Your subsequent stimulus examine often is the first of a number of
As the Biden administration seeks to quickly pass a third major stimulus package, some of its allies on Capitol Hill and elsewhere are considering confusing the household payment formula to make it recurring in place of the lump sums noted in the past.
Bringing money to households is a relatively simple task for the government. However, getting them to spend it can be difficult – those who don’t need immediate help often crowd out the extra money or use it to pay off debts.
In theory, recurring payments could alleviate these concerns somewhat by allowing families to plan better months in advance, proponents say.
“Families, small businesses and the economy as a whole are pretty much equal on this issue,” said Greg Nasif, spokesman for Humanity Forward, the political arm of former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s nonprofit.
“You have to plan your budget. They do better and spend more when they know what’s coming. This is why recurring installment payments are so important for direct payments, regardless of the size and scope. “
Biden’s plan calls for payments of $ 1,400 to eligible family members, which would add up to $ 2,000 in support in addition to the payments of $ 600 approved by Congress in December. This would be on top of the $ 1,200 per person payments that were shipped last spring.
In addition to Humanity Forward, some members of the Democratic House are pushing for recurring payments, but in much larger amounts, rather than breaking up the $ 1,400 in the Biden plan.
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat and first vice chairman of the Liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus, said he wanted recurring payments in the stimulus package, but in a far larger amount: $ 2,000 per month.
“Even if we can’t get $ 2,000, you’ll get some recurring monthly payments, at least until summer, so that Americans can have help,” he said last week. “Of course I will want to support whatever gives people relief, but I think that would be good to have.”
Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan has also advocated larger, recurring payments.
“In the next bailout, I will continue to fight to incorporate my legislation that will allow every American to pay $ 2,000 recurring until employment returns to pre-COVID-19 levels,” he said in December when he expressed his support for the previously announced aid package.
However, a prominent Conservative economist said the idea of recurring payments is unlikely to make much of a difference, and payments generally target the wrong problem.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office and president of the American Action Forum’s think tank, said people’s consumption patterns are unlikely to change based on whether they receive money in installments or a lump sum.
“It’s the same expenditure in both cases,” he said.
The problem, according to Holtz-Eakin, is not that incomes have fallen on average or that consumption has been restricted by a lack of money. He said spending is being held back by people’s reluctance to spend on things like food and personal services because of the virus.
This is a different problem from the usual recessions caused by people withdrawing their overall spending due to job losses or concerns about the economy. In these cases, according to Holtz-Eakin, stimulus payments make sense because people spend money, which keeps jobs and people spend money.
“If they can’t spend it, that virtuous circle is gone,” he said.
He said a smarter approach would be to target aid to those who have lost incomes, for example through more robust aid to the unemployed.