Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-01-2020, 01:00 PM
 
5,450 posts, read 2,717,954 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

What if the next stimulus check was only for people with incomes less than $100K or pick another figure.


advantage:
The government would save a lot of money and there would be less debt


disadvantage:
some people 100k and up might feel it was unfair

__________________________________________________ _________


but overall would it be better or worse for the country?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2020, 01:13 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57808
It would be fine with me, we got it last time but didn't need it since we both still work, from home, and are saving commute costs. We felt a little guilty but then it was called "stimulus" money, not supplemental or replacement income so we got over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 01:31 PM
 
14,798 posts, read 17,683,382 times
Reputation: 9251
If anyone is employed at more than poverty wages, which really don't exist other than in high cost locales like CA and NYC, then no stimulus money should be given. Obviously people that have lost jobs due to the pandemic and related government shut downs need some support.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 02:35 PM
 
672 posts, read 699,014 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
If anyone is employed at more than poverty wages, which really don't exist other than in high cost locales like CA and NYC, then no stimulus money should be given. Obviously people that have lost jobs due to the pandemic and related government shut downs need some support.
You think someone making $13/14 hours, that may be working at reduced hours now, couldn't use a little help? What about the families that have young kids that are doing virtual learning for school right now, somebody has to stay home, so that's definitely impacting income for some.Not everyone has work from home jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Dude...., I'm right here
1,782 posts, read 1,553,691 times
Reputation: 2017
I did not get a cent of the first stimulus and I'm OK with that. I could have done with the extra $$$ but I consider myself fortunate enough not to need the $$$.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 03:28 PM
 
5,907 posts, read 4,430,666 times
Reputation: 13442
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbenson View Post
What if the next stimulus check was only for people with incomes less than $100K or pick another figure.


advantage:
The government would save a lot of money and there would be less debt


disadvantage:
some people 100k and up might feel it was unfair

__________________________________________________ _________


but overall would it be better or worse for the country?
It would be worse for the country because one of the reasons to get money into the hands of people who make more is because they will think differently about how to spend it and where to spend it.

A person making more, might go blow it on a hotel stay. That’s directly helping lower income hotel employees stay working, ect. They might spend it on eating out with family...stimulating restaurant employees.

Last edited by Thatsright19; 10-01-2020 at 03:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 06:42 PM
 
Location: San Diego CA
301 posts, read 164,721 times
Reputation: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
It would be worse for the country because one of the reasons to get money into the hands of people who make more is because they will think differently about how to spend it and where to spend it.

A person making more, might go blow it on a hotel stay. That’s directly helping lower income hotel employees stay working, ect. They might spend it on eating out with family...stimulating restaurant employees.
I am a higher income earner but I would not go out to eat nor stay at a hotel with COVID-19 going around.

I am a germaphobic, no thanks.

Happy staying home eating salad from my veggie garden
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 06:53 PM
 
13,011 posts, read 13,045,846 times
Reputation: 21914
I would be ok with that. I banked the first stimulus payment and have not spent it, so if I did not get anything from a second round, that would be fine. I would hope that people earning under $100k would get a bit more because of the cutoff, rather than just excluding higher earners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 07:11 PM
 
5,907 posts, read 4,430,666 times
Reputation: 13442
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosebud49 View Post
I am a higher income earner but I would not go out to eat nor stay at a hotel with COVID-19 going around.

I am a germaphobic, no thanks.

Happy staying home eating salad from my veggie garden
And that’s fine. You aren’t everyone. And it could be extended to be for food take out....or clothes....or a new tv. It’s important to get people who will spend it differently than someone who isn’t well off. The purpose of stimulus is to get money circulating fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2020, 08:17 PM
 
Location: just NE of Tulsa, OK
1,449 posts, read 1,147,957 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
The purpose of stimulus is to get money circulating fast.
Exactly! As some have already said, it's stimulus money not unemployment or some other sort of financial support based on need. I say that if you receive (or received last time) and you didn't really "need" the money, make sure you go out and spend it since consumer spending keeps the economy strong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top