COVID Payments

Question A: Until mass vaccination is achieved, any additional government spending going directly to households should focus on keeping low-income individuals and families safe and healthy rather than on boosting current economic activity.

Question B: If the goal is to boost current economic activity, targeting checks at households making less than $75,000 per year would be more cost-effective than providing checks to higher income households as well.

Question A: Until mass vaccination is achieved, any additional government spending going directly to households should focus on keeping low-income individuals and families safe and healthy rather than on boosting current economic activity.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Strongly Disagree	8	Any money spent on keeping people healthy and helping low-income individuals will also be the most effective kind of economic boost. But there is also a good case to be made for additional spending particularly for others affected too.
Bizuayehu Bedane	Marietta College	Uncertain	8
Jay Corrigan	Kenyon College	Disagree	6
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Strongly Agree	10	Economic aid right now is best thought of as diaster relief not necessarily economic stimulus.
Hasan Faruq	Xavier University	Agree	8
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Disagree	10	You can't separate out income support from health and safety. We are still down about ten million jobs income supported is needed as well as an economic stimulus.
Nancy Haskell	University of Dayton	Agree	9
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Strongly Agree	10	Low-income households have been hit disproportionately hard, and need relief much more than middle-income families
Faria Huq	Lake Erie College	Disagree	7	They are correlated. Providing direct payments to households will automatically boost economic activity and it is important to provide assistance to small businesses with vaccinations already underway.
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Disagree	8	Boosting economic activity can still be done safely (e.g. grocery delivery, restaurant take-out, etc.).
Fadhel Kaboub	Denison University	Agree	10	It is possible to do both. For example, we can boost meals on wheels, wellness checks, vaccination site staff/assistants to create jobs that pay well and meet high safety standards.
Bill Kosteas	Cleveland State University	Agree	7
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	6
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	6
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	6
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	6
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Agree	8
Michael Myler	University of Mount Union	Agree	9	Low-income households are likely to spend most of the funds they receive. Hence, funds sent to low-income households can accomplish both objectives: maintain their health and safety and boost the economy--if we allow businesses to re-open.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Agree	8
Mingming Pan	Wright State University	Disagree	8
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Uncertain	6	This is important, but also important to sustain (smaller) businesses
Albert Sumell	Youngstown State University	Disagree	8	The majority of spending should go to keeping low-income secure, but there's no reason to completely ignore economic activity.
Thomas Traynor	Wright State University	Strongly Disagree	9
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Agree	9
Mark Votruba	Case Western Reserve University	Strongly Disagree	9
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	8
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	8	My only caveat is that I also believe the money should be focused on businesses that are particularly hard hit by COVID, such as restaurants.
Rachel Wilson	Wittenberg University	Strongly Disagree	10

Question B: If the goal is to boost current economic activity, targeting checks at households making less than $75,000 per year would be more cost-effective than providing checks to higher income households as well.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Strongly Agree	8	High-income people won't spend additional money. Money that isn't spent has no effect on the economy, and we need stimulus now. The rich also have less need for a small percentage increase in their income. But universal checks don’t hurt.
Bizuayehu Bedane	Marietta College	Agree	9
Jay Corrigan	Kenyon College	Strongly Agree	9
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Strongly Agree	10	Low income households more likely to spend the aid and high income households more likely to save it so yes checks to lower income households is more stimulative. Also, on average, lower income households have been more impacted so they need more aid
Hasan Faruq	Xavier University	Agree	8
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	9	The evidence seems to show that lower income families spend almost all of their checks. A family making $200,000 receiveing a check will save most of it.
Nancy Haskell	University of Dayton	Agree	9
Paul Holmes	Ashland University	Strongly Agree	8	There's a problem with identifying who has been hardest-hit and needs the relief most. Without any better targeting, 'low-income' households is probably best - though perhaps higher limits for those with families/dependents
Faria Huq	Lake Erie College	Uncertain	7	While targeted checks would be cost effective and also ensure that the money is spent rather than saved to boost the economy in the short run, it is important to consider those households that may have lost sources of income during the pandemic.
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Uncertain	10	Economic activity can mean many things. Low-income households are more likely to spend targeted checks, and higher-income households are more likely to save. Both are examples of economic activity though.
Fadhel Kaboub	Denison University	Uncertain	8	If the goal was boost economic activity, then relief checks for the poor/unemployed should've been much larger. Cost-effectiveness is a misleading frame. The cost of doing nothing or too little is much higher than the cost of doing the right thing.
Bill Kosteas	Cleveland State University	Agree	6	Yes, since lower income households have higher marginal propensities to consume. A more targeted approach would be to provide checks to households that lost income as a result of the pandemic (although this is difficult to implement).
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	10
Trevon Logan	Ohio State University	Strongly Agree	9
Michael Myler	University of Mount Union	Agree	9	Two things reduce the effect of sending funds to high-income households: they are likely to save a lot of it rather than spend it and we cannot boost the economy a lot if businesses are not allowed to re-open.
Joe Nowakowski	Muskingum University	Strongly Agree	10
Mingming Pan	Wright State University	Strongly Agree	9	The propensity to consume the checks is much higher for lower-income households, and thus more effectively boost aggregate demand and economic activity.
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	6	Targeting based on means makes sense but adds complexity to getting money out quickly
Albert Sumell	Youngstown State University	Strongly Agree	10	Bottom up stimulus is much more effective than top down. Households making less than $75,000 spend a much larger proportion of their stimulus than households making more than $75,000.
Thomas Traynor	Wright State University	Agree	9
Ejindu Ume	Miami University	Strongly Agree	9
Mark Votruba	Case Western Reserve University	Agree	8
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	7
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Strongly Agree	9
Rachel Wilson	Wittenberg University	Disagree	8