Also, when it comes to the stimulus programs, if you made too much $$ then you don't qualify. Even if I had qualified for unemployment, I wouldn't have qualified for the extra $300/week and the $1200 stimulus plans.
The only thing really keeping us afloat is we fled the USA and move to my wife's town where she owns a home and there's a low cost of living. Luckily I was raised with the philosophy that if I cannot afford to buy a thing in cash, I cannot afford to buy that thing, so I have never had any debt.
> I'm pretty sure you got a lot of stimulus in Canada, too.
Stimulus programs in Canada have been targeted towards loss of income, whether on the individual side through a job-loss cash benefit or on the business side through a wage subsidy program.
To my knowledge, no large jurisdiction in Canada has given out cash payments equivalent to the US stimulus money, so a family that has not suffered job loss (partial or full) will not have gained gross income.
One thing that helped a lot of people is the stimulus money they received. I know there are a lot of stories out there about people using that money frivolously, but the statistics [0] show that roughly half of the stimulus money was spent on rent and bills. If we hadn't spent all that money on stimulus checks, then the current situation could be much worse.
Even the neediest families ended up getting like $4-5k or something like that. Individuals got less. Literally enough to pay rent and feed families for a couple of months. No one got fat and happy off of stimulus money - some people just got less poor.
While I get your point, I took the article to be more in the vein of saying that the downturn hit everyone, so your previous year's income was a horrible metric for determining who should get stimulus. There are plenty of industries where there are boom and bust years. Paying for stimulus checks with debt, and then telling people, who may have also fallen on unexpected hard times due to covid, that they made too much (and also contributed more in taxes) the previous year to get help... I mean the author does have a case.
Many in the US made significantly more on the combination of enhanced unemployment and stimulus checks than they had made working. Greater than 100% previous wage.
Isn’t this the exact opposite of what we want? If a stimulus results in decreased spending we are literally just flooding the market with dollars that are being saved. If that money isn’t being spent it isn’t triggering the desired effect of a stimulus package... creation of goods and services. It’s basically just a big middle finger to people who don’t take on debt and who are still working, especially service workers. If they announce an extension of the bonus unemployment I will definitely ask to be laid off, 3 months of making $4500 a month with infinite free time to pursue side projects?
I'm curious. If a person qualifies for the stimulus check but has enough in savings to get through the next few months, do you believe they should refuse because it comes from the sweat of taxpayers as well?
For most people, the stimulus is just a bonus. Even if 30 percent of people lost jobs, they're the minority. I think the money would have been better used as a weekly stipend for those on unemployment, or those who lost income at least. I certainly don't need the 1800 bucks I got for my family of 3 on new year's, for me it's just money in the bank. I wish it could have gone to someone more needing, so maybe I'll donate it, but it shouldn't have even gone to me, is what I'm saying.
The taxes on unemployment income can easily exceed the stimulus amount, because they're two different things. I don't think the stimulus checks themselves are taxed, but I'm not an American and I don't know for sure.
Unemployment is not the real problem there—people not having money is.
If the government would continue—and increase—the individual stimulus checks, it would matter much, much less how long the lockdown must continue. People would still be able to support themselves and keep themselves healthy.
That's what I'm thinking. Who still has their stimulus money?
Assuming that someone qualified for all 3 checks, they totaled $3,200[0] before accounting for dependents. You're telling me that millions of households have managed to live on ~$150 per month for two years? I'm not buying it.
Not everyone lives on the coasts and makes SWE money.
Those stimulus checks ALONE were a TON of money for most people. For the average American just the checks were an entire extra month of net income (avg household = $71K and has two earners). Over 24 months it's $75 of additional spending per consumer per month, which when I was making $30K would have doubled my disposable income per month. Double spending. For two years.
AND stimulus checks weren't even half the of the amount that went out. AND the other half was even more disproportionately allocated to marginal consumers.
Enhanced UI, in particular, played a huge role. Combine that with stimulus checks and a lot of under the table untaxed work (done under the table to keep EUI eligibility), and people were doubling or tripling their net income for a year or more. The general asset bubble and explosion of retail investing didn't help.
It all adds up to a shitload of money in many parts of the country.
I know a good number of people in rural WV who are still living off of savings accrued during 52 or so weeks from 2021 to 2022. I'm willing to bet a much much larger number of people spent the last 2 years returning to the labor force but spending beyond their going-forward means.
The only thing really keeping us afloat is we fled the USA and move to my wife's town where she owns a home and there's a low cost of living. Luckily I was raised with the philosophy that if I cannot afford to buy a thing in cash, I cannot afford to buy that thing, so I have never had any debt.
reply