Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mike 03

(16,616 posts)
30. I'm not arguing with your point, just trying to figure this out.
Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:52 PM
Jul 2020

Some things to keep in mind:

The very high wage earners you're talking about also get huge bonuses, and have a much easier time obtaining loans than medium or low income workers. It's not fair, but such employees have an easier time accessing capital in general.

They are likely to have a high net worth overall, separate from their annual salary.

They are more likely to have equity holdings they can liquidate for cash should the necessity arise.

This is one reason that people earning over a certain amount of money didn't receive stimulus checks. Having more money does make a difference because assuming you're sensible and prudent, you have a cushion.

I don't know any folks who make the amount you indicated Sherman A1 Jul 2020 #1
I've made that much in my career. A six-figure salary In CA is fairly common. stopbush Jul 2020 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Jul 2020 #3
Perhaps it is Sherman A1 Jul 2020 #9
Lucky. With that income you probably have a nice 401K and some savings LakeArenal Jul 2020 #29
Mnuchin says GOP plan for unemployment extension will be based on '70% wage replacement' MrsCoffee Jul 2020 #4
You see it as an absolute percentage figure... he means it as a cap FBaggins Jul 2020 #15
Bet it'll be something like durablend Jul 2020 #22
I expect it to be a flat amount FBaggins Jul 2020 #27
Here's a link House of Roberts Jul 2020 #6
Could there be a cap, like there was a ceiling for people to receive stimulus checks? nt Mike 03 Jul 2020 #5
+1 uponit7771 Jul 2020 #8
Sure, but a cap on high-wage earners rather negates the rationale stopbush Jul 2020 #10
I'm not arguing with your point, just trying to figure this out. Mike 03 Jul 2020 #30
But should any level of earner be made to suffer due to tRump's massive fuck up? stopbush Jul 2020 #32
All fair points. Mike 03 Jul 2020 #33
I agree that this might not be what they intended. But it is a more equitable solution Buckeyeblue Jul 2020 #7
Yes, and the more-equitable solution would have lots of money flowing stopbush Jul 2020 #12
Yes it is. The biggest thing is to get Bill's paid and to get money flowing to businesses. Buckeyeblue Jul 2020 #20
They'd still top it out Johnny2X2X Jul 2020 #11
We're in the same boat. My CA weekly benefit is only $167 as I filed off a 1099. stopbush Jul 2020 #13
This sheds light on how ridiculous UE pay is Johnny2X2X Jul 2020 #19
"this has disaster written all over it" Mike 03 Jul 2020 #16
Reps in Congress are totally tone deaf on this Johnny2X2X Jul 2020 #21
There are many reps in Congress.. stillcool Jul 2020 #26
For minimum wage in states like Texas, where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. dlk Jul 2020 #14
The usual is 47% of salary. This is going to kill us. Luz Jul 2020 #23
Whatever they may have been in the past, today's Republican Party is a death cult dlk Jul 2020 #34
By several accounts it will take states 6-20 weeks to figure, program, and distribute at 70% underpants Jul 2020 #17
Here's a thought: adjust the amount state by state based on median income in stopbush Jul 2020 #25
That's actually a good point underpants Jul 2020 #28
Rural FL compared to SOFL obamanut2012 Jul 2020 #31
There are a lot of states that still haven't sent out the flat $600 MoonlitKnight Jul 2020 #35
Hey wait! underpants Jul 2020 #36
That income is low in the high tech job space RainCaster Jul 2020 #18
Indeed. I picked $150,000 as an example, because the high-wage earners stopbush Jul 2020 #24
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rs want to pay 70% of ear...»Reply #30