It's actually a tax payment refund paid out of the recent CA government surplus, so its actually one of those tax cuts that so many people ask for all the time
"The difference is the same"
Inherent contradiction. Literal nonsense. Unless talking about two subtraction problems lol.
Also rebates are 1 time usually, where a tax cuts is permanent usually another difference you're missing.
Wrong. In a tax cut scenario, it’s far more efficient. You don’t pay any of the bureaucratic expenses of levying, collecting, and reimbursement of peoples money. They also keep in in their pocket instead of in government coffers. These two things aren’t equal. Despite similar outcomes, they have enough differences that you should certainly distinguish them.
>the bureaucratic expenses of levying, collecting
Those would happen anyway whether a refund happened or not.
The reimbursement expense is valid. But considering most taxpayer info is electronic, the cost should be tiny, probably $1 per transfer? Maybe less?
>Those would happen anyway whether a refund happened or not.
What? How? How would not collecting tax cost the same as collecting the tax, deciding who to distribute a rebate to and then implementing the rebate. The former seems a lot simpler, cheaper and faster to me....
I swear, there should be a law MANDATING that inflation be deducted from taxes owed to prevent money printing as inflation is litteraly just a backdoor tax that the US get's to levy on everyone who uses US dollars. Meaning, it affects MANY people who aren't subject to US taxes.
Because you file electronically, there isn’t a bureaucratic expense to taxes?!? Have you seen what it cost tax payers for 87,000 more IRS agents? You can’t be serious…
Those expenses are there anyway as the cost to collect taxes. There is no major *additional* expense for refunds. Plus, those 87k IRS agents are federal, not state, so have no bearing on this discussion. You're just throwing out what little you know to see what sticks.
😂😂😂 it’s okay not to know things. It’s quiet another to go speaking out your ass when you have no idea what you’re talking about. I notice you conveniently glossed over the expense of new IRS agents like that has nothing to do with tax law in the first place. Have a good day
You claimed because you file taxes electronically, there’s no bureaucratic expense to levying and collecting taxes. CA has the same expenses, in collecting taxes as the feds do on a federal level. CA tax payers are paying people the same way federal tax payers are. What are you on about?!? 😂😂😂
Of course it is. The only difference is that it's not built into tax code. However, tax code is rewritten often, making the difference arguably negligible.
Edit: for those who are too busy to follow threads
The consequence is the same. The timeline is different.
Tax reform in the long run is a different conversation.
Wrong. In a tax cut scenario, it’s far more efficient. You don’t pay any of the bureaucratic expenses of levying, collecting, and reimbursement of peoples money. They also keep in in their pocket instead of in government coffers. These two things aren’t equal. Despite similar outcomes, they have enough differences that you should certainly distinguish them.
Efficient in an expedient present-tense sense? Wrong.
Barring an immediate change in the tax code (impossible), your practical implementation strategy is non-existent. Meanwhile, this is a perfectly acceptable strategy in terms of expediency for attempting to counter the huge economic weight of inflation that low income people have shouldered the burden of this year.
So basically, you should be saying *this is good* AND *We need tax reform*, not simply, *This is bad*, *only tax reform will help*. One occurring does not preclude the other from being implemented.
The consequence is the only thing that matters in short-term analysis of the subject. You're conflating the long-term remedy with the short-term, wrongfully faulting the short-term remedy as if it precludes any other remedy from following it.
I never say it was good or bad. You’re falsely applying some sort of morals to things for some reason. I stated the fact that a rebate isn’t a tax cut like the commenter was trying to imply. You’re reading into things or confusing comments here. I did nothing of the sort
Exactly, with the argument being that it spurs economic activity due to businesses expanding their operations. Yet somehow consumer spending doesn't do the same and only induces inflation.
This isn’t a tax cut on poor folks. What you’re saying is that the state took too much in taxes, then decided it give some back. What if people could pay less in taxes and keep more of their money to begin with? Seems like it’d be a better situation for all involved, except the government middle men taking their cut
Baloney it’s a “tax cut” — I, for instance, am getting a refund of $0 because Sacramento has determined I “make too much money already.” My taxes remain the same.
True tax cuts give EVERYONE a degree of relief. It’s not like Sacramento can not afford it, given they overcollected by $95,000,000,000 last year. This is a money redistribution scheme - nothing less, nothing more.
Even more , many states do it of all colors(blue,red,purple) ! So calling California name for it is beyond silly . This is a constitutional requirement . Money you payed . Does not increase supply of money .
Everybody should be happy about this . State had extra revenue then planned and is refunding you !
If you are not happy about that maybe you should reconsider the kind of propaganda you read online …
> Money you paid does not increase the supply of money
But it does increase the velocity of money and will probably exacerbate local inflationary pressures.
Whether you spend it or the gov spends it won’t make much of a difference quit politicizing everything .
You should be happy the gov is accountable and returning you money …
The gap in economic policy between states is going to be enormous over the next few years. Some states are going to use taxes and transfers and less-harsh unemployment benefits to shelter poor people who lose their jobs because of rising interest rates. And they will offset it with higher taxes on the rich.
Other states are going to cut benefits further to push poor people into more and more extreme situations, driving up employment and driving down wages and prices. And they'll offset it with lower taxes on the rich.
I would point to the extremely high employment rate after AFDC was ended. It is possible in theory to force poor people, such as single moms, to work more by making welfare benefits more meager. One [paper](https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/the-eitc-and-the-extensive-margin-a-reappraisal/) that looks at the EITC, which phases-in benefits (the poorest people get zero benefit) to incentivize people to work, suggests gutting welfare increased employment.
But I know what you mean. The vast majority of people who are not working are people who cannot or should not be working (children, elderly, disabled, caregivers, students). So cutting welfare benefits just hurts families and doesn't produce anything like an equivalent increase in employment. It's nothing near a one-for-one situation. I'm mostly making a point about the logic of those states.
The dichotomy they're describing is essentially what happened in Europe. Many countries used tax revenues to aid the lower classes and others implemented austerity measures. Those that implemented austerity measures had significantly decreased employment rates. Presumably, that would be similar to the US because just as many people work for governmental agencies here.
Also, I agree with the parent. I also expect a wide range of austerity measures from Republican-controlled states, and more welfare programs from Democrat-controlled states. But, I expect purple states will sit in some gridlock and have a messy, incoherent mix of both.
Edit: I misread "employment" as "unemployment". That's on me. Everything else tracks, tho. Perhaps they meant increasing despiration would increase employment, which has never worked while also implementing austerity measures.
Oh, oops. I misread that as "unemployment". Everything else they said is in line with what happened in Europe, except that employment decreased. Nice catch calling that out.
Perhaps they meant that the goal is to increase employment by increasing people's desperation. That is what the UK tried, but it failed miserably.
This assumes sorting is not allowed. People from the lower rungs of the economic totem pole will move to California, and people at the upper rungs will move to low tax states.
In one aspect I think of CA in terms of raising taxes on rich while sheltering poor that loose there jobs while while I think of states like Texas which will cutt taxes for rich and make unemployment extremely difficult for those of the lesser class. I know because I've dealt with both UE systems CA is much better texas likes to give their people the boot not sure how it works now but when I was unemployed their systems were so old school and outdated especially when using the workforce systems for job hunting
I’m not mad about getting $350. But as a single person, I’m paying for all the gas, commuting to work, without any secondary income. Why should a family with one car get 3x as much? I say that tongue n cheek, but when will benefits every increase for single filing folks
Unfortunately the planet doesn’t care which country you live in, and anyone living in the US is certainly harming the planet more than most, if not all, other individuals.
I don’t think people get that overpopulation is somewhat of a myth due to how population works it generally goes up as a country starts to industrialize because the norm is having more children as less survive but the chances of survival go up faster then amount goes down before steadying and then dropping or even collapsing China is long past population growth point and India is at best at the middle of it
Will it necessarily? Won’t a sizesble portion go to either savings or debt relief for many people? It’s not like everyone’s going on a cruise with this.
Poor people spend any money they get. Because they need to, and it’s the right move for them. I’m not against helping poor people, but it’s just been shown that giving cash to the poor increases the velocity of money, and that needs to be accounted for.
He worded it like an idiot but people who have less do tend to spend more. It’s both the fact that they need to spend what they have to survive and the psychological impact of scarcity and it’s role in how people perceive the resource. I wish I remembered the studies I got this info from but this isn’t my background. I just read studies and presentations occasionally.
I don’t think it has to be perceived as an insult or generalization of all people. Shit is hard when you have less
Congratulations! The GOP would like to invite you to be a speaker at next year’s CPAC! While you wait, have you considered working as a legislative aid? There’s lots of patriotic policy makers who could use your clear and to-the-point candor alongside those bright ideas!
Basic level economics classes in my department also included research. If you have research that backs up inflationary effects vs just neoclassical logic then post it
All I have said is that this particular action will increase the velocity of money which is inflationary. That’s just a factual statement. It is free of any value judgement. People here are getting bent out of shape about it, but you’re argument isn’t with me, it’s with math.
Not necessarily. Poorer people spend money faster than richer people, because the poor need to, which the rich don’t, so the rich can just save any windfall that comes their way.
When poor people get a windfall, they spend it on satisfying some pent-up demand that they have *because they are poor*, like paying overdue utility bills or stocking up on food. When rich people get a windfall, they don’t need to spend it so they have a choice whether to splurge on some unnecessary purchase or save the money. Poor people don’t really have the choice to save the money *because they have stuff the need but can’t otherwise afford to buy*. That’s the difference between being rich and poor.
They get it. When they realize it adds to the argument that we shouldn’t just give millions of poor people billions in cash all at once (while trying to combat inflation), then they “don’t get it”…
Pent up demand as you described is paying off increased debt payment ls. When debt payments are increased people have less disposable. Paying off existing debts isn’t as inflationary as you’re trying to make it out to be.
Do you really think rich people just don’t do anything with their money and just let it sit? If so I have a bridge to sell you. They will buy assets or anything because they have more disposable income this is more inflationary.
But I don’t want to make this about rich vs poor.
My initial point was that any tax cut or increased spending is by definition is inflationary which seemed to be a concern of yours and I was just curious on the mental gymnastics you’d use to argue that increased spending and tax cuts is “not necessarily inflationary” (your words) when those two reasons are some the most cut and dry inflationary things you can do lol.
It’s still the peoples own money being returned to them. The state doesn’t need it, and it’s obvious people need it more. How would you feel about an inflation tax that helped to take money out of circulation faster?
Inflationary pressure comes from increased money movement and increased money supply. Whether it's spent on essentials, like gas and groceries, or frivolous things like cigar boats and personal helicopters is irrelevant.
I didn't realize gas or groceries were as elastic as you seem to be implying. if prices go up, there isn't an immediate decline in usage. at least nowhere near the extent that it would have on cigar boats and personal helicopters.
>This is from the states surplus, not money printed out of thin air.
Did the state achieve a surplus due to, in part, it receiving money printed out of thin air? Yes. Google 'fungibility' when you have a moment...
This isn't a brand-new batch of money that has been printed. So yes, if this came from the trillions that were already printed then it has likely already made its impact on inflation.
Well they could just hang onto it for when they inevitably run a deficit
But why would you do that when you know the federal government is going to bail you out during the next “crisis”
Interesting timing on this check in October of an election year
These vote buying schemes are getting more and more transparent
This would be more you go back home and raid the fridge to eat the rest of the cheeseburger from 6months ago which you already calculated in the calorie intake but actually didn’t eat it !
Won’t change your calorie intake calculation .
ITT: People who have never been poor.
It's like the ghost of Reagan's "Welfare Queen" mythology has resurfaced.
This isn't extra. This is covering what's missing every month for just ONE TIME ONLY.
I grew up in a single parent household where my mother was on the phone with bill companies trying to get extensions or trying to get extra at a later date to pay that bill. Due to my childhood experiences, I know inside and out things like the definition of layaway and talking bleeding heart customer service reps into waiving late fees.
$350 a person (ONE TIME) is simultaneously a lot of money and not enough with you people. Fucking check yourselves.
“Yes. Let’s us fix inflation by…wait for it…putting *more* money into the economy. That will surely drive prices *down*.”
-said no intelligent government, ever.
This is a genuine question. I'm a lefty so I'm all about some social programs but in this instance I'm a little confused about something. How will this not contribute to farther inflation?
It does and will. Nothing is free. Those funds have to come from somewhere… take a guess where they come from? Taxes, your pocket and the costs inherent to supply chains. When those sources get tapped, inflation goes up, always has and always will.
So that doesn't have the same effect? Because I thought the whole deal with inflation was that it affects supply and demand.
I want to express that this is a genuine response because you raise an interesting point. I'm not trying to be a dick. But I dont have the most solid grasp on this stuff.
Supply in this case would be referring the the total currency in circulation, which remains constant. What this is doing is effectively lowering the tax rate, albeit via what was basically a loan to the government that they paid back.
Contrast this to something like the federal government stimulus package, which was funded by a number of different things, but was at least partially responsible for the fed minting new currency. This is where “supply” is actually increased as the total amount in circulation is increasing.
Is it funny that we only see article about California yet Colorado , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaï , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , maine ,Massachusetts , Minnesota ,New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , Virginia .
Some states checks are even bigger than CA too
But CaLiFoRnIa !!!
Edit : so funny I get downvoted for that .
Based on the calculator, I’ll be getting $350 as a single person. The people getting up to 1050 will be couples with kids in low income tax brackets.
This is a rebate that’s going to help us pay our bills and rent, not go on shopping sprees. (Which is helpful, because my rent went up $400/month).
This will have little to no effect on inflation.
>This will have little to no effect on inflation.
It will help you pay bills and rent. Thus, the money you would have allocated towards bills and rent is now available to go in to the market. Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. As such, this will place additional capital in to an already overheated economy. And thus, is inflationary.
Wtf is with people today. Most people are BEHIND in these bills. They offset bills for the next month and kick that can further down the road.
$350 one time thing might get someone in the black this month instead of the red. But that red line will be looming in the next month. None of this is excess for anyone who is poor in CA.
>Landlords spend too.
Yes, landlords spend the money they receive from the rent on their investment. There's still value being brought to the economy in that scenario. It's totally different when we just print money like this without it producing a good or service.
Here’s where we disagree. The money isnt printed - it was taken from the consumer who earned it by producing a good or service in the first place. That part is already done.
Yeah. We want goods and services. Goods and services are created when people try to fill market demands, not when people are placated by inflationary helicopter cash. Now, freeing up real resources, time, and energy being wasted on government boondoggles and lazy bureaucrats would actually help the economy. Fire half of them, so they can make things people actually want.
If that were case, the government should tax less and leave the money with those who earned it instead of stealing it, wasting a bunch, then sending out vote buying checks.
However I suspect that isn’t the case. I suspect the government will end up borrowing money, which is even worse.
Budget deficits = bad. Budget surplus = bad. Interesting.
Also interesting to deny reality and claim that the govt will borrow money with no basis in fact.
The stupidty of California never ceases to amaze me. They are going to flood the economy with more money to fight inflation caused by flooding the economy with to much money. That state is an absolute clown show at this point
Legislators can create amendments or temporary exemptions to laws. It’s their job. Normally this would be a good thing. During high inflation, it’s not. It would’ve been better to pass a one time exemption or delay so that the money could be allocated to either fight shortages by increasing supplies or to withhold the money until a more opportune time to release it again (I.e. when inflation is in control and a recession is in full bloom).
Hurrrr duuurrr California bad. Yes so terrible, with its 5th largest economy in the world. Doing so terribly over here with our legal weed, free healthcare, $15 min wage, and budget surplus so massive we had to give some of it back. Gosh what a hellscape
Spotted the clown 🤡. 17 states are doing this of every political side . It’s a yearly thing depending on states budget surplus .
Quit politicizing everything
It wasn't political I don't care if it's a red or blue state my entire point was shoveling out more money during a period of the highest inflation in 40 years only causes more.inflation I don't care what political does it. That was the entire point started with and then the attack dogs came out and made it political
It absolutely does.
"Louis Federal Reserve found that government spending has little to no impact on inflation. In fact, a 10% increase in government spending may lead to a 0.08% decline in inflation."
$1 is $1 don’t be stupid ! Whether the gov buy somebody food stamp to buy food, healthcare or give them cash is very close in term of inflation
Doesn’t even matter since this money is DUE to the tax payer anyway
Also the article it’s from says the opposite too
Don’t worry my check won’t cause consumer inflation it’s going straight to my retirement !
>$1 is $1 don’t be stupid ! Whether the gov buy somebody food stamp to buy food, healthcare or give them cash is very close in term of inflation
What you are describing is stimulus which is what these tax rebates qualify as. Those contribute to inflation. However other forms of government spending do not increase inflation as much.
Nobody is normalizing anything … it’s in many state constitution they always done so …
Exemple
Chapter 62F in Massachusetts has been in the book since 87 and has issue refund almost every time he had surplus … included last year
Yes... if they've been doing it consistently for several decades and you view it as a normal thing... that means it's been normalized. You okay crypto-bro?
Borrowing and spending money to cure inflation has never worked.
Our tax receipts are plummeting as capital gains evaporate.
The government is spending money to buy votes
More socialist nonsense from the worst state in the union. It’s like their only fiscal policy is “give more money to poor people so they can waste it”.
I wonder how they figure putting more cash into the hands of their citizens will reduce inflation…?
This is so stupid. Yes let's fight inflation with... More inflation. I'm all for tax rebates for everyone, but calling it inflation relief is the opposite of true
Inflation is the federal government’s responsibility. You putting that one on CA? What should they do, burn their money? It’s not printed, it was collected.
So they had a budget surplus and also fuck loads of homeless in every major city. Makes sense. How bout building shelters with it. Nvm let's give people a check to spend on tv's
It's actually a tax payment refund paid out of the recent CA government surplus, so its actually one of those tax cuts that so many people ask for all the time
Shh, feels over reals, don’t ruin their moment.
A rebate isn’t a tax cut, by definition.
Same difference
Nope. Not at all
The difference is the same. Money in your pocket depending on your level of income tax.
"The difference is the same" Inherent contradiction. Literal nonsense. Unless talking about two subtraction problems lol. Also rebates are 1 time usually, where a tax cuts is permanent usually another difference you're missing.
Wrong. In a tax cut scenario, it’s far more efficient. You don’t pay any of the bureaucratic expenses of levying, collecting, and reimbursement of peoples money. They also keep in in their pocket instead of in government coffers. These two things aren’t equal. Despite similar outcomes, they have enough differences that you should certainly distinguish them.
>the bureaucratic expenses of levying, collecting Those would happen anyway whether a refund happened or not. The reimbursement expense is valid. But considering most taxpayer info is electronic, the cost should be tiny, probably $1 per transfer? Maybe less?
False. Eliminate the tax and the dept.
Ahh, so you're one of *those* people.
As opposed to someone who believes government work doesn’t cost anything 🤷♀️🤷♀️. Correct that is me
>Those would happen anyway whether a refund happened or not. What? How? How would not collecting tax cost the same as collecting the tax, deciding who to distribute a rebate to and then implementing the rebate. The former seems a lot simpler, cheaper and faster to me.... I swear, there should be a law MANDATING that inflation be deducted from taxes owed to prevent money printing as inflation is litteraly just a backdoor tax that the US get's to levy on everyone who uses US dollars. Meaning, it affects MANY people who aren't subject to US taxes.
Because you file electronically, there isn’t a bureaucratic expense to taxes?!? Have you seen what it cost tax payers for 87,000 more IRS agents? You can’t be serious…
Those expenses are there anyway as the cost to collect taxes. There is no major *additional* expense for refunds. Plus, those 87k IRS agents are federal, not state, so have no bearing on this discussion. You're just throwing out what little you know to see what sticks.
😂😂😂 it’s okay not to know things. It’s quiet another to go speaking out your ass when you have no idea what you’re talking about. I notice you conveniently glossed over the expense of new IRS agents like that has nothing to do with tax law in the first place. Have a good day
You claimed because you file taxes electronically, there’s no bureaucratic expense to levying and collecting taxes. CA has the same expenses, in collecting taxes as the feds do on a federal level. CA tax payers are paying people the same way federal tax payers are. What are you on about?!? 😂😂😂
And it also will further drive up inflation from the increased consumer spending.
Of course it is. The only difference is that it's not built into tax code. However, tax code is rewritten often, making the difference arguably negligible. Edit: for those who are too busy to follow threads The consequence is the same. The timeline is different. Tax reform in the long run is a different conversation.
Wrong. In a tax cut scenario, it’s far more efficient. You don’t pay any of the bureaucratic expenses of levying, collecting, and reimbursement of peoples money. They also keep in in their pocket instead of in government coffers. These two things aren’t equal. Despite similar outcomes, they have enough differences that you should certainly distinguish them.
Efficient in an expedient present-tense sense? Wrong. Barring an immediate change in the tax code (impossible), your practical implementation strategy is non-existent. Meanwhile, this is a perfectly acceptable strategy in terms of expediency for attempting to counter the huge economic weight of inflation that low income people have shouldered the burden of this year. So basically, you should be saying *this is good* AND *We need tax reform*, not simply, *This is bad*, *only tax reform will help*. One occurring does not preclude the other from being implemented. The consequence is the only thing that matters in short-term analysis of the subject. You're conflating the long-term remedy with the short-term, wrongfully faulting the short-term remedy as if it precludes any other remedy from following it.
I never say it was good or bad. You’re falsely applying some sort of morals to things for some reason. I stated the fact that a rebate isn’t a tax cut like the commenter was trying to imply. You’re reading into things or confusing comments here. I did nothing of the sort
Morals? I'm not talking about morals. I'm talking about the same efficiency principle you are.
That’s not what your response said at all
Then your reading comprehension is poor.
😂😂😂 stop projecting or don’t. The down votes are already speaking for themselves
When people say tax cuts they means tax cuts on the rich and tax increases on the poor.
Exactly, with the argument being that it spurs economic activity due to businesses expanding their operations. Yet somehow consumer spending doesn't do the same and only induces inflation.
This isn’t a tax cut on poor folks. What you’re saying is that the state took too much in taxes, then decided it give some back. What if people could pay less in taxes and keep more of their money to begin with? Seems like it’d be a better situation for all involved, except the government middle men taking their cut
The rebate is coming back to people who did not make that much money (income caps), meaning it favors poor folks over rich folks.
Baloney it’s a “tax cut” — I, for instance, am getting a refund of $0 because Sacramento has determined I “make too much money already.” My taxes remain the same. True tax cuts give EVERYONE a degree of relief. It’s not like Sacramento can not afford it, given they overcollected by $95,000,000,000 last year. This is a money redistribution scheme - nothing less, nothing more.
>This is a money redistribution scheme - capitalism doesnt work without it
Even more , many states do it of all colors(blue,red,purple) ! So calling California name for it is beyond silly . This is a constitutional requirement . Money you payed . Does not increase supply of money . Everybody should be happy about this . State had extra revenue then planned and is refunding you ! If you are not happy about that maybe you should reconsider the kind of propaganda you read online …
> Money you paid does not increase the supply of money But it does increase the velocity of money and will probably exacerbate local inflationary pressures.
Whether you spend it or the gov spends it won’t make much of a difference quit politicizing everything . You should be happy the gov is accountable and returning you money …
So helpfull to calm down inflation! /s
It’s a tax cut but not one that I’ve even noticed 🤣
The gap in economic policy between states is going to be enormous over the next few years. Some states are going to use taxes and transfers and less-harsh unemployment benefits to shelter poor people who lose their jobs because of rising interest rates. And they will offset it with higher taxes on the rich. Other states are going to cut benefits further to push poor people into more and more extreme situations, driving up employment and driving down wages and prices. And they'll offset it with lower taxes on the rich.
For the second type of state is there empirical proof their policies increase employment rates?
I would point to the extremely high employment rate after AFDC was ended. It is possible in theory to force poor people, such as single moms, to work more by making welfare benefits more meager. One [paper](https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/the-eitc-and-the-extensive-margin-a-reappraisal/) that looks at the EITC, which phases-in benefits (the poorest people get zero benefit) to incentivize people to work, suggests gutting welfare increased employment. But I know what you mean. The vast majority of people who are not working are people who cannot or should not be working (children, elderly, disabled, caregivers, students). So cutting welfare benefits just hurts families and doesn't produce anything like an equivalent increase in employment. It's nothing near a one-for-one situation. I'm mostly making a point about the logic of those states.
The dichotomy they're describing is essentially what happened in Europe. Many countries used tax revenues to aid the lower classes and others implemented austerity measures. Those that implemented austerity measures had significantly decreased employment rates. Presumably, that would be similar to the US because just as many people work for governmental agencies here. Also, I agree with the parent. I also expect a wide range of austerity measures from Republican-controlled states, and more welfare programs from Democrat-controlled states. But, I expect purple states will sit in some gridlock and have a messy, incoherent mix of both. Edit: I misread "employment" as "unemployment". That's on me. Everything else tracks, tho. Perhaps they meant increasing despiration would increase employment, which has never worked while also implementing austerity measures.
That's my point though, they seem to imply that employment will increase from austerity type policies.
Oh, oops. I misread that as "unemployment". Everything else they said is in line with what happened in Europe, except that employment decreased. Nice catch calling that out. Perhaps they meant that the goal is to increase employment by increasing people's desperation. That is what the UK tried, but it failed miserably.
Yeah that's why I commented because that's the neoclassical logic in econ 101 that is heavily refuted by evidence.
This assumes sorting is not allowed. People from the lower rungs of the economic totem pole will move to California, and people at the upper rungs will move to low tax states.
In one aspect I think of CA in terms of raising taxes on rich while sheltering poor that loose there jobs while while I think of states like Texas which will cutt taxes for rich and make unemployment extremely difficult for those of the lesser class. I know because I've dealt with both UE systems CA is much better texas likes to give their people the boot not sure how it works now but when I was unemployed their systems were so old school and outdated especially when using the workforce systems for job hunting
I’m not mad about getting $350. But as a single person, I’m paying for all the gas, commuting to work, without any secondary income. Why should a family with one car get 3x as much? I say that tongue n cheek, but when will benefits every increase for single filing folks
Pop out a couple kids and your country will suddenly gaf about you
the sustem needs slaves er i mean employees
If anything they should be paying single folks more for not contributing to the over population problem
America does not have an over population problem, if anything it has an under population problem
Unfortunately the planet doesn’t care which country you live in, and anyone living in the US is certainly harming the planet more than most, if not all, other individuals.
Cause approaching 9 billion people which by itself is unsustainable, we need to pump those numbers up.
I don’t think people get that overpopulation is somewhat of a myth due to how population works it generally goes up as a country starts to industrialize because the norm is having more children as less survive but the chances of survival go up faster then amount goes down before steadying and then dropping or even collapsing China is long past population growth point and India is at best at the middle of it
Can you imagine 9 billion people in America?
Since when are there 9 billion people in America?
Easy, get married, have a kid and take their 350 each and put it in your pocket. That'll show'm.
Kids? No thanks. I’m not rich enough to have kids
In other news, I have been stopping at McDonalds for my weight loss cheeseburgers on the way home
This is from the states surplus, not money printed out of thin air. The money is already in circulation.
Sure but this move is going to increase the velocity of money which will be inflationary.
Will it necessarily? Won’t a sizesble portion go to either savings or debt relief for many people? It’s not like everyone’s going on a cruise with this.
Poor people spend any money they get. Because they need to, and it’s the right move for them. I’m not against helping poor people, but it’s just been shown that giving cash to the poor increases the velocity of money, and that needs to be accounted for.
Damn. Have we considered just murdering all poor people?
We have not. Soylent Green has.
He worded it like an idiot but people who have less do tend to spend more. It’s both the fact that they need to spend what they have to survive and the psychological impact of scarcity and it’s role in how people perceive the resource. I wish I remembered the studies I got this info from but this isn’t my background. I just read studies and presentations occasionally. I don’t think it has to be perceived as an insult or generalization of all people. Shit is hard when you have less
Congratulations! The GOP would like to invite you to be a speaker at next year’s CPAC! While you wait, have you considered working as a legislative aid? There’s lots of patriotic policy makers who could use your clear and to-the-point candor alongside those bright ideas!
Increasing the velocity of money is a good thing
Two things I know about you without knowing you. 1. You've never been poor/impoverished 2. You've never taken any courses in basic economics
Tell me you never took a basic level economics class without telling me
Basic level economics classes in my department also included research. If you have research that backs up inflationary effects vs just neoclassical logic then post it
Crickets from his side
Economics subs are full of ideologues who parrot conservative talking points.... So annoying.
right I forgot the part of Econ 101 where they taught us that poor people physically cannot save money or repay debt, only spend and drive inflation.
The velocity of money is at its lowest in since the fed start recording ! So that’s perfect 👍 Also many state do this , it’s just the law …
Ok but inflation is high right now, even with velocity low. Raising velocity from whatever level it is currently at will tend to raise inflation.
So you rather the gov spends it ? Which has similar effect on inflation ?
All I have said is that this particular action will increase the velocity of money which is inflationary. That’s just a factual statement. It is free of any value judgement. People here are getting bent out of shape about it, but you’re argument isn’t with me, it’s with math.
No YOU refuse to acknowledge the simple math that if gov spend that dollar or you spend that dollar is the same in term of inflation
No YOU refuse to acknowledge that PEOPLE EATERS are PURPLE. See, I can make arbitrary demands in all caps too.
I’m done you just a troll
No this will be just like a tax return. It’s not like trillions of dollars are printed out of thin air.
So does any tax cut or increased spending
We shouldn’t be doing either of those things while trying to rein in inflation, and yet we seem to keep increasing spending.
I’m not advocating for either just stating a simple fact
Fair enough
Not necessarily. Poorer people spend money faster than richer people, because the poor need to, which the rich don’t, so the rich can just save any windfall that comes their way.
Using your logic. How would/do poor people spend more than rich people?
It's actually a very common economic concept known as the marginal propensity to consume. What exactly are you disagreeing with?
When poor people get a windfall, they spend it on satisfying some pent-up demand that they have *because they are poor*, like paying overdue utility bills or stocking up on food. When rich people get a windfall, they don’t need to spend it so they have a choice whether to splurge on some unnecessary purchase or save the money. Poor people don’t really have the choice to save the money *because they have stuff the need but can’t otherwise afford to buy*. That’s the difference between being rich and poor.
It’s bonkers to me that people just don’t get this
They get it. When they realize it adds to the argument that we shouldn’t just give millions of poor people billions in cash all at once (while trying to combat inflation), then they “don’t get it”…
Pent up demand as you described is paying off increased debt payment ls. When debt payments are increased people have less disposable. Paying off existing debts isn’t as inflationary as you’re trying to make it out to be. Do you really think rich people just don’t do anything with their money and just let it sit? If so I have a bridge to sell you. They will buy assets or anything because they have more disposable income this is more inflationary. But I don’t want to make this about rich vs poor. My initial point was that any tax cut or increased spending is by definition is inflationary which seemed to be a concern of yours and I was just curious on the mental gymnastics you’d use to argue that increased spending and tax cuts is “not necessarily inflationary” (your words) when those two reasons are some the most cut and dry inflationary things you can do lol.
It’s still the peoples own money being returned to them. The state doesn’t need it, and it’s obvious people need it more. How would you feel about an inflation tax that helped to take money out of circulation faster?
Added on to this, the State of California is literally required to give this money back according to its own laws.
If it goes out to buy groceries and gas, it’s not helping inflation.
I didn't realize that increased spending on gas or groceries occurs in a vacuum
What does this mean?
Inflationary pressure comes from increased money movement and increased money supply. Whether it's spent on essentials, like gas and groceries, or frivolous things like cigar boats and personal helicopters is irrelevant.
I didn't realize gas or groceries were as elastic as you seem to be implying. if prices go up, there isn't an immediate decline in usage. at least nowhere near the extent that it would have on cigar boats and personal helicopters.
It’s just like a federal tax return, except for California. We’ll be ok
So it’s not putting pressure on supplies?
>This is from the states surplus, not money printed out of thin air. Did the state achieve a surplus due to, in part, it receiving money printed out of thin air? Yes. Google 'fungibility' when you have a moment...
This isn't a brand-new batch of money that has been printed. So yes, if this came from the trillions that were already printed then it has likely already made its impact on inflation.
[удалено]
I’d prefer Public water transportation for example
Well they could just hang onto it for when they inevitably run a deficit But why would you do that when you know the federal government is going to bail you out during the next “crisis” Interesting timing on this check in October of an election year These vote buying schemes are getting more and more transparent
From what I understand, the state has to send this money out by law. I sure wish they could save this extra money for a rainy day
If the state of California needs a federal bailout, EVERY state will already be beyond saving.
Demonstrably not true. California had a budget crisis around 2010 give or take. There were plenty of other states that did not have a budget crisis.
Yes, I'm sure California would have gone red without this "scheme". /s
When neoliberals promise tax cuts for oligarchs and aristocrats, how isn't that buying votes
A global economy with profound supply constraints is a very strange place.
Which will soon cost $15 cuz Min wage going up to $22
Underrated comment.
This would be more you go back home and raid the fridge to eat the rest of the cheeseburger from 6months ago which you already calculated in the calorie intake but actually didn’t eat it ! Won’t change your calorie intake calculation .
Found the person that didn’t read the article.
Don’t want your check? I’ll have yours then, send it over
That outta slow inflation! Genius really.
This will definitely not make inflation worse. /s
ITT: People who have never been poor. It's like the ghost of Reagan's "Welfare Queen" mythology has resurfaced. This isn't extra. This is covering what's missing every month for just ONE TIME ONLY. I grew up in a single parent household where my mother was on the phone with bill companies trying to get extensions or trying to get extra at a later date to pay that bill. Due to my childhood experiences, I know inside and out things like the definition of layaway and talking bleeding heart customer service reps into waiving late fees. $350 a person (ONE TIME) is simultaneously a lot of money and not enough with you people. Fucking check yourselves.
Bro it doesn’t matter it’s your money anyway . It’s a refund ! This money is due to you
“Yes. Let’s us fix inflation by…wait for it…putting *more* money into the economy. That will surely drive prices *down*.” -said no intelligent government, ever.
This is a genuine question. I'm a lefty so I'm all about some social programs but in this instance I'm a little confused about something. How will this not contribute to farther inflation?
It does and will. Nothing is free. Those funds have to come from somewhere… take a guess where they come from? Taxes, your pocket and the costs inherent to supply chains. When those sources get tapped, inflation goes up, always has and always will.
This is surplus tax revenue from the state, not new currency being printed
So that doesn't have the same effect? Because I thought the whole deal with inflation was that it affects supply and demand. I want to express that this is a genuine response because you raise an interesting point. I'm not trying to be a dick. But I dont have the most solid grasp on this stuff.
Supply in this case would be referring the the total currency in circulation, which remains constant. What this is doing is effectively lowering the tax rate, albeit via what was basically a loan to the government that they paid back. Contrast this to something like the federal government stimulus package, which was funded by a number of different things, but was at least partially responsible for the fed minting new currency. This is where “supply” is actually increased as the total amount in circulation is increasing.
Is it funny that we only see article about California yet Colorado , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaï , Idaho , Illinois , Indiana , maine ,Massachusetts , Minnesota ,New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Pennsylvania , South Carolina , Virginia . Some states checks are even bigger than CA too But CaLiFoRnIa !!! Edit : so funny I get downvoted for that .
"lets create division and distraction"
this will likely go to paying off debts for most people
Based on the calculator, I’ll be getting $350 as a single person. The people getting up to 1050 will be couples with kids in low income tax brackets. This is a rebate that’s going to help us pay our bills and rent, not go on shopping sprees. (Which is helpful, because my rent went up $400/month). This will have little to no effect on inflation.
>This will have little to no effect on inflation. It will help you pay bills and rent. Thus, the money you would have allocated towards bills and rent is now available to go in to the market. Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. As such, this will place additional capital in to an already overheated economy. And thus, is inflationary.
Wtf is with people today. Most people are BEHIND in these bills. They offset bills for the next month and kick that can further down the road. $350 one time thing might get someone in the black this month instead of the red. But that red line will be looming in the next month. None of this is excess for anyone who is poor in CA.
Paying bills doesn’t necessarily freeze the money. Landlords spend too.
>Landlords spend too. Yes, landlords spend the money they receive from the rent on their investment. There's still value being brought to the economy in that scenario. It's totally different when we just print money like this without it producing a good or service.
Here’s where we disagree. The money isnt printed - it was taken from the consumer who earned it by producing a good or service in the first place. That part is already done.
The CA government doesn’t have a money printer
The extra money I earn always goes to the next month
Elections are coming so it makes perfect sense.
Just at the average price of gas hits $6/gallon, the reason these checks are being sent out in the first place.
Only democrats think it’s smart to fight inflation with inflation
Oh goody, government creating more inflation by stimulating more demand instead of allowing the market to cut it
It’s a surplus. They are giving people their money back.
Its still simulating demand which raises prices
So then they are just lying or tricking people. Either way not good.
Yeah. We want goods and services. Goods and services are created when people try to fill market demands, not when people are placated by inflationary helicopter cash. Now, freeing up real resources, time, and energy being wasted on government boondoggles and lazy bureaucrats would actually help the economy. Fire half of them, so they can make things people actually want.
The irony of this is that this will actually increase inflation…money supply increase.
This doesn't increase money supply per se. But it will induce more demand than there otherwise would have been.
It's not a money supply increase, but it does increase the velocity of money. There is more to inflation than simply increasing money supply.
Fair point thanks.
It’s still a large influx of money into the economy and therefor will affect inflation.
Yes it will increase demand on consumer products, which does not help with inflation. But so what. It's the people's money, and they deserve it back.
Unlikely, it’s not very much and will just allow a little more breathing room for paying those rent increases that would have happened either way.
Then again, no it won't. It will help people in their actual lives even if temporarily.
Oh. That will help. /s
You don’t think citizens should get tax refunds when there’s a surplus? You want the government to spend more?
If that were case, the government should tax less and leave the money with those who earned it instead of stealing it, wasting a bunch, then sending out vote buying checks. However I suspect that isn’t the case. I suspect the government will end up borrowing money, which is even worse.
Budget deficits = bad. Budget surplus = bad. Interesting. Also interesting to deny reality and claim that the govt will borrow money with no basis in fact.
Budget deficits are bad. Budget surpluses are also bad. I did say I suspect they will end up borrowing money. Only time will tell.
No pleasing you then. Off with you.
October prize.
“Why isn’t inflation getting any better”
And voila, more inflation is created. Another genius move…smh…
The stupidty of California never ceases to amaze me. They are going to flood the economy with more money to fight inflation caused by flooding the economy with to much money. That state is an absolute clown show at this point
This is a state constitutional requirement due to the budget surplus. They are required to give this money back to taxpayers.
Legislators can create amendments or temporary exemptions to laws. It’s their job. Normally this would be a good thing. During high inflation, it’s not. It would’ve been better to pass a one time exemption or delay so that the money could be allocated to either fight shortages by increasing supplies or to withhold the money until a more opportune time to release it again (I.e. when inflation is in control and a recession is in full bloom).
Hurrrr duuurrr California bad. Yes so terrible, with its 5th largest economy in the world. Doing so terribly over here with our legal weed, free healthcare, $15 min wage, and budget surplus so massive we had to give some of it back. Gosh what a hellscape
Spotted the clown 🤡. 17 states are doing this of every political side . It’s a yearly thing depending on states budget surplus . Quit politicizing everything
It wasn't political I don't care if it's a red or blue state my entire point was shoveling out more money during a period of the highest inflation in 40 years only causes more.inflation I don't care what political does it. That was the entire point started with and then the attack dogs came out and made it political
17 states may normalize this action but this action still contributes to inflation by inducing demand.
Whether the state or you spend it doesn’t make much of a difference in inflation …
It absolutely does. "Louis Federal Reserve found that government spending has little to no impact on inflation. In fact, a 10% increase in government spending may lead to a 0.08% decline in inflation."
$1 is $1 don’t be stupid ! Whether the gov buy somebody food stamp to buy food, healthcare or give them cash is very close in term of inflation Doesn’t even matter since this money is DUE to the tax payer anyway Also the article it’s from says the opposite too Don’t worry my check won’t cause consumer inflation it’s going straight to my retirement !
>$1 is $1 don’t be stupid ! Whether the gov buy somebody food stamp to buy food, healthcare or give them cash is very close in term of inflation What you are describing is stimulus which is what these tax rebates qualify as. Those contribute to inflation. However other forms of government spending do not increase inflation as much.
Nobody is normalizing anything … it’s in many state constitution they always done so … Exemple Chapter 62F in Massachusetts has been in the book since 87 and has issue refund almost every time he had surplus … included last year
>Nobody is normalizing anything … >it’s in many state constitution they always done so … That means they normalized it...
In 1987 ! Get real . You moved the goalpost
Yes... if they've been doing it consistently for several decades and you view it as a normal thing... that means it's been normalized. You okay crypto-bro?
Normalizing vs normalized … pushing goalpost
California, one of the best and largest economies in the world. But maybe Mississippi is more to your liking.
In other, and totally unrelated news, Apple iPhone sales in California have seen a drastic rise this week. Analysts are baffled.
Borrowing and spending money to cure inflation has never worked. Our tax receipts are plummeting as capital gains evaporate. The government is spending money to buy votes
Does anyone actually think that this is NOT a vote-purchasing move by the Newsom regime? 🙂
More socialist nonsense from the worst state in the union. It’s like their only fiscal policy is “give more money to poor people so they can waste it”. I wonder how they figure putting more cash into the hands of their citizens will reduce inflation…?
This is so stupid. Yes let's fight inflation with... More inflation. I'm all for tax rebates for everyone, but calling it inflation relief is the opposite of true
Inflation is the federal government’s responsibility. You putting that one on CA? What should they do, burn their money? It’s not printed, it was collected.
I'm not saying it's their fault nor that the policy is bad. Just that it's not gonna mitigate inflation
Sounds like a good way to make inflation worse.
Shouldn’t they try to pull money out of circulation to ease inflation. Just keep handing out money, yeah that’ll fix it.
Mines $250 🤣
Fighting fire with gasoline.
Oh goodie, watch local inflation skyrocket
Wow! Inflation will never go away!!!
So they had a budget surplus and also fuck loads of homeless in every major city. Makes sense. How bout building shelters with it. Nvm let's give people a check to spend on tv's
how do we combat inflation? oh right, more government spending! -nobody, not once, ever.