It was already absurd when Elon Musk suggested stimulus payments funded by DOGE’s nonexistent reserves. Now, the proponent of the checks has made it clear that if they do happen, low-income Americans will be excluded, prioritizing their “symbolism” over actual monetary value.
Recently, investor James Fishback took to X with his idea that DOGE distribute “dividends” or stimulus checks to American taxpayers funded by the department’s government reserves. He proposed that the department could provide all taxpayers with $5,000 next summer, which would only represent 20% of DOGE’s claimed savings. Musk showed interest and stated he would consult with Donald Trump about moving forward with these dividends. The only issue is that DOGE’s savings haven’t materialized yet. While the company asserts it has saved billions, NPR estimates their actual reserves to be around $2 billion. The notion that these savings could escalate from $2 billion to $1 trillion within a year is quite unbelievable.
Needless to say, Musk’s purported enthusiasm for the DOGE dividends feels very premature and performative. The situation has only escalated as Fishback clarified that low-income Americans would not qualify for the potential checks, and that Musk is not obligated to fulfill the initial $5,000 promise since the “symbolism” of the checks is what truly matters.
DOGE’s nonexistent dividends somehow got even more absurd
In a recent interview with NBC News, Fishback confirmed that his DOGE dividend plan will exclude low-income Americans. Many assumed his proposal included all taxpayers, but it actually contained an important caveat. It states that the checks would go only to “net-income” taxpayers, meaning those who pay more in taxes than they receive back. Given that the U.S. has a progressive tax system, wealthier individuals typically become net-income taxpayers, leaving most low-income Americans ineligible for the proposed dividend.
In his discussion with NBC, Fishback further justified limiting the checks to net-income taxpayers, arguing it would mitigate inflation risks. A key concern with the proposed checks is their potential to elevate inflation. Therefore, he believes excluding those who stand to benefit the most from the money is a natural solution. He also contended that wealthier Americans would manage their DOGE dividends more prudently, helping to avoid inflation. He explained:
Tax-paying households are more likely to save (not spend) a transfer payment like the DOGE Dividend as consumption constitutes a smaller portion of their income. … There is nothing inflationary about paying off debt, saving for emergencies, or investing in education or retirement. In fact, debt repayments are actually deflationary.
This clarification is bound to be shocking for Trump supporters who believed the checks were legitimate and would function similarly to a new round of stimulus payments. They appear almost meaningless if they aren’t reaching those who truly need them. Even Fishback conceded that these checks may not stimulate the economy whatsoever. They merely serve as handouts for the affluent who don’t require them.
It would be disheartening if these checks materialize and low-income Americans witness the wealthiest households receiving $5,000. Yet, this scenario is improbable, as Fishback stated, “it’s not about the dollar amount.” He acknowledged that DOGE may not possess enough funds to distribute $5,000 and hinted that checks could fall to something closer to $1,250 or less. He defended the checks potentially being lower than promised by stating, “It’s about the symbolism of the government sending money back in the form of restitution to compensate hardworking Americans.”
Thus, wealthy Americans might end up receiving a “symbolic” $1 check from DOGE next year rather than the initially proclaimed $5,000 dividends, as it is merely the symbolism that holds importance. The billionaires have crafted a situation where they can look down on low-income Americans who receive nothing, while even the wealthier Americans find their long-anticipated stimulus checks contain only a paltry symbolic amount.
