Gustavo Contreras/Contributing Writer
When Senator Mitt Romney proposed the idea of $1,000 a month to Congress, the nation suddenly had a common interest: free money.
Except, you, a student, probably won’t get any free money.
The current coronavirus rescue package that promises $1,200 will come with uneven strings attached that don’t justify who and how much one receives.
The current bill that could be voted on by Monday was proposed by Senator Mitch McConnell. Under this bill, any individual that earned less than $99,000 would be qualified for a check of $1,200; unless you couldn’t afford income tax (or do not have any taxable income), then you would get $600. The base $0 income starts with a free $600 check and rises until it hits its peak at a free $1,200 check before descending at a $75,000 salary line.
While the premise makes sense, there is no need for a rise; a flat rate would give equality to those making less than $99,000. Rather than being a flat rate, the McConnell bill would essentially punish lower-income workers who need the money.
It’s not sensical how low-income jobs, such as cashiers, paramedics, retail and those that are not only making less than $25,000 but are more susceptible to the coronavirus would be receiving the short end of the stick compared to other occupations. Mathematically speaking, anyone making $12.02/hr for 40 hours/week a year ($25,000) would be paid the same as someone making $36.06/hr ($75,000); triple the salary but the same free payment.
But if you’re a student, none of this will most likely apply to you. The majority of students would not even receive their own cut of free money as it’s based on your parents’ tax returns. Students who are dependents of someone else are not eligible for their own payment, according to the CARES Act.
The main issue is the bill: its price estimate isn’t properly allocated and it’s not optimized to provide a proper safety net for those mostly impacted by the coronavirus. There is a better solution that, while it may require a bit more patience, could make a bigger difference.
McConnell’s bill is estimated to cost at least $1.6 trillion, but only $250 billion will go into direct payments for the people. The rest will go into small business and corporate loans. Although corporations have taken an economical hit, providing more financial aid towards corporations is absurd; there has already been a previous coronavirus relief bill that injected more than $1.5 trillion into short-term money markets. As such, it’s reasonable that the next bill should directly focus on the American people.
Several senators have listed the need to give more as compared to McConnell’s bill, Senator Chris Murphy and five other senators made a proposal of $2,000 per American per calendar quarter with a steady decrease with correlation to the increase of the economy and unemployment rate. This proposal would not only aid the people right now, but it provides a slow descent as life gets back to normal.
Senator Murphy, along with direct payments, proposes additional aid for hospitals to contain the virus, while also increasing funding of school grants for low-income and vulnerable students. Not only will this have a bigger impact on Americans, but in comparison to McConnell’s bill that further injects billions into the business industry, it provides us students our own income.
As of publishing time, the bill has not yet been passed, and I hope that I can look back at this article and see that more people have benefited from the changes that have been made.
Featured image by Pictures of Money on Flickr.
DISCLAIMER:
The opinions presented within this page do not represent the views of PantherNOW Editorial Board. These views are separate from editorials and reflect individual perspectives of contributing writers and/or members of the University community.
Have questions or comments for our writers? Send an email to opinion@fiusm.com with your name and the name of the column in the subject line.
About Post Author
