What if the next stimulus check was only for people with incomes less than $100K ? (taxes, financial)

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by jonbenson

whatever figure you like which is high enough to cover any city , it could be $300,000 per household with exceptions for above 3 children

pick any figure you think is reasonable.

The point is people above a certain amount would not get a check

Personally, what I think should be done is give everyone the money, then claw it back next year based on 2020's income taxes. The damage is so widespread out there by 2019 taxes are meaningless for the majority of people.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

My opinion is that there should never have been any stimulus money. It should have stopped at some extra money for hospitals and some help for states with the unemployment checks.


People who still had jobs did not need any extra money, they had a paycheck. People on welfare didn't deserve any extra bonus money, they already had their needs paid for. There was never any reason whatsoever to hand out chunks of cash to everyone in the country.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by jonbenson

whatever figure you like which is high enough to cover any city , it could be $300,000 per household with exceptions for above 3 children

pick any figure you think is reasonable.

The point is people above a certain amount would not get a check

You're actually jumping past the key issue: How you determine the amount? Most everyone's believe will be that the cutoff point should be high enough that they get it, but that anyone who makes more shouldn't get it.

And, even bigger, is how we will pay for it in the long term. That will be a drag on the economy far longer than COVID will be around.

[KCZ]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

Personally, what I think should be done is give everyone the money, then claw it back next year based on 2020's income taxes. The damage is so widespread out there by 2019 taxes are meaningless for the majority of people.

The people making more are going to be clawed when the govt tries to recoup some of the >$3T already dispersed in federal pandemic aid programs, but it will never be completely paid off just added to the national debt.

[athena53]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

My opinion is that there should never have been any stimulus money. It should have stopped at some extra money for hospitals and some help for states with the unemployment checks.


People who still had jobs did not need any extra money, they had a paycheck. People on welfare didn't deserve any extra bonus money, they already had their needs paid for. There was never any reason whatsoever to hand out chunks of cash to everyone in the country.

Well, it wasn't everyone. I didn't get a dime because I was over the income level. I guess I should be happy about that. It wasn't perfect- they wanted to get money out as quickly as possible rather than dither over details. This did result in some mistakes, such as issuing them to people who had died last year and then saying that that money should be returned. And of course some people who made over the limits in 2019 might have been unemployed this year, so didn't get anything.

Based on what I saw in numerous discussions here and on another Board, about 1/3 spent it just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads or gave it to people in that situation, another 1/3 paid down debt and another 1/3 spent it on things that would genuinely stimulate the economy- mostly home improvements that might not have gotten done otherwise.

Clawbacks, suggested by another poster, based on your actual 2020 income, would be HUGELY unpopular. I have a friend who got the extra unemployment because the dentist's office where she worked closed for a few months. She was MOST unhappy to find out she'll owe taxes on that next year.

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by jonbenson

What if the next stimulus check was only for people with incomes less than $100K or pick another figure.


advantage:
The government would save a lot of money and there would be less debt


disadvantage:
some people 100k and up might feel it was unfair

__________________________________________________ _________


but overall would it be better or worse for the country?

I'm guessing that you're not aware there was a phaseout.

What if ONLY those who didn't lose their jobs, but did lose wages got stimulus?

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by tnff

You're actually jumping past the key issue: How you determine the amount? Most everyone's believe will be that the cutoff point should be high enough that they get it, but that anyone who makes more shouldn't get it.

And, even bigger, is how we will pay for it in the long term. That will be a drag on the economy far longer than COVID will be around.

We didn't - and don't - need to stimulate the economy yet.

As to determining an amount, if one doesn't want the "lost wages but still working" aspect, then perhaps anybody with wages > $10K (part-time) but less than 2x median income for your state or county (they measure median by individual and household). Or any ratio they can agree on.

The $1,200 was rushed out in a panic - "See, we're doing something!!" There doesn't seem to be any thought or research (what DID happen with that money?) done into a 2nd round.

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by athena53

...
Clawbacks, suggested by another poster, based on your actual 2020 income, would be HUGELY unpopular. I have a friend who got the extra unemployment because the dentist's office where she worked closed for a few months. She was MOST unhappy to find out she'll owe taxes on that next year.

So she got paid, and will owe taxes on it. She's mad she got paid, or mad she got more than 100% of regular wages and thus her tax bill will be higher?

[athena53]

Originally Posted by BoBromhal

So she got paid, and will owe taxes on it. She's mad she got paid, or mad she got more than 100% of regular wages and thus her tax bill will be higher?

I wouldn't say she's mad. It was just an unhappy surprise. Fortunately, I believe she was holding onto it for "someday" and now realizes part of it will go to pay taxes. I'm afraid there will be many more who discover this in April and will have spent the money.

I'm OK with taxing unemployment- I know it's always been done. I'm just not sure it was made clear to the people who got it in response to the CARES Act that it wasn't just Free Money from Uncle Sugar.

[HJ99]

I didnt get first one and I qualified and have filed yearly tax return forever. So not too worried about a second one. I'd say limit it to those making $50k and under. They will be more likely to need it, spend it, and actually stimulate the economy. Those that just stick it in their brokerage account really dont need it and arent going to spend it any time soon.