[ALittleLight]

I never said that it was inflationary in the California case. I don't think it is. As to whether or not the state should send checks to everyone - I don't really know anything about it and so don't have a firm opinion. My intuition is that individuals will likely spend the money better than the state would have, so that's good, and it's probably an indication that taxes are too high if the state has a big surplus.

[abeppu]

California doesn't distinguish between capital gains and other income, and both are taxed on a progressive bracket system. In years where lots of rich people realize gains, the state has more income. Plus wage growth.

But Keynes advocated that governments should have surpluses in good times and spend more in bad ones. Normally because the state isn't able to carry a continuing large surplus, this isn't possible; it has to cut in lean years and give rebates otherwise. It's only in this short period of reversal in consecutive years that we can approach that policy. I'm guessing the same checks would have done more good if they could have waited until 2023 or later.