Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a good problem to have if you actually made a good bit of money. The income limit for the stimulus was $100K for a single so someone making $101K living in San Francisco and is currently unemployed received absolutely not one cent in stimulus.
The cost of living disparities are astronomical between regions, $100K in San Francisco metro area is something like $50K in Omaha, Nebraska.
So not accounting for this is a massive flaw. Looks like the proposals for the 2nd round of stimulus again do not account for any geographic adjustments. Now, they have all the time in the world, why aren't they doing it now?
I have always been of the opinion that nobody that has not lost their job should get anything, why should anyone get anything if they have not been impacted? This way funds, which are adding to the national debt, can be used more strategically and we can help more impacted people for longer if this thing takes a turn for the worse.
Again, people who aren’t directly impacted with a job loss may spend it more freely or differently. That’s an important aspect of a stimulus.
Also, I don’t think it’s possible not to be effected economically. I know many many people who had to take 20 to 25% pay cuts at their jobs. They still have a job, but maybe they still need stimulus.
I used my $2,400 stimulus to give to my parents as a bridge because my dad lost his job. My wife or I could lose our jobs at anytime. It’s unlikely, especially for me given my age/place in the companies aging staff, industry, and specialty, but it’s possible. Then we would already have an emergency fund of sorts.
I haven’t been effected with a job loss, but I had tens of thousands vaporized in the stock market. I’m sure my house value would suffer too. Trust me, I’d send the token 2,400 back to get that money back. We’ve all been economically impacted.
All this complaining about geographic differences is getting to be tiring.
Move to Omaha, Nebraska. You don't have to live in San Francisco. I don't hear Californians complaining when they sell their overpriced CA houses and move to cheaper locations, where their upscale buying drives up housing prices in those areas, and drives locals farther out. Talk to natives of Colorado, Montana, and Idaho, and see how much sympathy you get from them.
I agree with your last paragraph. Rather than helicoptering money down on nearly everyone, they should have added money to state unemployment accounts to cover those that lost their jobs.
I too grow tired of the complaining because high COL has its advantages. For one, you get the amenities, weather, ect which makes it a thriving and desirable place. One gets to pour more money with higher pay into retirement accounts and potentially get a bigger match. It also gives you relocation options to trade down to lower COL areas in retirement or a job relocation. The high cost of living areas also generally have the career options, so you can jump for more promotions and pay simply because there’s more jobs. If it’s a desirable area, you also benefit from home appreciation once you acquire enough to bite the bullet and get in the game.
It’s just a pointless complaint. There’s varying cost of living in the country. You have to put up with downsides in any one of them.
You could always go somewhere dirt cheap with no jobs and a declining area...but then that cheap house comes with a low paying job that’s not a career, and you still don’t have a good standard of living because the house seems expensive to you anyways and you live in an area that for reasons xyz isn’t desirable.
I am statistically in the top 3% net worth excluding value of a primary residence, but I am retired and don't receive a huge amount of taxable income. I don't get Social Security yet either, just a company pension and bond dividends. I got the stimulus check three days ago, because my taxable income was below the cutoff.
The purpose of the stimulus was to get it out quickly. It’s like how they didn’t garnish people’s stimulus for unpaid taxes. Is that “fair”? No. But there’s “no time for caution”.
Also, sometimes it’s important for well off people to get stimulus because they’ll spend it in different ways. A struggling family might spend it on groceries. Where a couple making 100k might spend it on a bathroom remodel or on eating out or a hotel stay. It helps stimulate different areas of the economy, which helps to mitigate economic damage there.
By that reasoning there should have been no income qualifiers at all, since there was no scaling based on regional cost of living and what you made last year does not mean you are making that currently.
I agree with your last paragraph. Rather than helicoptering money down on nearly everyone, they should have added money to state unemployment accounts to cover those that lost their jobs.
Pretty much did.
I work in the POS field. We've got restaurants allowed to reopen inside dining come Monday. Their employees (mostly wait staff) are doing their damndest to not come back to continue collecting, basicially $50k a year in unemployment.
One place I'm dealing with now is going to continue to do drive thru and curbside only simply due to a lack of staff.
I sold a bunch of stock last year to finance a house purchase and the capital gains made my AGI near the limit, so we barely qualified and if we do get money, it will be only around $300. I filed and paid my taxes in February so they used 2019 to determine qualification. Any other year we would have qualified for the entire amount.
Whatever.
So if your 2020 taxable income will show you qualify for the full amount you’ll get it with your 2020 tax return.
By that reasoning there should have been no income qualifiers at all, since there was no scaling based on regional cost of living and what you made last year does not mean you are making that currently.
No, that that’s just using extremes. That doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying at all.
Of course there’s a cap, there’s a cap on tons of tax items for budgetary reasons, and also for the optics of giving money to people who potentially could be making millions. It’s also a marginal utility of money consideration. $1,200 to someone making $75,000 still means something. $1,200 to someone making $300,000 is basically immaterial and irrelevant to them from a marginal utility perspective.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,070 posts, read 7,505,741 times
Reputation: 9796
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingsaucermom
Ha! ...
I'm not complaining. We owe $5k in income taxes and $3k in property taxes and we are able to push all of it back at least several months which allowed us to move up the mortgage payoff to... yesterday!
Congratulations, FSM on the achievement.
So what are you getting/doing for MOMday?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
