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

[lieqiang]

Originally Posted by athena53

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.

If govt gives you $1,200 and you have to pay $100 in taxes on it, then it's free money. $1,100 of it.

It's free money until the tax rate exceeds 100%.

[bus man]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

Same here - not a cent from the first and really don't need it but could have used it.

What does concern me is that the basis for getting the stimulus is 2018/9 - not 2020. So someone that made significant amount in 2018 but now is retired gets nothing - should be based on 2020.

When they rushed out the first stimulus, not everyone had filed their taxes yet. It would have been a logistical nightmare to try and figure out eligibility based on 2019 (the year for which tax returns had yet to be filed, by some people) and 2018 (the previous tax year, for which everyone had already filed) for others. Far easier to just pick 2018 (since that tax year was already over and done with) and get the money out quickly.

If there's going to be another round, they ought to use the 2019 tax year as a basis, since the filing deadline has passed.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by bus man

When they rushed out the first stimulus, not everyone had filed their taxes yet. It would have been a logistical nightmare to try and figure out eligibility based on 2019 (the year for which tax returns had yet to be filed, by some people) and 2018 (the previous tax year, for which everyone had already filed) for others. Far easier to just pick 2018 (since that tax year was already over and done with) and get the money out quickly.

If there's going to be another round, they ought to use the 2019 tax year as a basis, since the filing deadline has passed.

I understand what they did - There are other ways to determine eligibility based on likely 2020 income.

Also there are many that have not filed 2019 tax returns - the 2019 filing deadline is October 15, the previous date was for paying taxes, not filing taxes, we have not filed yet. We are not eligible based on 2018 income and looks like not in 2019 because DW was still working - we would be eligible if used 2020 because both now retired.

[SuiteLiving]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

I understand what they did - There are other ways to determine eligibility based on likely 2020 income.

Also there are many that have not filed 2019 tax returns - the 2019 filing deadline is October 15, the previous date was for paying taxes, not filing taxes, we have not filed yet. We are not eligible based on 2018 income and looks like not in 2019 because DW was still working - we would be eligible if used 2020 because both now retired.

If you're eligible based on 2020 income, you'll get your money with your 2020 tax return.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by 1ondoner

I did not get a cent of the first stimulus and I'm OK with that. I could have done with the extra $$$ but I consider myself fortunate enough not to need the $$$.

#MeToo

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by BJfromVA

I'm curious, Did the last stimulus checks help the economy?

It certainly helped China's economy.

Lots of stimulus money was spent at Walmart, Target & Costco -- thus helping China's economy. I even saw a bag of frozen edamame (soybeans) at Costco - from China. We grow soybeans in this country, and still some of it comes from China. smh.

[Sunbiz1]

Originally Posted by Thatsright19

A person making more, might go blow it on a hotel stay. That’s directly helping lower income hotel employees stay working, ect. They might spend it on eating out with family...stimulating restaurant employees.

That's what I did, and tipped employees well.
However, there are long-term downsides in this approach; mainly in the form of dollar devaluation/inflation.
Evidenced recently by precious metals rising in value.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by athena53

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.

What if you're clawing the stimulus back based on people filing on over $100,000 AGI this year? Someone filing on $100,000 was likely not in dire financial straits.

The problem is that many people who were relatively high income in 2019, especially those in certain sectors like events, restaurants, hotels, etc., could very well be out on their ass since March.

Some hotel high up in NYC that made $150k last year may be making very little this year. They deserve the stimulus more than the guy in flyover country making $97k who has been working continuously.

[Rachel976]

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?

It would be better for the country to limit the additional debt.

That said, people earning over $100k shouldn’t need government aid.

[Rachel976]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

What if you're clawing the stimulus back based on people filing on over $100,000 AGI this year? Someone filing on $100,000 was likely not in dire financial straits.

The problem is that many people who were relatively high income in 2019, especially those in certain sectors like events, restaurants, hotels, etc., could very well be out on their ass since March.

Some hotel high up in NYC that made $150k last year may be making very little this year. They deserve the stimulus more than the guy in flyover country making $97k who has been working continuously.

Someone who earned $150k last year should have a decent savings cushion. If he doesn’t, he spent more than he could afford.