$1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS • Hacker News Board

Re: $1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS

#51

Post by gaius » Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 3:39 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #49

gaius wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money would come from not bailing out the banks. Or rather, bailing them out via individual bank accounts. Power to the people!

We turned a profit on bailing out the banks, actually. Or close to one, maybe lost a negligible amount when you weigh AIG against the profitable bailouts. The issue with stimulus via tax cuts (which actually constituted 1/3 of the stimulus bill we did get, you don't hear about that much, because it undercuts the obama as devil-socialist narrative), is that, as pointed out above, you're primarily putting money back in…

You are also shoring up the banks balance sheets, remember. As others have said, money invested isn't dead - it is actively lent to others.

Money spent on Stella, kebabs and fags doesn't really count.

Re: $1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS

#52

Post by gaius » Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 3:40 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #50

gaius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this scenario, anyone who'd just lost their job would have a lump sum of 40% of their previous salary, plus whatever entitlements they had for unemployment. Anyone still in a job would have that cash to either pay down their debts or to spend on goods and services that would sustain/create more jobs. It's a win/win scenario.

40%? My income tax last year was 11% of salary. If I go back a few years, before I bought my house and before my company had a 401k that I could divert a lot of money to, the highest I paid was 18%. How does one get to 40%?

Be born in England.

Re: $1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS

#53

Post by jbooth » Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 4:05 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #51

jbooth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We turned a profit on bailing out the banks, actually. Or close to one, maybe lost a negligible amount when you weigh AIG against the profitable bailouts. The issue with stimulus via tax cuts (which actually constituted 1/3 of the stimulus bill we did get, you don't hear about that much, because it undercuts the obama as devil-socialist narrative), is that, as pointed out above, you're primarily putting money back in…

You are also shoring up the banks balance sheets, remember. As others have said, money invested isn't dead - it is actively lent to others. Money spent on Stella, kebabs and fags doesn't really count.

Poor people don't buy Stella, dude.

And you missed the point like 4x in this thread.. people weren't saying that funneling money to banks was unstimulative, they were saying that giving money to people who will consumer-spend it is more stimulative. This is pretty much accepted in the economic community.

Re: $1 of every $5 in US wallets in 2010 came from programs like unemployment & SS

#54

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Jul 17, 2011, 11:38 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #16

gaius wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this scenario, anyone who'd just lost their job would have a lump sum of 40% of their previous salary, plus whatever entitlements they had for unemployment. Anyone still in a job would have that cash to either pay down their debts or to spend on goods and services that would sustain/create more jobs. It's a win/win scenario.

Sounds like a fine idea to me, but not very stimulative. More money would be returned to high income individuals who are more likely to hold onto the extra cash. I'd personally rather it go to infrastructure projects -- faster cheaper internet access, high speed rail, space elevators ;) -- and basic research.

Actually, higher income individuals are more likely to spend income tax rebates. Lower income individuals are likely to save it or pay down debt with it.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shapiro/TaxRebates.pdf

http://papers.nber.org/papers/w16246