Temporary UBI monthly payment of $1500 for all Americans for two years

[Yavin4]

If your income in a year exceeds $90K, then you will have to pay it back in taxes.

But won't this dis-incentivize people from working? No. If you work, you get both. Your normal salary and your UBI. Also, given that this virus is still raging out of control, it would be better for our public health if more people stayed home.



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-push-for-universal-basic-income-is-gaining-momentum-amid-the-pandemic-11595874035?mod=home-page

[Sherman A1]

1. I would prefer the $1K per month

on a permeant basis as proposed by Andrew Yang.

[Yavin4]

3. Let's experiment and see how it goes. n/t

[Sherman A1]

4. Yang laid it all out very succinctly during his campaign

I will yield to proposal and the permanency of his program.

[qazplm135]

7. except it doesnt remotely have the support of nearly enough people

to happen.

So, seems to me, it would be better served to focus on getting a foot in the door with a program that exposes people to the concept.

[Sherman A1]

27. I am all for a UBI

be it $100, 200 or the article mentioned $1500 and I feel as though it is the best solution and again feel that Yang's proposal made excellent sense as the means to pay for it was also included, but I don't think it will get anywhere. Yang knew of what he spoke unfortunately being about 3 steps ahead of the rest of the candidates (and perhaps more importantly the media), knowing his policies, knowing where we were at as a society, where we are likely headed as a society and being non confrontational meant that the mainstream media saw him as a fringe candidate and didn't really give him a chance.

Just getting the supplemental unemployment is going to be a struggle with our current group of leadership.

[jmg257]

2. Cool so I get to collect $36,000 to spend, THEN pay it all back

In taxes.

No thanks. Odds of me having an extra 36,000 to pay for taxes If I’m working, not good.

[Yavin4]

5. Who says that you have to spend it?

And you wouldn't have to pay it back in taxes unless your income is over $90K.

[jmg257]

6. Well there ya go! Why take it if I need to give it back?

Not much gain other then paperwork.

Bring home a week from 90,000 is like 1150; or about 15 weeks I’ll need to put aside towards extra taxes.


Can we delay paying it back for 50yrs or so? That way I’ll be dead before I need to worry about it.

[Yavin4]

8. Most people in America don't make $90 or more

So most people won't have to pay it back. Think of others and not yourself.

[jmg257]

9. Well I got screwed out of the $1200 even though I was furloughed,

So excuse me for not wanting to get screwed again on this goofy plan.

Maybe others need to Realize that $90-100k ain’t all that, especially if ur not working.


Make it above $200k for no payback and you’re good!

[Baitball Blogger]

12. I agree with $200. Would even go down to $175.

[JI7]

50. If you aren't working then you wouldn't be making that money so you would not have to pay it back

If you are still making that much without working don't expect anyone to have sympathy

[Happy Hoosier]

53. Same.

Got furloughed.... and a $20 CARES check.

I was able to survive, bur I have absolutely curtailed my spending.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

15. What in the world is the marginal tax rate above $90k?

Oh, I just checked. It's 37% for those with a taxable income in the neighborhood of a half million dollars. So yeah, you will owe some taxes, but you'll still get to keep more than you have to give back in taxes. Even if you have the good fortune to be taxed at the highest rate.

[jmg257]

22. Are we paying all the 18,000 back, or the 33%?

Big difference.

Seemed it was the whole thing.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. The article does not seem to address that.

Although the OP claims it would be paid back in taxes, which is a very ambiguous statement. So perhaps, all who are fortunate enough to have an income greater than $90k/year should just bank it for the first year and see what happens.

I strongly favor a UBI. Which would diminish as a person's income increased.

[dawg day]

10. And it's important to make it possible for people to stay off work

If the choice is between "staying home and protecting the public health" and "starving', we want them to be able to choose not to work during the pandemic.

The GOP really doesn't get that- or they get it and they don't care. But the economy and jobs are not going to come back if we have to keep shutting down because we never get the pandemic under control. We should take the hit now-- as every other country not run by a fascist has done-- bear the pain for a few months (we've already wasted 3 months pain) and get it controlled.

And that means making sure workers don't lose their homes and their nutrition during the painful time.

[2naSalit]

20. +1

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Over 90k Pays It Back?

Of pays taxes on it?
If it's the former, the plan makes no sense.
It ties up liquid cash that sits idle for a year, the gets paid back to the same entity that could have used it instead of adding public debt for cash flow.
Besides, household income of over $90k is about 30% of the country. So, 30% of filers have to claim this amount as 100% taxable, creating extra paperwork, extra accounts, and makes the audit trail convoluted.
And if it's 90k per person, that causes complications for married, filing jointly.
I think $90k per household is too low to zero it out, and having 30% who are still consumers getting nothing will be politically toxic.

[Yavin4]

18. If you want a higher income threshold, fine.

We're in a crisis right now. The Democrats need to help the most people in the most efficient way possible. We've seen how horrible it is to rely on the UE system in various states which only pushes people to go back to work which makes the virus spread even faster.

I don't care about high income earners having to do more paperwork. Cry me a river on that. If you want to make the income threshold $250K, go for it. I don't care. The Dems have a very short window of time to stabilize this country or else we are headed for the abyss. Half measures just aint going to do it.

We got Trump in 2016 because of the slow moving recovery.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. In A Crisis...

...I wouldn't cap it, at all. Ok, maybe at a million bucks.
I'd go a grand a month, nontaxable for everyone, double er household if married filing jointly. If filing separately, they'd be getting a payment each anyway.
It's a "progressive" stipend of a sort.
Make 30k, the stipend is 40%.
Make 300k, it's 4%.
Make a million, it's 1.2%
Do it for 12 or 18 months, let the congress manage revenues to find other cuts like the massive jobs program we call the defense budget.
It also gets people accustomed to it, so when the subject of raising taxes on higher income folks comes up, the direct benefit potential loss makes it more palatable & less politically toxic.
It can be used as an attention getting wedge to make the tax code more progressive.

[DFW]

13. Let me check this out

I get a supplemental $1500 a month, of which the Germans will take $750 from me, and then I have to pay another $1500 back to the US government? So, I'm negative $750 a month, and saddled with even MORE paperwork.

If someone starts sending me $1500 monthly checks that I neither deserve nor requested, I'm signing them over to the American Cancer Society, and both the Germans and the IRS can go ask them for it back (if they so dare).

[Yavin4]

19. We need to make public policy that helps the vast majority of people, not just DFW.

Whatever your individual situation is, we cannot tailor it suit you with harming millions of others. Think about other people.

[DFW]

32. "We?" Say no more. That pretty much says it all.

I am one of six million Americans abroad. It ain't "just me." As a group, Americans abroad would number around number 25 in population if we were a state.

And I think about the tens of millions of Americans back in the States to whom this will be just burdensome, useless paperwork, helping out none of them. Think about whom this would really help, and to whom it would just burden. If a measure can't be made to distinguish between who needs it and who would need to refund it, then it is a faulty measure, and needs to be reworked. Europe is full of added tax measures that were initially designed to "help out others," notably the "Solidaritätszuschalg" in Germany. The people in the east saw some of it, but it was continued far beyond its original scope, and then their version of "we" used it to build fancier government buildings, pay out bigger pensions to government paper pushers and buy bigger limousines to ferry them around. It was an argument that provided fuel to the British rightists to push the catastrophic Brexit to a country that neither wanted it nor benefited from it.

It's the easiest thing in the world for "we" to take someone's money, and tell them you know better what to do with it than they do. It's quite another thing to follow through with that intention. Not every "we" in the tax biz is Robin Hood. Plenty of them are Ceauşecu instead.

[roamer65]

14. Why give it to me if I have to pay it back?

Doing that means the government has to either create more money or borrow on the open markets. Neither one is good right now.

Just say if u make more than 90k you don’t get it.

[Yavin4]

17. You don't seem to care that the Fed is creating money to prop up Wall Street

Do you?

[roamer65]

21. I am not in favor of unlimited QE.

It is a pathway to hyperinflation.

If you want a program like this, there needs to be higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for it...along with cuts to subsidies given to corporations and farmers.

[Yavin4]

24. But it's happening whether you're in favor of it or not.

And it's more than QE.

[roamer65]

25. That's why I am dumping dollars.

I am buying harder assets.

[GulfCoast66]

16. Why and the world would my wife and I get $3000 per month.

Granted I’m still furloughed but the wife is back at work. Even with her income my $275 per week, we still make over double the average national household income and with our retirement accounts I guess are considered wealthy. That’s not counting our retirement benefits from work.

This is a bad idea.

What threatens the economic future of families like ours? Loosing our healthcare before we qualify for Medicare. This scares all middle and upper middle class Americans and the virus has made it worse. We concentrate on this issue and we can’t lose. We focus on some silly UBI which as no prayer of passing and we have lost the plot.

[Yavin4]

23. Because we're in a crisis of epic proportion.

Whatever your individual circumstance may or may not be, you are not typical of the vast majority of Americans who won't be able to work even if they want to because of the virus.

[GulfCoast66]

30. Actually the majority of Americans are working.

We helped those who aren’t. That $600 a week is the perfect amount. When they go back to work they won’t need it.

Again, healthcare is the largest problem and we will be luck to solve that. We focus on UBI we focus on something even most democrats are opposed to and get nothing. A majority of Americans support universal healthcare.

We raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour and finally get universal healthcare and many issues will take of themselves.

[Yavin4]

31. "Actually the majority of Americans are working." And the virus is spreading because of that.

Soon, some states will have to shut down

[GulfCoast66]

33. So we extended the $600 a week if that happens.

And even in the height of the shutdown a majority of Americans were still working.

UBI has no support among the majority of even democrats. Because it is a bad idea. My opinion of course. But it is shared by a vast majority of Americans. Elections are about advocating policies most Americans support. Otherwise you never get elected to do anything.

I respect your advocacy of it, but it not going to happen anytime soon. However, I and most Americans might be wrong. If you believe in it keep pushing it. Just don’t make it a litmus choice for a vote because it will be years before we see a national party advocating for it. It folks like you who change opinions.

Have a nice evening. And stay safe.

[Yavin4]

35. That kind of half-measured thinking is what got us Trump in 2016

The stimulus package in 2009 was not strong enough to get the economy moving fast enough. As a result, we have a very sluggish recovery for most of Obama's presidency. That sluggishness was fertile ground for Bernie and Trump in 2016.

[GulfCoast66]

41. Now that's just Bullshit. Ideas like these could not even win in the Democratic primary

Where the voters lean left compared to the majority of Americans and most democrats.

Obama and Biden gave us the longest period of growth in my lifetime. And just pushing through the ACA was a heavy life with 60 senators.

And for 6 of their 8 years the republicans controlled congress. They were fighting a rear guard action the entire time.

Trump was a reaction to our first African American president.

Running on something that is unpopular and totally un-achievable is just crazy.

I’m focusing only on the politics of the situation because we obviously disagree on the policy and neither of are going to change our opinions.

[Demsrule86]

28. I like it.

[customerserviceguy]

34. Doing the math

that's well over $11 trillion in two years. And that's on top of whatever we've spent so far to get out of this thing.

Who's going to lend the Treasury that kind of money?

[Yavin4]

37. Modern Monetary Theory

MMT's main tenets are that a government that issues its own fiat money:

Can pay for goods, services, and financial assets without a need to collect money in the form of taxes or debt issuance in advance of such purchases;
Cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency;
Is only limited in its money creation and purchases by inflation, which accelerates once the real resources (labour, capital and natural resources) of the economy are utilized at full employment;
Can control demand-pull inflation[13] by taxation which remove excess money from circulation (although the political will to do so may not always exist);
Does not compete with the private sector for scarce savings by issuing bonds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

[customerserviceguy]

39. Sounds like a fancy word for hyperinflation

If that happens, $1,500 isn't going to be worth jack in two years.

[Amishman]

42. I wouldn't want to put the inflation risk to the test

The main reason the growth of the money supply post 2008 crash hasn't triggered inflation is the velocity of money has declined significantly.

I want UBI, but it has to be paid for properly.

[awesomerwb1]

36. I want a unicorn

Make that two.

[Yavin4]

38. By this time next year, the Democrats will own this crisis.

If they don't take bold action to pull us out of this ditch, it will be all over for the party for good. The party will fracture.

[awesomerwb1]

40. Cool story

Have you worked any numbers at all??? Trillions of dollars on top of more trillions of dollars already on the budget.

[Yavin4]

43. Have you? I have some.

4.5 million cases. 150,000 deaths...so far. Experts predicting a second wave in the Fall/Winter months on top of flu season. We're in a pattern where states open, the virus spikes, and they have to close again. And, don't get me started on schools.

All of this chaos will be on Biden and the Democrats starting Jan. 21st.

But sure, focus on the deficit because as people are dying and cannot work because of the virus. They'll be more concerned about the deficit.

[awesomerwb1]

44. lol

I never mentioned the "deficit". Where is the money going to come from? You're gonna print some?

Maybe St Bernie's magical unicorns can poop platinum bars 24/7 to pay for it all.

[Yavin4]

46. Where's the Fed getting the money to support the stock market?

Magical unicorn breast milk?

[awesomerwb1]

47. You tell me

you're the one suggesting these magical pie errr unicorn in the sky theories.

[MichMan]

48. Let's assume for arguments sake that the $1500 per month for two years happens?

What politicians are going to campaign on taking it away after two years ?

[JI7]

49. Exactly what I have been saying should have been done from the start

In the beginning they could have done it for 3 months since we didn't know much. And option to extend after.

[Yavin4]

51. Precisely, but a lot of Americans have this very narrow view of how things should be

Even in the face of a crisis like this, we're still trying to fit it under the normal back and forth about spending and deficits.

[Happy Hoosier]

52. If your gonna send me something...

I just have to pay back, why bother? If your going to send stimulative bucks, just do it. Keep it simple.