2 votes

Proposal: Give most every American $50,000 in 2014

Proposal:   The US government should issue a check for $50,000 to every American making an annual income of $500,000 or less next year.  

Would this be a bad thing resulting in any harm?

What would be the harm?

Would it not be consistent with Keynesian theory?  If we need liquidity why not inject it straight to the people?  Why give it to the banks and Wall Street first?  What is the government's and/or Fed's answer to this question?   

This cash would allow most American to pay off debt, improve their homes, start a business, go on vacation, eat for a year...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Proposal: Give most every American $50,000 in 2014

www.OurName4Freedom.ws produces more than $50,000 per year to unlimited numbers of 18+ year old men and women not just in the USA but worldwide. Remember, the 7 billion+ world population is not going to stop multiplying. And it does it in a free market. We simply all begin owning our own domain name and selling domain names to others.

The value of our domain name content is up to each of us to own for ourselves. We can market this in a unifying way such that the value of owning our own domain names grows more and more valuable.

I've got my name 4 freedom. Go there and obtain your name 4 freedom.

We are paid to do this. Increasing monthly income. At our fingertips!

www.DanielHall4Freedom.ws

Keeping Liberty and Our Fight for it Fun and Enriching!
Daniel

If the purpose is maximum lulz,

I think this plan will work great.

The price of jewelry, big-screens, Remy Martin, Harleys, and SeaDoos would go through the roof.

Why stop at $50,000? Why not a ZILLION!

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com/index.php/easyblog/e...

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

Giving $50,000 to Each Citizen 18 or Over

So, are you advocating giving $50,000 to every United States Citizen 18 or over that makes less than 30k a year? If so, this idea is pure Marxist or Keynes. Now, encouraging the private sector to invest in areas hardest hit via the recession a superb idea. That is why I believe we should start by lobbying our elected officials in Kentucky to chat with their private sector financial firms/banks etc., to invest at least six billion in Lexington and Louisville. We need major private sector investment in majority minority communities in a short period of time to jump start the Commonwealth's economy.

Give everyone a billion dollars, who will work?

More produce and less money leads to prosperity.
grant

Read Rothbard.

Ps. I hope this post is a joke. If not, the you really do need to read Rothbard.

I support a bi-metal backed currency and ending the Fed, but...

If they are going to helicopter money then why not give it to the people? They are smarter than bankers and traders.

They can use the liquidity to more productive things.

(holding inflation equal between the two scenarios)

Idealism

I want to point out the idealism of this plan.

Let's say the government decides on such a stimulus. Those who get the money first, benefit the most. Those who get the money last, get far less benefit and/or become screwed. If you're an idealist, then you might say something like "hey, just give the poorest people the money first", or "Make a system that gives everyone the money at the same time". And all of this continues to ignore other factors in the 'race to use the money'. Such as the queue limitations, so someone will always get in line early and other will get in line late. The pretense of knowledge strikes in idealism.

Bad

Currently, everyone in America accounts for $50,000 of the US's debt(not their own).

The economy is rattling along full throttle like a go-kart with no wheel and missing bolts at 50k debt per person. How would making it $100k per person, make things better?

You attribute to the State, magic they claim but don't have.

Who pays the interest on the borrowed $5 Trillion?

Bankers demand collateral or service or repayment of loan in a timely fashion. Or they hire the RepoMan.

Free includes debt-free!

tasmlab's picture

I think you are missing the point

The point of the inflation is to take money from the citizenry for the benefit of the banks and govt. Why give the money to the people? It would miss the whole point.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

A better idea would be to offer the people loans a 1-2%

Make this lending available for every purpose not related to the financial industry. You want the market to decide where the money goes, not some 'planners'. Then fund it with money taxed on the profit earned by leveraging any investments.

If you're earning a return on stocks you own or any productive job, no tax. But if you earn money on stocks that you borrowed or leveraged in some way (options, shorting, naked shorting, derivatives and even fractional reserve banking), then you get taxed.

The difference between the lent amount and the received amount could climb toward the QE3 numbers today but my suspicion is that it will eventually fund the government until fractional reserve banking is gone.

Don't give money. Instead offer debt relief.

Each income-taxpaying American citizen would be given $100,000 in debt relief. Debts would be restricted to owed taxes ( Federal only ), credit cards, school loans, car loan for one car, and mortgages ( for primary residence only ).

By wiping out debt to the banks and mortgage companies which have already been given Federal aid, and debt owed to the Federal government, this would stimulate the economy and only harm those that have caused much of the economic problems thus far.

Horrible idea

Your rewarding people that took on debt, even if they couldn't manage it, and giving nothing to those who were fiscally responsible and have no debt.

And that's Congress' job!

And big banks are the only recipients.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Yeah, great, reward the grasshoppers and punish the ants

Wonderful incentive system you've proposed. Soon, there will be no food stored for the winter at all!

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Actually

as stupid as this sounds he's not that far off. Ron Paul said something similar.

Dr. Paul asked why instead of bailing out the banks didn't we just give that money to the people.

Most Americans don't make over 500K per year, and there are about 300 million Americans. Let's say we gave 250 million Americans 50K each. That would be 12.5 trillion dollars. The Fed can just print money so it doesn't hurt the Fed.

Instead of that the Fed bailed out the banks for a total of about 29 trillion dollars according to this article:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390

That is my point.

If we are going to go with their money printing, guns and butter system, then why not give the people the money directly? Why should the military industrial complex and banks get it first?

Fill in the Blank.

Two wrongs don't make a ______ .

This is a proposal which begs questions the Establishment

Doesn't want answered.

The government already has a

The government already has a program similar to this. It is called earned income credit. Families with children who make 40,000 or less can get free money from the government that they steal from other people, or print.

I like my more brillianter idea better...

http://www.dailypaul.com/254956/my-brilliant-idea-to-save-th...

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

quick math...

Assuming we issue 100 million checks you are talking about $5 trillion. The annual Federal deficit last year including unfunded liabilities was $11 trillion. If we were to make the funds contingent on opting of social security and medicare I suspect a huge number of people would take the lump sum. This could end up being the largest cut in the Federal deficit in history. The only problem is that injecting $5 trillion into the economy directly into average peoples hands could create significant disruptive inflation. Not to mention where do the funds come from? Do we issue $5 trillion in bonds? This could make rates spiral out of control. If we have the fed monetize the debt it could cause hyperinflation.

Who pays the interest on the borrowed $5 Trillion?

?

Free includes debt-free!

Instant Inflation?

OK help me find the dollar for dollar amount the fed created and gave to the US and or Wall Street this past year and give the per capita amount that could have been a comparative distribution to most Americans.

Giving money directly to the people may be a bit inflationary in consumer goods like it has been inflationary in the stock market but it would be temporary and damped down by the fact that many consumers will stretch out their buying over a liner period of time (and will pay down debt) so you really will not have more dollars chasing too few goods.

How am I wrong?

Why is it different to give to banks credit than direct cash to citizens in order to increase money supply?

I have a better idea...

The government should issue a check for $1,000,000 (tax free) to every American making an annual income of $10,000,000 or less next year.

That way we can all be millionaires!!!

That's stupid!!

All us millionaires will be dirt poor compared to those greedy billionaires and TRILLIONAIRES! WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO KEEP US DOWN HUH

I demand infinity times infinity dollhairs. Now.

A signature used to be here!

No

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
- Alexis de Tocqueville

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

The effects of inflation would be immediate...

prices of consumer goods would immediately be bid up while wages would remain the same. Upon exhausting their $50K, consumers would be faced with higher prices without any additional income to be able to afford them. It would be disastrous.

The Chicago School would call it helicopter money.

Rothbard called it the Angel Gabriel Model.

But those with precious

But those with precious metals could pay off nominal debt with worthless fiat. Screw the rest. LOL

This very "ability"

Is the main advantage of fiat currency. Higher inflation is supposed to help debtors pay their debts: with more money available, they can pay off an old loan faster. Of course, it hurts those who the debt is owed to: they're getting money worth less now than before.

The Austrian route would be as follows:
1) Prevent the Federal Reserve from purchasing federal bonds. Sell all federal government bonds in a free market.
2) Default on the available bonds.

Of course, that does hold an ethical problem: intentionally defaulting is breaking a contract. However, it does reflect the market risks of purchasing sovereign debt, especially with fiat currency.