> And they want us to believe that it will be ok because of a $1200 check and state unemployment benefits....
Not true. The unemployment benefits have also been augmented by up to $600/week above state unemployment benefits. This amount applies even if your state benefits have been exhausted.
The $1200 is an extra stimulus check for people whether or not they’re still employed. Not to be confused with the unemployment benefits.
I don't think the $1200 goes to everyone, though, right? There's an income threshold.
I mean, the number is almost irrelevant given the extent of the crisis. Might as well make it a million a person because some fundamental truths of the economy are going to completely change.
It starts phasing out at $75,000 AGI. Decreases 5% for every dollar over. For example, if you make $84,000 AGI, you would get $1200-.05*(84000-75000) = $750.
It decreases to $0 at $99,000.
Edit: double everything for a married couple - potential for $2400 that begins phasing out at $150,000 and drops to $0 at $198,000.
Yes, this is true. The check amount decreases for individuals making between 75k and 100k. Over 100k you get nothing. Double those numbers for couples.
Yes, the federal government is providing more stimulus juice (one time cash payment and unemployment top up), but no, it is absolutely not going to be enough for the economic challenge we're facing.
You say that with such conviction when you don't have any better info on what the future holds than anyone else.
The unemployment benefits (which for many of the unemployed will actually be higher than their regular pay) last for the next four months. If the quarantine lifts by the end of May and businesses reopen then it will be enough. Obviously that's a big if, but for you to come out here and act like you know something with 100% certainty is absurd.
We've had plenty of recessions before and not once has the economy simply been restarted. To use an example, I work on software for a company in the dental field. The circle is:
Nobody is going to the dentist because of Covid -> Dentist stops using my client's services -> Client cancels my project -> I get laid off -> I can't afford to go to the dentist -> Nobody goes to the dentist because they can't afford it.
That story is true for every industry. And it gets worse. In anticipation of the economic storm coming we have stopped all non-essential purchases. Which means a whole lot of businesses are out of revenue. Multiply that across the economy and everything but essentials is grinding to a halt.
The only way out of it, that I see, is the government stepping in and guaranteeing, without a salary cap, unemployment benefits at 80-90% of salary for as long as the crisis lasts. Even then I'm not sure it's enough to fix the actual damage that has happened.
Exactly, and because everyone is leveraged, unless they magically extend the terms on your mortgage (not just delay them) your going to be behind by a month or two for a lot longer than 3 months. Many people have been saying for the last decade+ that a huge portion of the population is working paycheck to paycheck. That means that they don't have enough savings to absorb an extra rent payment, and they won't have them if/when they start working again. either.
This might have worked for a couple days, but no way it works for multiple weeks.
My statement was based on an interview with Congressional representatives aired on NPR yesterday afternoon after APM's Marketplace. They were the ones who said what has already been passed is woefully insufficient, and I agree.
> If the quarantine lifts by the end of May and businesses reopen then it will be enough.
> Obviously that's a big if
Show your work. Forecasting does not align with your statements.
We do know that things will get worse as we've seen how things have tracked in China, Iran and Italy. And if this quarantine lasts till May, I foresee many small businesses won't be around by then.
> I foresee many small businesses won't be around by then
And I wouldn't be surprised if it starts to hit some mid-size businesses as well. A lot of places are getting hit hard right now, and that just flows up the chain. My company hasn't announced any layoffs or cashflow problems, but I can do the math -- most of our customers are relatively small businesses. Pretty quickly their problem becomes our problem.
Wasn't unemployment boosted by $600 a week plus state unemployment? Or is my linked NYT article wrong[1]? Because even if it were $600 a week that's the equivalent of $15 an hour. For NY it appears the max state unemployment benefit of $504 per week, for a total max possible of $27.6 an hour, assuming a 40 hour workweek. That's quite substantial, no? Or maybe I'm wrong, and you could enlighten me.
No you're right. A lot of people are going to make more on unemployment than they would employed. I'm a junior software engineer and I wouldn't be making that much less on unemployment than I do right now.
No one that wasn't already starving should be starving at this point. Except perhaps gig workers.
Well, I suppose I should be happy for others then. But working on my own project with no income kinda makes that sting a tiny bit. So goes the startup hustle I guess.
The safety net has never been more robust than right now. With the additional $600/week through the end of July people can expect to receive an annualized amount of nearly $60,000. Add on to that food and other benefits and people who were laid off should not be struggling.
It's weird how the national debt is only a problem when the proposal is helping ordinary people and never a problem when the proposal is to go to war overseas.
I don't like either and think both are largely wastes of money. In both cases there are always the very few poorest who need help from others and there are always a very few situations where we need to go to war. Would you please stop with the tu quoque now?
Why do we have to stop with the tu quoque, it's a relevant point especially how we are posting anti-drug ships outside of Venezuela and talking about Iran sneak attacking us. Even in the throes of a pandemic we haven't missed a step in trying to throw billion dollar military platforms into useless trillion dollar wars.
Because we're in a thread discussing the virus problem? This is an attempt to derail the very reasonable cost concerns about these gov't bail-outs. Besides, "helping people" already accounts for a much greater portion of our spending and of the national debt. Also, in terms of debt contributed, first bail-out alone is $2T while the military budget is less than one.
Yeah... $1,200 advanced from next years tax return nonetheless. Normative economics (how should things be allocated equitably) are frowned upon, but it’s clear that our system needs to be refactored. The fact that Bernie Sanders has only a 1% chance of winning the primaries show the severe disconnect between what we want and what we need.
It is free money, which is technically a tax credit for the 2020 tax year. Since that would not be filed for another year, they advanced the issue date based on previous tax returns. If you made $150k last year as a single person but just lost your job and end up out of work for 6 months, you won’t see your credit until you do your taxes next year. It is not an advance on your normal tax return.
> These rebates are structured as tax credits automatically advanced to households in 2020 if you filed a 2019 income tax return and would be received as a direct deposit or check by mail.
Note for anyone who's not aware, a "tax credit" is basically free money. It's not the same as a deduction, which only reduces your taxable income. A credit directly reduces the amount of taxes you owe, and in most cases if the credit reduces the amount you owe to a negative number the IRS will pay you that money.
It is misinformation. It becomes an advance if your normal income suddenly skyrockets to a point where you wouldn’t have been eligible for the $1,200. That won’t be the case for almost anybody.
You have it backwards. If and only if your income sky rockets, you don’t get it taken out next year. If your income is high now and you don’t get $1,200, you’ll get it when you pay next year under the condition your income drops. For everyone else, it’s a simple advance.
> For example, a single taxpayer with $100,000 in 2019 income would not receive an advance rebate but would receive the $1,200 credit on their 2020 return if their income for the year fell below the phaseout. On the other hand, a single taxpayer with $35,000 in income receives a $1,200 advance rebate but would not have to pay the rebate back on the 2020 return if they make $100,000 this year.
And you want us to believe it will be okay if the government just "does something"? When will people quit turning to the federal government to solve their problems and take responsibility for themselves? Everyone ought to make his own decision whether to stay home or go to work and deal with the consequences accordingly.
Well lets see, you go engage in unnecessary activities in an area where the infection is spreading. .. and as a result you become an asymptomatic carrier and infect three people. Those three people infect three more each, those nine people infect 27 more, those people infect 81 people... who go on to infect 243 people...
And not so far down the line your actions have resulted in the deaths of-- say-- 80 people (including a few people who didn't die of covid19, but because they couldn't get treatment due to hospital overloads that you created). People who wouldn't have died if they weren't infected or if the infection came later when treatments were improved or hospitals weren't overloaded-- who wouldn't have died if you'd avoided creating an unnecessary exposure.
So, on that basis, since you're planning on taking responsibility for your actions, we can assume that you're prepared to pay out about a half a billion dollars
(OMB values a human life at 7-9 million dollars) to the surviving families of the people your actions were responsible for killing?
I knew that there were some high rollers on HN, but I find myself surprised to encounter someone so eager to "take responsibility" for the consequences of choosing to expose other people to a deadly contagion.
I imagine most people, instead, would find it much more attractive to obey the mandated best practices and thereby be morally and legally absolved of the consequences of whatever infection they inadvertently spread in spite of those efforts. And... hopefully spare themselves an excruciating (and potentially debilitating or deadly) illness at the same time.
