Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ididntdothis | Hacker News Reader

This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.

Giving everyone money makes sense as fiscal stimulus once the economy is back to normal. It does not make sense now because people are avoiding spending and many will not need the $1000 and not spend it.

Targeted help now and then a jolt when it's over.

Mm no, a lot of people are already wondering how to pay rent. If anything, that $1000 needs to be higher, and adjusted for cost of living by area.

Sure but then isn't it better to take this approach - 80% of your salary for people out of work and nothing for people still employed - than to give an arbitrary amount of $1000 to everyone regardless of local cost of living?

Sure, they could do it through unemployment claims as well.

While that supports people, which is the most important thing, it does not preserve the status quo jobs.

That means that when we are able to restart the economy, we start with massive unemployment and with companies which have simply ceased to exist. Much better to just put everything in the deep-freeze and then pull it out, ready to go when we can.

Yeah, that would be nice, I just don’t know that we can pull off what you’re talking about.

Because it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?

No because the money will also be paid to middle class + people who still have jobs and who can WFH or have paid sick leave.

This is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.

Whether you call it a gift or not doesn't change that it's functionally a penalty on working.

Yes, but the goal should not be to treat everyone fairly. The goal should be to help people get through this crisis.

What penalty? it's the other way around, you take a 20% penalty if you stop working, and note that it's not for people who voluntarily stop working.

You can easily save 10 to 20% when unemployed because you don't have to pay for daily transportation (tube/train/car), lunch outdoors every day and a few other things. So the difference in disposable income is about null in most cases.

You can take lunch from home and eat that. I know enough people who do that. People who bought yearly or other long term tickets (majority of frequent travellers) dont save.

Even if that is the case, it's not your choice, as I said before - it does not apply to those voluntarily unemployed. You are projecting arguments of basic income onto an economic solution for a pandemic where people are suddenly forced into unemployment or unpaid leave for a very specific reason...

Given a lack of choice how can paying wages make any difference to their employment behavior. I'll repeat: this is not basic income.

This had nothing to do with basic income. We're talking unemployment for people who get laid off from their jobs.

Then you clearly didn't read the article, the headline is:

> The government will pay the wages of employees unable to work due to the coronavirus pandemic

When you stop working, you also get a lot of time back.

Yes of course, that's exactly what's happening at the minute. Everybody who can't work is having the most terrific fun on this unplanned holiday time they've suddenly been handed where they don't have to pay bills or buy food or support dependents./s

You're surely just being deliberately naïve here, playing the naif? I just don't really see the point I guess

Ignoring the penalization of work is being naive? Ignoring the "not having to work" in calculating how well off someone is, because you can make a snarky remark about how mixed a blessing it is to stay home, is naive? I would say the opposite.

I could just as well ask if you're just trying to be clever devil's advocate here.

Yes, I think you're being deliberately naïve. Maybe if people were spherical cows, you might have a point, but you're just acting as if there is no such thing as society, as if people aren't going to want friends and family (in particular) who can't work to be supported through this period. It's a slightly bizarre way to view this handout, given the situation that is very clearly occurring.

And some people will make that calculation and figure out a way to officially be unable to work and pick up government money. That's always happened, it's called malingering.

Well, I guess if people didn't avoid work because of the incentive effects of social assistance systems, then your model would be better, but that's not the world we live in.

>And some people will make that calculation and figure out a way to officially be unable to work and pick up government money. That's always happened, it's called malingering.

Wait, you agree this happens, despite just having waxed eloquent about "living in society", but then condescend to everyone who suggests it does? Right, I'm the one wasting everyone's time here...

You understand that soon many people will lose their jobs who have done nothing wrong? They are not avoiding work but they are being laid off.

Then what point are you really trying to make here then? Because on its own, what you're saying is a non-sequitur, it's as if you're just ignoring what's going on. Some people will take advantage of this handout. So what? Most people will not, and most working people are not looking at this the way you describe (it doesn't have almost universal public support because everyone is rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of cheating the system).

Edit: it's as if you're talking about a completely different thing to what this actually is: as per the sibling comment, this is a benefit going to people losing their jobs, for reasons they cannot control in any way.

I feel lucky to be working and occupied. It has been a much more sure position, and I'm not left to dwell on the shit storm we're all going through.

I would rather not get $1000 and not have to fight a large portion of the population for new jobs once this is over.

As someone who can and does work from home, I do not perceive it as punishment and I am fine with people in worst situation then I am getting supper.

Are you upset you don’t have a wheelchair?

I don’t understand the question.

Essential occupation folks can be paid at the top. Premium for weathering challenging times on the front.

How so? Their money still buys things, they keep living. What else matters?

It doesn’t penalise anyone. The money goes to those who need it.

Not to me.

Just sending out money to everyone is simple. It can be done fast.

But can it actually be done fast, whilst making sure none is double-dipping? Are all 18 year olds eligible, including folks that never worked?

You might be right, but it's not obvious that the difference is material.

The point of paying everyone, or at least every adult, as that it's a lot easier to check for double-dipping (especially later when people know you will pursue them after finding out), than to spend weeks or months checking for all the zillions of corner cases and rules and demanding complex proof needed in ordinary benefits / social security schemes.

In the UK it is known, by government studies, that a huge amount of money that people are entitled to in benefits is never claimed because people either don't know about it or are put off by bureaucratic hurdles. Government officials generally don't draw people's attention to what they are entitled too, and often make mistakes, occasionally fatal (people have starved to death). And some people get what they are entitled to only by appealing bad decisions, with the appeal success rate being rather high.

Right now, especially for people such as those who are self-employed or with complex finances (savings and debt at the same time, etc), proving elegibility to benefits is very difficult, especially if done from scratch when they don't have well organised documentation to hand. (Normally it's a once-a-year thing, to file taxes.)

But the need for urgent finance in the current crisis is the same for everyone without enough cash.

Some self-employed or gig economy people are panicking about affording food right now, and retaining shelter; let alone bills, and that's a terrible situation to suddenly happen, especially to large numbers of people.

What I would advocate for, in a crisis such as this, is helicopter money to everyone at first, and then gradually introduce more nuanced systems that take a bit longer, and give people time to plan for. So that at least nearly everyone can be safe with regards to food and shelter in the short term.

To be honest, a small amount of double dipping doesn't matter a whole lot. Like oops, you changed your name and we sent cash to both names. shrug mistakes happen, keep it. The total expenditure is negligibly affected. Mistakes can be ironed out in time. Sneaky bastards will be caught with their hand in the cookie jar and prosecuted.

Simplicity first.

Or payroll tax reduction. While it might help some deserving people, it's also going to benefit people who don't need any help.

payroll tax deduction also hurts social security and Medicare.

But what happen to those they were out of Jobs just before the Virus, and now could not get a new job because of the Virus?

They continue to receive unemployment checks as before?

Thanks. Forgotten about that.

if you're referring to the US initiative, isn't it just an early tax "refund"?

as in - no one's giving anyone anything. It's all just shell games.

The money is meant to keep the economy working by encouraging spending, not specifically to help the recipient (though that will be a side effect in many cases).

How do you justify that interpretation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com