith : Kindle Store

www.amazon.com

 

[Max Power]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

Is this really a theory? Seems to be just one guy suggesting this on twitter. Theory seems like the wrong word. Musings? Throw **** against the wall and see if it sticks? Fever dreams?

He's the guy who proposed the idea. Musk retweeted him and then pushed it up. I think it's a perfectly logical theory to assume taxpayers are going to be more financially savvy with 5k vs the population as a whole.

 

[Sand]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

can we vote for tesla/musk/other billionaires to pay taxes?

Musk paid ~10 billion in 2021. Now Tesla is another story as they (among all other big companies, it seems) offshore a lot of profits to minimize taxes here.

 

[the moops]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

Is this really a theory? Seems to be just one guy suggesting this on twitter. Theory seems like the wrong word. Musings? Throw **** against the wall and see if it sticks? Fever dreams?

He's the guy who proposed the idea. Musk retweeted him and then pushed it up. I think it's a perfectly logical theory to assume taxpayers are going to be more financially savvy with 5k vs the population as a whole.

The terrible idea is not giving that money to people who need it the most

 

[Max Power]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

Is this really a theory? Seems to be just one guy suggesting this on twitter. Theory seems like the wrong word. Musings? Throw **** against the wall and see if it sticks? Fever dreams?

He's the guy who proposed the idea. Musk retweeted him and then pushed it up. I think it's a perfectly logical theory to assume taxpayers are going to be more financially savvy with 5k vs the population as a whole.

The terrible idea is not giving that money to people who need it the most

That's a different can of worms.

 

[djmich]

The theory is that the 5k is only going to 80 million households who paid a certain amount of income tax. This would exclude lower income people. The middle-class families who receive the 5k are just as likely to save/invest it as they are to spend it, so that reduces the inflation concerns.

Whose theory is this? And my god what a terrible idea

James Fishback

https://x.com/j_fishback/status/1891933120313663493 (page 4)

He cites a CNBC study that claims 71% of people who receive an unexpected 5,000 dollar payment would pay off debt/save/invest/long term plan with it. I'll admit that's not realistic, but I also don't see all 80 million families blowing through that money the same way we blew through covid funds.

Is this really a theory? Seems to be just one guy suggesting this on twitter. Theory seems like the wrong word. Musings? Throw **** against the wall and see if it sticks? Fever dreams?

He's the guy who proposed the idea. Musk retweeted him and then pushed it up. I think it's a perfectly logical theory to assume taxpayers are going to be more financially savvy with 5k vs the population as a whole.

The terrible idea is not giving that money to people who need it the most

The concept of giving the money back to the people you are collecting it from has merit as well

 

[djmich]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

can we vote for tesla/musk/other billionaires to pay taxes?

Musk paid ~10 billion in 2021. Now Tesla is another story as they (among all other big companies, it seems) offshore a lot of profits to minimize taxes here.

Sounds like we could use some more Elon Musks!

 

[belljr]

Black Friday

 

[Mitchie]

So, back to this $5,000 rebate. I was wondering, since we live in a democracy, let's say we put it to vote and popular vote wins.
You can receive a $5,000 check or we put this money to pay back the national debt. What do you think the over/under would be of the vote to receive the money? 90%? 92%?

can we vote for tesla/musk/other billionaires to pay taxes?

Musk paid ~10 billion in 2021. Now Tesla is another story as they (among all other big companies, it seems) offshore a lot of profits to minimize taxes here.

Sounds like we could use some more Elon Musks!

Or it could use one less!