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.
^ woman will have received $10,500 tax- free, across the 3 Stimuluse that crossed two different Senate Majorities and Presidents. It’s gravy if she has not been financially impacted by COVID.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say a majority of people were not financially impacted by COVID. By this, my intent is not to diminish the profound impact on many people.
The way all three Stimulus have been structured is that amounts phase out at higher incomes. It assumes those with higher incomes were not impacted when in reality, some were.
There’s 50 million + people, 65 and older. The vast majority are not employed. Their SS and pensions were never at risk. Yet, most have qualified for Stimulus. Same deal for those receiving SSDI.
It’s called a Stimulus for a reason. The intent is for people to spend the funds and stimulate the economy.
That the woman you know with 3 kids intends a lavish vacation is the point. That the next guy may buy a new car is the point.
IMO that is the problem. The money should be a relief fund for those who actually suffered a financial hit from job loss and business closings, employees and small businesses.
Speaking for the guy buying the new truck, he would have anyway this just saves him some money.
If you are single and childless, you will receive $ 1400 under the Rescue Act. A family of four would receive $ 11,600 ( I have included the child tax credits in this calculation); more if the children are under 6.
I know raising kids is expensive. But this variance seems a bit out of proportion. 12K is a down payment on a house. $ 1400 covers one month of rent in a metro area.
Did I miscalculate? What are your thoughts on this?
12 K might cover taxes on a house where I live. It's no where even close to a downpayment on a house in NY. Nope. Rent in a metro area starts at 2500 .
That's not a given. A lot of people make too much money and will get zilch.
Statistically most people don't make that much money not to get the dough or at least not on their W2s. The vast majority of Americans do NOT make over 75k or whatever.
This is a MASSIVE wealth distribution scheme by the democrats! So people on welfare with tons of kids who don’t pay a single penny in federal income tax make out like bandits. Meanwhile, the working stiff being responsible etc gets screwed? WTH? How can anyone support this bill?
Trump was the one who called for "more than $2000.00".
If you don't like it, that is a reasonable position, but blaming it as a scheme by the Democrats, when it was first proposed by Trump, that is a bit disingenuous.
I stated earlier in this discussion, my household will receive $2800 but I don't think we should. I'll accept the money, but much of it will go to local charity and local business. I would have preferred to see them make the cut off at about $40k/80k (just over half what it is now), and use the extra money to extend benefits to those who need it most.
I'm glad to see that we have some leadership now, and that infection, hospitalization and death rates are coming down, while vaccination rates are going up. If we are smart, and ever so slightly patient, we MIGHT have this thing under control in a couple/few months. Then the payments will not be necessary.
single women overwhelmingly voted for democrats and joe biden in the last election. married women voted for trump.
single men may have voted in the majority for joe and democrats, too. i could not easily find, perhaps someone else can, that demographic's voting record in 2020.
So when you cast your vote how do they know if that vote was a male or female vote?
If you're 1 person you get the allotted amount for 1 person.
If you're a couple, you get the allotted amount for 2 people.
If you're a family, you get the allotted amount for each adult and child (is there a limit on children? maybe.)
You're not getting shafted if you are 1 person and you get the amount for 1 person. This is fair.
Children are people and citizens too, but a lot of you act like they are nothing but an inconvenient personal responsibility that don't deserve to be recognized by the government. Children are in our national interest and promoting their well being is in our national interest.
It's a STIMULUS. Take the money and go spend it. That's the point. Spending money creates and preserves jobs.
Not shutting businesses down keeps jobs from disappearing. Unemployment was very low before the shutdowns.
So people go blow that 1400 now. You will add to Amazon's Wal Marts, etc. profit margin with your new stuff. I'm guessing little of that stimulus is going to be able to reopen those businesses that shut down. But that 1.9 trillion is a debt that will have to be repaid via taxes. So it wont take long before taxes go up and the working class has less disposable income. I wonder how many years it will take for each person to have lost 1400 dollars of disposable income paying higher taxes.
You have a problem with that? How about having a wife that only gets 4 full paid weeks for a pregnancy. The rest of it not paid in full. Some mothers get zilch. Something really wrong with this picture that a developed advanced country that can not even provide this. Another word would be selfish self centered population. I don't want to pay taxes for lazy people excuse. Stop asking why there is high crime and division in this great ole USA. Extremes are growing.
The central question is, whether society regards the production of new children as a public-good? If so, then there is merit in "everyone" pitching-in, whether they themselves reproduce, or not. Then, those who don't reproduce, can reasonably be expected to subsidize, those who do... just as for example we have civilians subsidizing those who serve in the military, because most societies at most times decide that supporting a standing-army is a public good.
But... there are also questions of limits and fairness. How much subsidy of parents, by non-parents, is reasonable? How precious is the public-good, of producing more children? How many incentives are reasonable? How many dis-incentives for being child-free, are reasonable? These are all foundational questions, that remain unsettled.
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 03-11-2021 at 02:08 PM..
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.
