Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
Of course, one could also argue that as they are the vast majority of those dying then they perhaps have no need for the money, but that would seem to be even more churlish.
But putting that aside, as approx. 80% of the USA deaths are in the 65+ age group (CDC data for last week) one could argue that it is that group who are taking the majority of the risk and so, using your risk facing argument, deserve the stimulus payment more than anyone else.
In my own country, as of today, 100% of all deaths have been in age group age over 60 years, 90% of the deaths have been over the age of 70 years.
EDIT: Just checked our near neighbor's latest figures, for Australia approx. 96% of all deaths have been in age group 60+ years, and approx. 90% in 70+ years age group.
|
That argument could be made but you're actually the first person I've heard make it. My point was that the stated purpose was to relieve the economic hit but it was politically impractical to give it only to those who actually suffered the hit.
But the real unfairness IMO is giving an unemployed $10/hr worker an extra $600/wk while a supermarket employee e.g. is expected to continue risking his health for his usual $10/hr. Health and safety workers are better paid, but they too IMO deserved some of that money to compensate for the extra risk their jobs now entail...