亚色在线观看_亚洲人成a片高清在线观看不卡_亚洲中文无码亚洲人成频_免费在线黄片,69精品视频九九精品视频,美女大黄三级,人人干人人g,全新av网站每日更新播放,亚洲三及片,wwww无码视频,亚洲中文字幕无码一区在线

首頁 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 商潮 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

加拿大的疫情措施,能給美國(guó)社會(huì)保障制度帶來哪些啟示,?

Tracey Lindeman
2020-11-07

加拿大的抗疫有很多地方值得美國(guó)借鑒,。

文本設(shè)置
小號(hào)
默認(rèn)
大號(hào)
Plus(0條)

對(duì)許多美國(guó)人來說,,在新冠疫情期間獲取經(jīng)濟(jì)救助就像是在追逐地平線上的一個(gè)小點(diǎn):當(dāng)你靠得更近時(shí),,它會(huì)突然離你更遠(yuǎn)。

有些人從來沒有領(lǐng)到過補(bǔ)助,。哥倫比亞大學(xué)(Columbia University)在10月發(fā)布的研究報(bào)告顯示,雖然《冠狀病毒援助,、救濟(jì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)安全法案》(CARES Act)慷慨發(fā)放了2.2萬億美元的失業(yè)補(bǔ)助,,但美國(guó)最貧困人群的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況目前卻變得更差。研究人員表示,截至9月,,“黑人和拉丁裔美國(guó)人的月貧困率分別為25.2%和25.8%,,而白人的月貧困率只有12%?!?/p>

州政府繁瑣的官僚手續(xù),、過時(shí)的計(jì)算機(jī)系統(tǒng)和有些州反福利的態(tài)度,導(dǎo)致許多人無法及時(shí)獲得幫助,。在佛羅里達(dá)等地,,人們一直等到夏天才領(lǐng)到失業(yè)補(bǔ)助。佛羅里達(dá)州近四分之一人口是拉丁裔,。結(jié)果導(dǎo)致當(dāng)?shù)厝说馁~單逾期,,食物銀行前排起長(zhǎng)龍,人們的財(cái)務(wù)狀況每況愈下,。Evercore ISI的政策經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家厄尼·特德斯基告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,,在人們終于領(lǐng)到補(bǔ)助之后,約三分之一被用于償還債務(wù),;三分之一用于消費(fèi)(主要是食物),;三分之一被存入銀行。7月31日,,600美元額外失業(yè)補(bǔ)助到期,,300美元工資損失援助項(xiàng)目也即將到期,這意味著人們將很快用光自己的儲(chǔ)蓄,。

與此同時(shí),,布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)(Brookings Institution)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家加利·伯特里斯表示,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)目前主要依靠低收入家庭的消費(fèi)支撐,。他說:“消費(fèi)下降幅度最大的是高收入群體,。”

《財(cái)富》雜志采訪的研究人員和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家表示,,沒有及時(shí)高效地集中提供救助,,以及失業(yè)補(bǔ)助和其他救助措施錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的手續(xù),是給美國(guó)人造成嚴(yán)重經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的主要原因,。

這種情況本可以避免,。

在鄰國(guó)加拿大,加拿大國(guó)民只要在聯(lián)邦稅務(wù)局的網(wǎng)站上在線填寫好表格,,三天后他們的銀行賬戶中就會(huì)直接存入2,000加元,。不列顛哥倫比亞大學(xué)(University of British Columbia)專門研究憲法與社會(huì)正義問題的法律教授馬戈特·楊說:“有了這筆錢,人們就可以做到在疫情期間必須要做的事情,,比如待在家里或者不坐公共汽車上班等,?!?/p>

加拿大的援助計(jì)劃名為“加拿大經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇福利”(Canadian Economic Recovery Benefit),惠及近900萬人,,占到總?cè)丝诘慕姆种?。?月啟動(dòng)該計(jì)劃以來,加拿大政府共發(fā)放了810億加元(約合610億美元)的福利金,,并且發(fā)放時(shí)間能夠追溯到3月15日,。該計(jì)劃于10月終止后,并入了改革后的失業(yè)保障制度,。自雇人員和零工人員都被納入了失業(yè)保障范圍,。

加拿大不是疫情期間的烏托邦,“加拿大經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇福利”計(jì)劃也沒有覆蓋所有人,。該計(jì)劃最初針對(duì)的是完全失業(yè)人口,;后來更新之后,月收入低于1,000加元的人員也符合該計(jì)劃的資格,。每月領(lǐng)取福利不足2,000加元的殘疾人對(duì)此非常不滿,;他們現(xiàn)在有證據(jù)證明,他們以前領(lǐng)取的福利水平低于政府確定的最低生活工資,。找不到暑期工作的學(xué)生在暑假每個(gè)月只能領(lǐng)到1,250加元,,另外尤其是在農(nóng)業(yè)和食品加工業(yè)的外來勞工當(dāng)中爆發(fā)了新冠疫情,但加拿大各省的準(zhǔn)備不足,。女性受到新冠疫情的影響尤其嚴(yán)重,,因?yàn)樗齻円袚?dān)更多在家教育子女和照顧老幼的責(zé)任。加拿大還向小企業(yè)提供了40,000加元免息應(yīng)急貸款,,推出了住房抵押貸款六個(gè)月延期還款計(jì)劃,,并且發(fā)布了驅(qū)趕租客臨時(shí)禁令,這些措施當(dāng)然能夠解決燃眉之急,,但它們也只是推遲了不可避免的沖突,。

加拿大著名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家、阿特金森基金會(huì)未來工作者研究員阿邁恩·雅尼恩告訴《財(cái)富》雜志:“與美國(guó)相比,,加拿大確實(shí)為更多國(guó)民提供了更多幫助,,政策更加連貫。我們得到的回報(bào)是,,到目前為止,,加拿大的就業(yè)恢復(fù)更穩(wěn)健,破產(chǎn)企業(yè)的數(shù)量更少,?!苯衲?月的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)顯示,加拿大的勞動(dòng)力參與率為64.8%,,而美國(guó)只有61.4%,。此外,,加拿大第三季度的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)速度比美國(guó)高出16個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。

加拿大的新冠肺炎感染者和死亡人數(shù),,在總?cè)丝谥兴嫉谋壤 8鶕?jù)人口規(guī)模差異進(jìn)行調(diào)整后,,加拿大的死亡病例和確診病例分別只有美國(guó)的三分之一和五分之一,。這一結(jié)果要部分歸功于加拿大的緊急補(bǔ)助措施,使人們可以更快居家隔離,。醫(yī)療是加拿大社會(huì)保障網(wǎng)中最重要也是最顯而易見的一部分?,F(xiàn)在還無法確定加拿大的全民單一支付者醫(yī)療體系在應(yīng)對(duì)疫情方面所發(fā)揮的作用。但波士頓大學(xué)(Boston University)的健康法,、政策與管理副教授保羅·謝弗表示,,數(shù)據(jù)顯示在美國(guó)沒有擴(kuò)大醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助的州,人們的處境更糟糕,,因?yàn)獒t(yī)療保險(xiǎn)與就業(yè)的關(guān)系更密切,。

謝弗表示:“城市研究所(Urban Institute)的一些數(shù)據(jù)顯示,在沒有擴(kuò)大醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助的州,,一個(gè)家庭中失業(yè)的成年人失去保險(xiǎn)的概率會(huì)提高近三倍,。所以,在疫情期間你能得到怎樣的支持,,歸根結(jié)底還是要看你住在哪里,。”

但無論你身在何處,,接下來每個(gè)人都要考慮如何管理債務(wù)和組織債務(wù)減免,。將疫情期間的債務(wù)政治化,會(huì)導(dǎo)致各級(jí)政府的運(yùn)行在未來幾年出現(xiàn)動(dòng)蕩,。

在美國(guó),,“不該動(dòng)用公帑”的情緒非常強(qiáng)烈,這種情緒一直以來都是美國(guó)系統(tǒng)性削弱社會(huì)保障網(wǎng)絡(luò)的基礎(chǔ),。加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校(UCLA)的馬丁·吉倫斯教授在他的《美國(guó)人為什么討厭福利制度》(Why Americans Hate Welfare)一書中提到,,個(gè)人主義、經(jīng)濟(jì)上的利己主義,、對(duì)于“不配”享受福利的人群的比喻以及種族主義等,,形成了美國(guó)人對(duì)于通過稅收進(jìn)行財(cái)富再分配這種方式的態(tài)度。

加拿大確實(shí)有更強(qiáng)大的社會(huì)保障網(wǎng)和集體主義思維,,但雅尼恩認(rèn)為,,由聯(lián)邦政府持有疫情產(chǎn)生的債務(wù)而不是由個(gè)人承擔(dān),在經(jīng)濟(jì)上有合理的理由,。

她說:“你當(dāng)然可以說失業(yè)的家庭應(yīng)該承擔(dān)債務(wù),,但用這種方式承擔(dān)債務(wù)的成本最高,。”家庭要為債務(wù)支付更高的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溢價(jià),,比如信用卡和信貸額度的利息等,,而且最貧困的家庭往往借款成本越高,因?yàn)樗麄冏钣锌赡苁褂妹耖g借貸,,比如高息工資日貸款等,。家庭債務(wù)在系統(tǒng)中存在的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng),所有人的情況就會(huì)變得越糟糕,。

雅尼恩用債務(wù)成本對(duì)此進(jìn)行了解釋,。她說:“家庭的借貸成本高于小企業(yè);小企業(yè)的借貸成本高于大企業(yè),;大企業(yè)的借貸成本高于市政府,;市政府的借貸成本高于省(或州)政府,;?。ɑ蛑荩┱慕栀J成本高于聯(lián)邦政府?!?/p>

她繼續(xù)說道:“由聯(lián)邦政府償還貸款和借貸的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最低,,所以在債務(wù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中,聯(lián)邦政府的借貸成本最低,。而由于疫情的原因,,債務(wù)水平正在持續(xù)上升。所以,,如果你是真正的財(cái)政保守派,,你會(huì)希望債務(wù)系統(tǒng)向貸款機(jī)構(gòu)支付最少的資金,這就需要由聯(lián)邦政府來承擔(dān)債務(wù),?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))

翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍

審校:汪皓

對(duì)許多美國(guó)人來說,在新冠疫情期間獲取經(jīng)濟(jì)救助就像是在追逐地平線上的一個(gè)小點(diǎn):當(dāng)你靠得更近時(shí),,它會(huì)突然離你更遠(yuǎn),。

有些人從來沒有領(lǐng)到過補(bǔ)助。哥倫比亞大學(xué)(Columbia University)在10月發(fā)布的研究報(bào)告顯示,,雖然《冠狀病毒援助,、救濟(jì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)安全法案》(CARES Act)慷慨發(fā)放了2.2萬億美元的失業(yè)補(bǔ)助,但美國(guó)最貧困人群的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況目前卻變得更差,。研究人員表示,,截至9月,“黑人和拉丁裔美國(guó)人的月貧困率分別為25.2%和25.8%,,而白人的月貧困率只有12%,?!?/p>

州政府繁瑣的官僚手續(xù)、過時(shí)的計(jì)算機(jī)系統(tǒng)和有些州反福利的態(tài)度,,導(dǎo)致許多人無法及時(shí)獲得幫助,。在佛羅里達(dá)等地,人們一直等到夏天才領(lǐng)到失業(yè)補(bǔ)助,。佛羅里達(dá)州近四分之一人口是拉丁裔,。結(jié)果導(dǎo)致當(dāng)?shù)厝说馁~單逾期,食物銀行前排起長(zhǎng)龍,,人們的財(cái)務(wù)狀況每況愈下。Evercore ISI的政策經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家厄尼·特德斯基告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,,在人們終于領(lǐng)到補(bǔ)助之后,,約三分之一被用于償還債務(wù);三分之一用于消費(fèi)(主要是食物),;三分之一被存入銀行,。7月31日,600美元額外失業(yè)補(bǔ)助到期,,300美元工資損失援助項(xiàng)目也即將到期,,這意味著人們將很快用光自己的儲(chǔ)蓄。

與此同時(shí),,布魯金斯學(xué)會(huì)(Brookings Institution)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家加利·伯特里斯表示,,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)目前主要依靠低收入家庭的消費(fèi)支撐。他說:“消費(fèi)下降幅度最大的是高收入群體,?!?/p>

《財(cái)富》雜志采訪的研究人員和經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家表示,沒有及時(shí)高效地集中提供救助,,以及失業(yè)補(bǔ)助和其他救助措施錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的手續(xù),,是給美國(guó)人造成嚴(yán)重經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的主要原因。

這種情況本可以避免,。

在鄰國(guó)加拿大,,加拿大國(guó)民只要在聯(lián)邦稅務(wù)局的網(wǎng)站上在線填寫好表格,三天后他們的銀行賬戶中就會(huì)直接存入2,000加元,。不列顛哥倫比亞大學(xué)(University of British Columbia)專門研究憲法與社會(huì)正義問題的法律教授馬戈特·楊說:“有了這筆錢,,人們就可以做到在疫情期間必須要做的事情,比如待在家里或者不坐公共汽車上班等,?!?/p>

加拿大的援助計(jì)劃名為“加拿大經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇福利”(Canadian Economic Recovery Benefit),惠及近900萬人,,占到總?cè)丝诘慕姆种?。?月啟動(dòng)該計(jì)劃以來,,加拿大政府共發(fā)放了810億加元(約合610億美元)的福利金,并且發(fā)放時(shí)間能夠追溯到3月15日,。該計(jì)劃于10月終止后,,并入了改革后的失業(yè)保障制度。自雇人員和零工人員都被納入了失業(yè)保障范圍,。

加拿大不是疫情期間的烏托邦,,“加拿大經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇福利”計(jì)劃也沒有覆蓋所有人。該計(jì)劃最初針對(duì)的是完全失業(yè)人口,;后來更新之后,,月收入低于1,000加元的人員也符合該計(jì)劃的資格。每月領(lǐng)取福利不足2,000加元的殘疾人對(duì)此非常不滿,;他們現(xiàn)在有證據(jù)證明,,他們以前領(lǐng)取的福利水平低于政府確定的最低生活工資。找不到暑期工作的學(xué)生在暑假每個(gè)月只能領(lǐng)到1,250加元,,另外尤其是在農(nóng)業(yè)和食品加工業(yè)的外來勞工當(dāng)中爆發(fā)了新冠疫情,,但加拿大各省的準(zhǔn)備不足。女性受到新冠疫情的影響尤其嚴(yán)重,,因?yàn)樗齻円袚?dān)更多在家教育子女和照顧老幼的責(zé)任,。加拿大還向小企業(yè)提供了40,000加元免息應(yīng)急貸款,推出了住房抵押貸款六個(gè)月延期還款計(jì)劃,,并且發(fā)布了驅(qū)趕租客臨時(shí)禁令,,這些措施當(dāng)然能夠解決燃眉之急,但它們也只是推遲了不可避免的沖突,。

加拿大著名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家,、阿特金森基金會(huì)未來工作者研究員阿邁恩·雅尼恩告訴《財(cái)富》雜志:“與美國(guó)相比,加拿大確實(shí)為更多國(guó)民提供了更多幫助,,政策更加連貫,。我們得到的回報(bào)是,到目前為止,,加拿大的就業(yè)恢復(fù)更穩(wěn)健,,破產(chǎn)企業(yè)的數(shù)量更少?!苯衲?月的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)顯示,,加拿大的勞動(dòng)力參與率為64.8%,而美國(guó)只有61.4%,。此外,,加拿大第三季度的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)速度比美國(guó)高出16個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。

加拿大的新冠肺炎感染者和死亡人數(shù),在總?cè)丝谥兴嫉谋壤?。根?jù)人口規(guī)模差異進(jìn)行調(diào)整后,,加拿大的死亡病例和確診病例分別只有美國(guó)的三分之一和五分之一。這一結(jié)果要部分歸功于加拿大的緊急補(bǔ)助措施,,使人們可以更快居家隔離,。醫(yī)療是加拿大社會(huì)保障網(wǎng)中最重要也是最顯而易見的一部分。現(xiàn)在還無法確定加拿大的全民單一支付者醫(yī)療體系在應(yīng)對(duì)疫情方面所發(fā)揮的作用,。但波士頓大學(xué)(Boston University)的健康法,、政策與管理副教授保羅·謝弗表示,數(shù)據(jù)顯示在美國(guó)沒有擴(kuò)大醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助的州,,人們的處境更糟糕,,因?yàn)獒t(yī)療保險(xiǎn)與就業(yè)的關(guān)系更密切。

謝弗表示:“城市研究所(Urban Institute)的一些數(shù)據(jù)顯示,,在沒有擴(kuò)大醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助的州,,一個(gè)家庭中失業(yè)的成年人失去保險(xiǎn)的概率會(huì)提高近三倍。所以,,在疫情期間你能得到怎樣的支持,歸根結(jié)底還是要看你住在哪里,?!?/p>

但無論你身在何處,接下來每個(gè)人都要考慮如何管理債務(wù)和組織債務(wù)減免,。將疫情期間的債務(wù)政治化,,會(huì)導(dǎo)致各級(jí)政府的運(yùn)行在未來幾年出現(xiàn)動(dòng)蕩。

在美國(guó),,“不該動(dòng)用公帑”的情緒非常強(qiáng)烈,,這種情緒一直以來都是美國(guó)系統(tǒng)性削弱社會(huì)保障網(wǎng)絡(luò)的基礎(chǔ)。加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校(UCLA)的馬丁·吉倫斯教授在他的《美國(guó)人為什么討厭福利制度》(Why Americans Hate Welfare)一書中提到,,個(gè)人主義,、經(jīng)濟(jì)上的利己主義、對(duì)于“不配”享受福利的人群的比喻以及種族主義等,,形成了美國(guó)人對(duì)于通過稅收進(jìn)行財(cái)富再分配這種方式的態(tài)度,。

加拿大確實(shí)有更強(qiáng)大的社會(huì)保障網(wǎng)和集體主義思維,但雅尼恩認(rèn)為,,由聯(lián)邦政府持有疫情產(chǎn)生的債務(wù)而不是由個(gè)人承擔(dān),,在經(jīng)濟(jì)上有合理的理由。

她說:“你當(dāng)然可以說失業(yè)的家庭應(yīng)該承擔(dān)債務(wù),,但用這種方式承擔(dān)債務(wù)的成本最高,。”家庭要為債務(wù)支付更高的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)溢價(jià),,比如信用卡和信貸額度的利息等,,而且最貧困的家庭往往借款成本越高,,因?yàn)樗麄冏钣锌赡苁褂妹耖g借貸,比如高息工資日貸款等,。家庭債務(wù)在系統(tǒng)中存在的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng),,所有人的情況就會(huì)變得越糟糕。

雅尼恩用債務(wù)成本對(duì)此進(jìn)行了解釋,。她說:“家庭的借貸成本高于小企業(yè),;小企業(yè)的借貸成本高于大企業(yè);大企業(yè)的借貸成本高于市政府,;市政府的借貸成本高于?。ɑ蛑荩┱皇,。ɑ蛑荩┱慕栀J成本高于聯(lián)邦政府,。”

她繼續(xù)說道:“由聯(lián)邦政府償還貸款和借貸的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最低,,所以在債務(wù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中,,聯(lián)邦政府的借貸成本最低。而由于疫情的原因,,債務(wù)水平正在持續(xù)上升,。所以,如果你是真正的財(cái)政保守派,,你會(huì)希望債務(wù)系統(tǒng)向貸款機(jī)構(gòu)支付最少的資金,,這就需要由聯(lián)邦政府來承擔(dān)債務(wù)?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))

翻譯:劉進(jìn)龍

審校:汪皓

For many Americans, accessing financial assistance during the pandemic has been like chasing a dot on the horizon: The closer you get, the further away it is.

And some people never catch it. Research from Columbia University published in October shows the poorest Americans are now even poorer, despite the generous top-up unemployment benefits paid out by the $2.2 trillion CARES Act. By September, the researchers noted, “the monthly poverty rate for Black and Hispanic individuals was 25.2% and 25.8%, respectively, compared to 12% for white individuals.”

Layers of state bureaucracy, outdated computer systems, and, in some states, anti-welfare attitudes kept timely help out of the reach of many. In states such as Florida, where about a quarter of the population is Latinx, people waited well into the summer to get their unemployment benefits. The result has been unpaid bills, long lines at food banks, and increasing difficulty at catching up financially. When people finally did get their benefits, Evercore ISI policy economist Ernie Tedeschi told Fortune that roughly one-third of it went to paying down debt; one-third was spent on consumption (mainly food); and one-third was put into savings. The July 31 expiration of the $600 unemployment add-on and the impending end of the $300 Lost Wages Assistance program means people will soon start running out of those savings.

At the same time, the American economy is being kept afloat primarily by low-income household spending, according to Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless. “The biggest proportional and absolute drops in spending have been on the part of higher income people,” he said.

The failures in timing and efficient, centralized disbursal of aid, plus the labyrinthine complexity of accessing unemployment benefits and other help, were key factors causing major financial damage to Americans, according to researchers and economists who spoke to Fortune.

It didn’t have to be that way.

On the other side of the U.S.–Canada border, Canadians received $2,000 deposited directly into their bank accounts three days after filling out an online form on the federal revenue agency’s website. “It gave people the ability to do what they had to do during the pandemic: stay home, not get on the bus to go to work, those sorts of things,” said Margot Young, a law professor specializing in constitutional and social justice issues at the University of British Columbia.

That Canadian assistance program, called the Canadian Economic Recovery Benefit (CERB), was accessed by nearly 9 million people—about a quarter of the population. In all, the Canadian government has paid out C$81 billion (about $61 billion in USD) in benefits since CERB’s April launch, which provided retroactive payments to March 15. In October, it ended and was folded into a newly reformed unemployment system expanded to include self-employed and gig workers.

Canada isn’t a utopia amidst the pandemic, and CERB didn’t catch everyone. Its initial version was designed for people who were totally unemployed; it was later updated to allow people earning up to C$1,000 a month to qualify. People on disability and welfare receiving less than $2,000 a month were angry; they now had proof they had been receiving less than what the government determined to be a livable wage. Students who couldn’t find a summer job received only $1,250 a month over the summer, and Canadian provinces were ill-prepared to cope as COVID swept through migrant worker populations, particularly those in agriculture and food processing. Women were disproportionately affected by the pandemic as they took on homeschooling and more caretaking duties of children and elders. Other measures—$40,000 interest-free emergency loans to small businesses, six-month mortgage deferrals, eviction moratoriums for renters—were badly needed lifelines, though they only pushed off inevitable strife.

“But certainly, Canada has done more, and more consistently, for more people than in the U.S. And we have been rewarded with much more robust job recovery and fewer business failures to date,” Armine Yalnizyan, a prominent Canadian economist and Atkinson fellow on the future of workers, tells Fortune. In September, statistics show Canada’s labor force participation was at 64.8%, compared with the U.S.’s 61.4%. Additionally, Canada’s third-quarter economic growth outpaced the United States’ by 16 percentage points.

Canada has also had a much smaller percentage of its population become sick with or die from COVID-19. Compared with U.S. figures, Canada has had one-third of the deaths and one-fifth of the confirmed infections, after adjusting for population size differences—an outcome partly owed to the speed of Canada’s emergency benefits, which enabled people to shelter in place faster. As for health care—the biggest piece of Canada’s social safety net and the elephant in the room—it’s still unknown what role the country's universal single-payer system played in those outcomes. However, as Boston University assistant professor of health law, policy, and management Paul Shafer noted, data indicates people in states without expanded Medicaid are faring worse because health insurance is more strongly tied to employment.

“There's some data from the Urban Institute that showed that in states that didn't expand Medicaid, adults within a family that lost a job were about three times more likely to become uninsured,” said Shafer. “So it goes back to this story of where you live has a lot to do with how well you're supported during this.”

Regardless of jurisdiction, though, managing debt and organizing debt forgiveness will be what comes next for everyone. The politicization of pandemic debt will cause governments at every level to rise and fall for years to come.

In the U.S., the “not on my taxpayer dime!” sentiment is strong, and it has long been an underpinning of the systematic weakening of the country’s social safety net. According to UCLA professor Martin Gilens’s book Why Americans Hate Welfare, individualism, economic self-interest, the trope of the “undeserving” welfare recipient, and racial discrimination each contribute to American attitudes on wealth redistribution through taxation.

Canada’s social safety net and collectivist mindset are stronger, yes, but Yalnizyan argues that there are sound economic reasons why it’s better for federal governments to hold pandemic debt instead of individualizing the debt.

“If you’re going to say households that lost their jobs should be shouldering the debt, that’s cool—but that’s the most costly form of carrying debt,” she said. Households pay higher risk premiums for debt—think interest rates on credit cards and lines of credit—and the poorest households often pay the most because they are the likeliest to turn to noninstitutional lending like high-interest payday loans. The longer household debt stays in the system, the worse off everyone is.

Yalnizyan explained that in terms of cost of debt, “households pay more than small businesses; small businesses pay more than big businesses; big businesses pay more than municipalities; municipalities pay more than provinces [or states]; and provinces [or states] pay more than the federal government.”

“The federal government has the least risk on paying back loans and for borrowing money, which makes it the lowest cost borrower in the ecosystem of debt. And debt is rising because of the pandemic,” she continued. “So if you are a true fiscal conservative, you will want the system of debt to be paying the least amount of money to the lenders—and that would be the federal level of government.”

財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為財(cái)富媒體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有,。未經(jīng)許可,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載,、摘編,、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
0條Plus
精彩評(píng)論
評(píng)論

撰寫或查看更多評(píng)論

請(qǐng)打開財(cái)富Plus APP

前往打開
熱讀文章