Admittedly, it's hard to tell how much money the stimulus package just passed will deliver to any given individual. I found a relatively good analysis on WiseBread, which suggests my husband and I will not, in fact, get a check.
Thank goodness.
We don't need a check. We have been fortunate. We do still have money to spend to "stimulate" the economy (and waste precious resources, too — whoopee!). We have money to save and to invest. We have jobs with good healthcare benefits. I say this not to brag: absolutely, we know how lucky we are. I say this because last time there was a tax cut, I got a check in the mail, and I was livid.
I'm not rich, but I have money for all I need. I have a rainy-day fund, after many years of saving for it. I don't want my government wasting my tax dollars on handouts back to me. I want them to tax me appropriately and use the money to provide real, needed, well-run and effective services. If they have a surplus, fine, I'm all for tax cuts: let's start tax cuts where they matter, with the middle class and the lower middle class. Let's use some of that surplus to get families out of poverty.
But we don't have a surplus. And there is a puzzle in these stimulus checks. How can it make more sense for the government to borrow money to hand to individuals — who may do many things with the money other than spend it in the marketplace — to stimulate the economy? Sure, any spending will boost some companies, who will then pay more tax. But it's hard for me to see that the tax they'd pay would come close to the cost of the package.
I believe it's because they are counting on coattails, and this is, to me, the dark part of this kind of stimulus. Let's say you get a $600 check and it's just enough to tip you into buying that plasma TV you were thinking about — the one that costs $1495. Or your family gets a $1500 check and you decide to take that trip to Disneyland — okay, so it's $2200 by the time all is said and done, but you couldn't have done it without that check! True, but you also just spend a bunch of money you already had that you weren't originally planning to spend (or worse, put more on your credit cards).
To me, that reads as "stimulating the public's urge to spend money, rather than save it" as opposed to "stimulate the economy."
My skills at analysis are layman's, so I'd welcome discussion.
And that tax break check I got a few years back? It went to a local charity. I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.
ETA: I'm very happy for folks making less money than I am to get a check. I'm just worried that it's going to get some people in greater economic trouble, even if it helps Wall Street.