I'm a bit confused. My wife and I made slightly less than $150,000 last year.

[11 Bravo]

We live in Northern Virginia, in one of the most expensive enclaves within hundreds of square miles.
And we're doing just fine.
We have already talked about it, and agree that a stimulus payment to us would be superfluous. There are millions of American families who need that money way more than we do.

If we eventually receive a check, we will donate half to Doctors Without Borders, and half to a local food bank.

So I'll admit to being somewhat perplexed by the vehement opposition to lowering the threshold for stimulus checks.

[yardwork]

1. It becomes a campaign issue.

Biden promised $2,000 stimulus checks. When the Democrats whittle away at that, it looks like we're going back on a promise. This will be used against us in 2022.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

6. And the people who were promised $2000 will get $2000

$600+$1400 = $2000 which is what was the promise for people making $75K.

[choie]

24. People who earned $75,000

didn't receive $1,400, they received more like $600.

[Polly Hennessey]

30. I received $19.50.

Thank you soooooo much.

[aggiesal]

77. The first PPP under Pendejo45 last year, I got $1.35 n/t

[karynnj]

36. If they made less than $75,000 - They got $600 and will get another $1400.

Only above $75,000 does it taper down to zero.

The change is how quickly it tapers to zero.

[Rebl2]

91. That's for

an individual not a couple, right? Think the cut off is higher for couples. I take so many expensive meds, I can always use the help.

[karynnj]

135. Yes, I was responding to someone who asked about the case of a single taxpayer

For couples, the full amount is received if you are under $150,000. The point I was correcting was that even though the 2020 checks used the most recent available filed form, either 2018 or 2019, if your 2020 income was less, you got the amount you did not qualify for if your 2019 (or 2018) income was too high.

As to the cost of medicines, Congress really needs to look at how to fix that problem.

[HUAJIAO]

98. The $1400 hasn't gone out yet, just the $600

[George II]

107. Last year at roughly $75,000 we received the full $2400, in January we received the FIRST payment...

....of $600. Remember, the additional $1400 is in the current bill up for negotiation and vote.

What $600 and "didn't" $1400 are you referring to?

[Celerity]

115. IF the same cut off rates were kept for the 1400 cheque as were applied to the 600 cheque

then a person with 80K usd AGI would get 1150 usd out of the 1400 (reduced by $5 for every $100 of income earned above 75K AGI so 50 (5000 divided by 100) times 5 usd, which yields 250 usd, which is then taken from 1400, yielding 1150).

Under the new Manchin/Shaheen limits

they get zero (as the max income limit is now 80K),

Also, for those in the 75K usd AGI to 80K usd AGI cohort, the cutoff rates are far steeper once you pass 75K, with only a 5000 usd income zone to reduce the 1400 usd cheques to zero. A person making only 4K over the 75K usd start of reduction limit will see a 80% reduction in their cheque, so instead of a 1200 usd cheque under the previous formula, they will likely get only 280 usd. Just 2500 usd in extra, above-75K AGI likely reduces your cheque by half.

[Cha]

106. Exactly! I need the money But I

don't think I'm being Cheated out of $600 Bucks!

Course the Asshole Magats will use any Sleaze Shit for a "campaign issue"

[AZSkiffyGeek]

109. Rose Twitter is where I've seen it the most

The Walker Bragman posse.

[Cha]

111. Of course.. they smell

blood in the water. All their whining shit is just that.

So glad we have President Biden! Can you imagine if the Traitor had gotten in again.

[Kahuna]

127. Yep. The Squad is also making a big stink and DEMANDING $2k...

with no decreases from what was previous qualified. I'm on twitter a lot so I see it.

[Kahuna]

126. It's not just the MAGATs making a stink. Read this thread. nt

[MrsCoffee]

130. Oh we are.

[Cha]

137. Oh I have.. my question is..

could the Bill be Passed Without Lowering the cut off limit?

Mahalo, Kahuna

[White Fox]

7. Precisely

Great Democrats made a dumb move.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

86. trying to be the only responsible party appears to be a losing proposition.

[Cha]

136. Oh yeah? could it be Passed without

lowering it?

[sinkingfeeling]

90. How does that stack up against 0% GQP support for any help?

[kcr]

2. Do you have kids?

Do any of those kids have special needs? Do you have kids currently in college you're paying for? Do you own your home outright or pay a mortgage? Have mounting medical bills? I could go on.

Come on. Just because you're doing fine doesn't mean everyone is doing fine. And you completely miss the point that a whole lot of people who got checks under Trump will not be getting them now. That simply should not be happening.

[Pongo]

8. Good post. I think sometimes people can't see outside their own lives. It's great when you're doing

well, but don't assume you know what others might be in need of.

[secondwind]

20. My goodness!!!!

sheesh

[Pongo]

28. I agreed with the previous post to mine, so I'm a bit lost at what you're 'my goodnessing' about?

[secondwind]

21. I didn't read it this way at all... Sorry you did.

[kcr]

25. I'm genuinely interested in how you read it because

I can see no other way to read it.

[Pongo]

31. Thank you. I'm at a loss to the reaction to my agreement to your post, which I thought made sense.

I must be missing something?

[liskddksil]

44. Adding unnecessary means-testing to what should be a simple program

just causes people to turn against each other. Hence why there is so much arguing in this thread.

[Pongo]

52. Ah I hear you. Best I opt out. I found the original post be be, oh well, never mind.

I think you're probably right!

[11 Bravo]

35. Two, both grown. Helping one with medical bills.

We're both over 65, I've been diagnosed with three different kinds of cancer, so medical bills are a given.

But making $150K between us,, we'd rather see he money go elsewhere.

[kcr]

37. Then put the money elsewhere

That's what a stimulus is for. It's selfish to insist that others who need the money shouldn't get it just because your circumstances are fine. Your kids are grown. Kids today are a lot more expensive than they used to be. As a parent of a child with special needs I can tell you that other people in our income bracket have a much better standard of living JUST because of that one difference. The lifelong financial needs are staggering. Not everyone is you.

[kcr]

60. You're the one who started the post claiming to be so confused

as to why others were so concerned about those needing help. You decided to do that.

[oldsoftie]

70. But God help you if you point anything out.

You'll get a stupid hide.

[11 Bravo]

74. Been there, done that.

But 19 years here, and I'm still hanging on.

[kcr]

79. Same here

Been here since the beginning!

[Hortensis]

112. It's a good, principled plan, 11 Bravo. As for why the objections,

I haven't seen one expressed that I could share, and almost all I never would.

I have noticed that topics about government benefits often energize a subset perennially aggrieved at injustices against others. With the stimulus checks, that's you. (Although, here you are refusing the role of victim.) Whatever, I doubt all resentment at unfulfilled entitlement is on behalf of, in this case, the more affluent recipients being shorted by the government.

Takes all kinds to make the world go round. At least they say.

[Beaverhausen]

41. I thought there are higher payments for those with kids?

is that wrong?

[kcr]

46. I will double check, but I think the cut off is the cut off

If you're over the income limit, it diminishes. ON edit: Yes, you get more if you have kids, but only if you qualify.

[Beaverhausen]

51. there is a family tax credit in the bill

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/how-some-families-could-get-more-than-14000-in-new-covid-relief.html

[kcr]

54. It's right in the article you cite

Only for those who qualify, at the lower threshold.

[leighbythesea2]

85. Went from something

Quite nice similiar to OP in 2019, into a strange space. Have found another job after a year @ much lower pay, but the interim has been "covid-esque".
Got a kid who just came out of mental health intake for 10 days. (Quite the price tag) It's been hard on kids.
Another is special needs. Can't even discuss that topic fully within same scope, too long.
Their mother lost her job. So then no child support. And she was insuring them. The add to the insurance costs, but its fine, as this is an assumed cost when you have kids, anyway.
Went back to work on my masters but couldn't get financial aid because then unemployment stops. Comically, unemployment believes if you are full time student, you arent actively looking for work. Covid made looking for a job impossible, so explain that circle. Used already stretched savings for tuition, just to be safe.

Consider my situation good. So, if I had never gone into-- a gap of unemployment--would have given my 1400$ to charity, also. But, today things are different.

[fwvinson]

99. A few of years ago, because of a mini stroke,

I was saddled with an enormous amount of medical bills. I have insurance, advantage and all that, but still had, and still have, thousands of dollars of medical bills. Deductibles, each year, not covered shit, and the like.
Making $75,000/year, after taxes, etc., take home is $4100, or so, per month.
You ain't rich making $75,000.

[Demovictory9]

119. yes, depends on how much debt and other financial responsibilities one has

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Because your experience is not universal, that's all.

[Hugin]

17. That's for sure.

I would fall slightly above the proposed threshold. I'm carrying two people who have lost their livelihoods to the COVID pandemic. So, my personal effective income is 1/3rd of what it was a year ago.

So, hell yes, we all need the RELIEF... I refuse to call it 'stimulus' because the need is far more dire.

[liskddksil]

4. Because its better to give money to those who don't need it than to miss people

who do. Financial situations of many have changed in the last year. And even just $80,000 in metro areas is barely getting by, especially with cost of living increases. Means-testing is also the quickest way for policy to become unpopular and convoluted.

[Deminpenn]

9. Isn't this stimulus payment based on AGI?

nt

[liskddksil]

11. For 2019 nt

[Deminpenn]

16. Many people making a gross income that's over the cap

will end up, after deductions, with an AGI under the cap, thus qualifying for the stimulus payment.

[dflprincess]

102. Adjusted gross income (line 11 on the 1040 form) is what you have

before you subtract your standard or itemized deductions. Once the subtraction is done you wind up with your taxable income (line 15).

Whether or not you qualify depends on your income before deductions.

[Deminpenn]

122. Correct, my bad

and after having just done my taxes. LOL

[dflprincess]

139. If you're like me

you never look at your gross income until you do your taxes & then promptly forget it. After all, all really matters is what lands in the bank every two weeks.

I had to pull mine out to see if I'd qualify for the next stimulus with the income cap change & I just did them two weeks ago. (That's how I knew the line numbers, my copy was still sitting on my desk.)

[Deminpenn]

141. LOL, geezerhood for me

nt

[karynnj]

39. Even the ones given last year, are handled when you do your 2020 taxes

If your 2020 income is less than 2019, you likely will get some additional stimulus from the one last spring and the $600 one in December.

[W_HAMILTON]

49. Wrong, it's for 2019 or 2020, whichever is the most recently filed tax return.

[kcr]

58. Because it totally makes sense to throw away our political good will

Over the tiny fraction of people who have already filed their 2020 taxes.

[W_HAMILTON]

62. Throwing away our goodwill is constantly belittling Democratic efforts...

...that will benefit the majority of Americans.

And you can better believe that many people that are in dire financial straights file their taxes early to get their refund and take advantage of tax credits like the EITC, child tax credit, etc. These people don't file extensions and wait till October to get their refunds.

[kcr]

63. This isn't belittling efforts

I'm well aware of why this is happening and where the blame should be going. But that isn't what the OP is about. This is a response to a post by a person who can't understand what all the fuss is about because they are doing fine. I think it's prudent to point out the errors in that thinking on a supposed Democratic board.

[11 Bravo]

83. This supposed Democrat's first foray into politics was as a volunteer for Bobby Kennedy.

I was in high school at the time.
Since then, I have worked without recompense for the Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Biden campaigns. I'll omit any reference to local campaigns, except for my work for Jim Webb, who had been a personal friend for years before he kicked Oliver North to the curb in a VA senatorial campaign some years ago.
But your prudence is noted.
And I suppose sincere thanks are in order for explaining to me what Democrats should believe.

[kcr]

84. Good for you

I still think it's rather self-centered and out to touch to wonder why others can't be okay just like you, no matter what your politics are.

[MrsCoffee]

128. +1

[LanternWaste]

23. What then do you believe is the objective top cut off rate?

And do not your examples also exist, albeit to a lesser scale, within that measure?

Or do you believe that all people, regardless of income, should qualify? And of so, why have you not fought against the limit AOC herself has suggested?

[liskddksil]

40. What was in the House bill $100.000 (singles). That was a reasonable compromise

that wouldn't hurt us politically. Now we're in a bad spot.

[leftstreet]

5. Trump 2024 I gave you more than Biden

It's about that, and it's also about the Democrats setting a precedent where they won't be strong arming and pressuring members to keep a united party to push legislation

basically same as it ever was

[liskddksil]

13. The ads will write themselves unfortunately nt

[White Fox]

14. Biden should be whupping

these great pussyfooting Blue Dogs up the side of the head for disunity!

[dustyscamp]

47. I can see it happening that way

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. You would spend it; you've just said so. That stimulates the economy and helps everyone.

[NBachers]

12. I'll be 72 in April. I am still working strenuous 40 hour weeks.

Between my wages and my Social Security I may just be priced out of a stimulus check.

I live in a San Francisco studio apartment that I’ve occupied since 1992. I’d love to put some extra cash toward retirement and medical expenses. I am not living the life of Riley here, I am just managing an even existence.

I am resistant to lowering the threshold.

[riversedge]

15. I am glad you will donate to good causes. Thank you.

[marie999]

18. How many people will not get a check because of the cutoff?

[MoonlitKnight]

27. 17 million

12 million adults and 5 million children.

[mitch96]

19. I'm comfortable with what I make and the stimulus check is just icing on the cake. So I give it

to the people behind the counter. BIG FAT TIP... They can use the stimulus money better than me..
m

[happybird]

33. Thank you!

From a (now carry-out only) restaurant employee.

[choie]

22. What about people who lost their job this year?

you know, those who may have earned $80,000 last year as an individual, and now is trying to survive on UIB? In NYC it would be awfully hard to live on UIB, pay the rents that many NYCers have and pay for food, etc.

[kcr]

26. Not to mention those whose salaries were reduced

or their hours cut. None of that will be reflected, and this is totally ignored by the "Who cares?" crowd.

[Kaleva]

38. In the deal, they'll be eligible for an extra $400 a week unemployment

[nuxvomica]

29. We have a free local weekly that leans right

The publisher claims to be objective but always talks about the "liberal media". He's pretty well off and his son grew up privileged, with dad having him write movie reviews when he was ten. So his son, who worked for a right-wing think tank, now runs a news website that he claims is bi-partisan in tone and dad features the website in every issue, along with commentaries by his son. In one of these commentaries, he complained that we shouldn't get the stimulus till after lockdown is done, so that people could spend it on restaurants and such. Otherwise, it just languishes in our bank accounts. The guy's a college grad and world traveler and yet he couldn't understand that there are people who need this money yesterday.

[LiberalFighter]

32. I expect others to follow suit that are not in need.

I'm retired and don't live anywhere near my means and will likely donate part of anything I receive to the local food bank.

I will likely receive it even if they lower the threshold.

[MoonlitKnight]

34. It's based on 2019 income.

Or 2020, if you can file and handle the delay. But then it also skips those who did well those years but are struggling now. It is March 2021.

It’s better to go too big than leave people behind.

[panader0]

42. You make too much. Send your money to me.

PM for my address.
'sarcasm' if needed. My daughter and family live near Richmond and it's quite expensive there too.
Not like my area. I get $870 a month SS and can live on that. Land taxes are the biggest bill.

[Bettie]

43. As I understand it (and I could be wrong)

they are using 2019 as the benchmark for income.

A whole lot of people saw their incomes fall significantly in 2020.

It is nice that you don't need it.

It is entirely possible that others have not done so well in the last year.

[W_HAMILTON]

53. You are wrong.

It is based off your 2019 or 2020 tax return, whichever one has been most recently filed.

[Bettie]

55. Most people have not yet filed 2020 taxes

thus, for many it will be based on 2019.

SO, I'm half wrong.

[W_HAMILTON]

59. No, you were wrong.

And if you care that much about it, you should be getting the word out for people to file their taxes early if they are in this situation, like most places have already been doing.

Furthermore, I would venture to guess that most people that are in dire need of money right now would be filing their taxes as quickly as possible to get any possible refund and/or take advantage of beneficial tax credits like the EITC, child tax credit, etc.

[haele]

82. Some people can't or won't file taxes until April.

And the last couple year's worth of tax "stimulus" for the wealthy totally screwed those households making between $75K and $200K, so they might be waiting on this latest check just to pay this year's tax suprises - like my neighbor whose kid just aged out of the childtax credits - his estimates got screwed due to the last round of GOP and T**** playing with tax withholdings in the name of stimulus. Hell, I got hit hard too, but only by $1500; his income went down by $12K, but after going through his 1040, he owes the Feds $7K more than he had originally estimated at the beginning of last year, including losing his child credits.
His household doesn't bring in six figures, and a Biden check would certainly help paying his T**** taxes this year.

Haele

[treestar]

45. I am too - if you still have your job

or have a COVID related boom in business, why not leave the money to those who lost their jobs? Very Trumpist to send money to the wealthy just because it's not fair to send it only to the poor.

[MiniMe]

48. It doesn't matter. No matter how much you make, you basically spend up to that total

[Sibelius Fan]

50. Because of CoL.

A person living in San Francisco would need to earn $157k a year to equal the buying power of a person earning $50k in WVA. How is it fair to deny $1400 to that person in SF based on the raw numbers?

[GETPLANING]

56. My wife and I got a check, and that's exactly what we did with it.

Houston food Bank, and a few others, I can' remember which. We didn't need the money as much as a lot of other people do.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Because It's Purpose Is Twofold

Or, at least it was intended to be.
The first is the need to provide assistance to millions squeezed by the pandemic.
But, the economy is not near fully recovered.
Higher income earners, not affected financially by COVID, will not likely use the money for bills, back payment of rent or mortgage, or step their diets back up with the extra money. People like our 2 households will likely spend that as extra money which flows more capital through the system & and accelerates some demand.
That 2nd purpose is economically stimulative, while the first is only assisting.
Doing it in 2020 actually prevented the economy from falling into major recession.
Now that the economy is on a steady, slightly upward plane a stimulus promotes growth and hastens full recovery.

[chia]

71. +1000

[Gilbert Moore]

64. Docs without borders

Doctors without Borders has had some difficulties with the leadership and racism. They are off our donation list.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) broadcast a $400,000 (£307,000) TV fundraising campaign in Canada despite warnings from staff that it was exploitative, reinforced racist “white saviour” stereotypes and breached the medical charity’s ethical guidelines, the Guardian has learned.

Médecins Sans Frontières has “failed people of colour, both staff and patients”, “failed to tackle institutional racism”, and is part of “white privileged culture”, according to a joint statement to staff from its president and an international board member obtained by The New Humanitarian.

[Liberal In Texas]

66. I'm happy you don't need it. But a LOT of people who made that in 2019 didn't do squat

last year and still aren't.

Means testing is a way to turn this into welfare. Plus, Democrats promised $2K stimulus/relief and they really need to deliver on it one way or another.

Voters will remember when they got this:


with the Deadbeats name on it.

[Chuuku Davis]

131. "with the Deadbeats name on it"

Am I a deadbeat?

What am I missing?

[MrsCoffee]

133. Is your name Donald J. Trump?

[wellst0nev0ter]

67. Worried over less than 1% of the stimulus

Because lowering the threshold will only save $12 billion. The cost to maintain the means test will probably cut a big chunk of that savings.

[oldsoftie]

68. I agree with you. Its just gamesmanship. Nothing more.

everyone wants to bitch. The money needs to go to those most in need.

[Hoyt]

69. Seems to me the stimulus should go to those with lower incomes -- maybe less than $50K --

and those above that who actually suffered say a 10% loss in income during the pandemic up to a maximum amount. I'm not sure many others were hurt by CV19 (if became sick or death in family, I'd be for a larger payment). That is predicated on any saved money going to keep the unemployment weekly amount at higher levels and for a longer period, and maybe increase the $1400 a bit for those making less say less that $15/hour.

And, yes, I would lose out under that scheme.

The people hurt by CV19 were those who lost income, particularly the unemployed. [There should probably be some benefit for those that had a family member die where there was no, or inadequate, insurance, or severe illness. Also, agree with Biden providing unemployment to those who decided not to work in risky jobs.]

[George II]

72. You see it rationally. We're retired and make about $70,000 per year in one of the most expensive..

...states in the country, Connecticut. We live reasonably comfortably on that income, but at this point in our lives our day to day expenses are much less than when we were working.

People are mistakenly interpreting all the numbers going around as though at certain points people are not getting checks at all. No, they're getting reduced checks. They're going to be on a sliding scale. All that is changing from the "trump" checks of last year is the reduction is going to be a little steeper, but to mitigate that, from what I read, the upper limit is going to be $160k/$80k, not the original $150/$75.

I've seen today that some claim that an additional ~30 million people will NOT get anything and ~6-7 million children will be cut off. That simply is not true. Very few people, if any, who received the first rounds of checks will be cut off at all. What might happen is that people at the upper end of the scale might be getting less than before.

I've also seen some saying that there are some cities in the country where $150,000 or $160,000 is "lower middle class" (yeah, I read that ON THIS SITE!) I'd like to know what cities those are. Plus, if people can't make ends meet with $150,000 then certainly another $1400 isn't going to pull them out of the hole they've dug themselves into.

Finally, although we're not as generous as you, last year we gave about half our check to our local Hartford area food bank, and once we get our second installment to top off at $2000, we'll do the same. To us the check is a bonus, or superfluous as you say.

It's not going to make much of a difference in our lives, but the money the food bank receives can make a huge difference in others' lives. They do a great job buying in bulk. They say that every dollar they receive can provide 2-1/2 meals. It breaks my heart to see cars lined up for hours just to get a box or bag of food.

[kcr]

75. How do you figure that there will be no people who get no checks at all?

Let's see that math, please. They've lowered the cut-off. That does indeed mean that there will be people who recieved a check the first go-around that will not be receiving one this time.

[George II]

80. I said "Very few people, if any, who received the first rounds of checks will be cut off at all."...

I also said that any that do not get it this time will be at the high end of the scale. Those who need it the most will still be getting the full check. We, at about the middle of the scale, will be getting the full amount. There aren't any people barely making ends meet who will be cut off.

I can't give you the math, the bill isn't finalized yet. That's what gets me, people are bashing Democrats for caving without even seeing the details.

Tell you what, when you get a copy of the bill, send it to me and I'll do the math for you. Deal?

[kcr]

81. I'm not bashing democrats

I'm bashing the I'm doing okay! So no one else needs it either! mentality. It's selfish and out of touch. I realize the political hurdles and I'm not bashing the Dems.

[George II]

88. Didn't say you, but many people are bashing Democrats, Biden in particular, claiming we "caved"....

....and that poor people are being deprived of checks because of the possible changes that are still in negotiation (at least until later today or tonight) Those being "deprived" are at the upper end of the scale, and most of them are still getting checks, just a bit smaller.

[obamanut2012]

93. 17 million folks will not get a check from Biden, but did from Trump

12 million adults and five million children. Joe Biden let five million children go without after he promised they would be given money. Why does Joe Biden hate America's children? Why does Sleepy Joe give other countries' children money but not our own. Donald Trump doesn't. He knows our children will Make America Greater.

Why does Joe Biden hate Americans?

I am stoned on edibles and just wrote the above draft of Trump's ad. Hell, any GOP ad in 2022 and 2024. Don't think that something like that isn't being scripted right now.

[George II]

105. Where do that 12 million and 5 million come from?

[MoonlitKnight]

117. Here are sources

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/541449-senate-stimulus-checks-would-reduce-recipients-by-up-to-16-million-analysis?utm_source=thehill&utm_medium=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/1400-stimulus-checks-eligibility-democrats-covid-relief-bill.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/03/biden-limits-eligibility-stimulus-payments-under-pressure-moderate-senate-democrats/

[deurbano]

95. In San Francisco, a family of five making $150,000 per year is considered to be low income by the

California Department of Housing and Community Development. We (a family of five) are fortunate to make more than that, but we are also fortunate to have bought our house years ago, when housing was still (somewhat) affordable. Otherwise, the housing costs can be brutal, even for people making $150,000 or $160,000.

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/income-limits-2020.pdf

[MustLoveBeagles]

73. We'll be donating our stimulus too

Thanks for reminding me I still have to donate my half to a food bank.

[stonecutter357]

76. cool story bro !

[Blue_true]

78. $150,000 per year for a family is a lot in any place.

There are families in places like Boston, NYC and San Francisco living on $90,000 or less.

Instead of bellyaching over the cutoff in the stimulus bill, maybe people need to think strategically and focus on getting rid of as many republican officeholders as possible in 2022.

[wellst0nev0ter]

116. We must focus on getting rid of goops in 2020

Oops, didn't work for some reason, now we must focus on getting rid of the goops in 2022 offering the same failed means testing regime that satisfies absolutely nobody and pisses off everybody, except for those making six figures.

[dianaredwing]

87. And there we go

People have a lot in common and get along pretty well and can find a common enemy in those seeking to overthrow the government until.....$$$$$$ Then civil discourse goes to hell. Always has and always will be.

[Autumn]

89. You live in live in Northern Virginia, try living on that somewhere else.

Then you would be confused as to why the Dems made that choice.

[TexasBushwhacker]

92. Look at it this way

It's not only to help you. It's to help the economy. If you don't need it to buy food, pay rent, make mortgage payments etc, great! In your case, you're going to give it to good causes, which is wonderful, but frankly, there's nothing wrong with indulging yourself by buying some take out from small family owned restaurants, or supporting small businesses in some other way. Putting that money back into the economy is a good thing too.

[GulfCoast66]

94. If it were based on the 2020 AGI I would agree.

My wife and had an AGI of over 150K in 2019 and would not have needed it. But I’ve been essentially out of work since last April so our income is cut in half. Now, we are doing fine because half of an AGI of over 150k more than most American households earn. Because that’s after all deductions. And we don’t live in a high priced area and have essentially no debt. But I was not laid off but furloughed. Try getting a job when the interviewer learns you will leave the minute you are called back to the place you have worked for 34 years.

But lots of folks who have kids, house payments and are just over the limit will be hurting.

But let’s remember, if republicans were in the majority we would get Jack-shit. Too often we hate the good when we don’t get the best.

[dflprincess]

104. There are also a lot of people who got the $600/week extra unemployment who

are in for a rude awakening.

When you collect the regular state paid unemployment you're given the option of having federal & state income tax taken out of the weekly benefit (thank Ronald Reagan for taxing unemployment). That option was not given for the $600 and it was not obvious that that was considered taxable income. I suspected it would be and did put money away for taxes. Lucky I did as I did wind up paying in a lot.

I'm guessing people like my nephew, who I know will qualify for the stimulus, will be using a chunk of it for taxes on that $600.

[GulfCoast66]

113. I should be ok. I was taxed at a much higher rate January-April when my income ended

Than for the few months I got the 600 dollars.

So it will balance out, maybe even in my favor.

[Shermann]

96. The way it is structured, they have to draw the line somewhere

Thus there will be winners and there will be losers.

I'd think it would be better to shore up the state unemployment funds. That money goes into the pockets of more people who were negatively impacted. I live in SC where the unemployment program was flimsy even before covid. But there are so many stories about these systems being overrun, I can see the benefit of just cutting checks.

Also a lot of people wind up unemployed without qualifying for benefits for a variety of reasons. So a layered approach is certainly called for.

[reACTIONary]

97. I agree. I don't need it, I don't want it...

... I do know a few folks who, despite being in the same situation as me, still would feel cheated or unfairly treated if they don't get it.

That, I don't understand.

[quakerboy]

100. Its a stupid gimmie to the 2022 republican campaigns

Democrats Say they want to help you.. but even trump was more generous to the american people. Support the republicans who gave you more, better, easier.

Also.. I suspect there are a reasonable number of people who did ok in 2019.. but not 2020.. and some portion of them cant really wait to get it as a tax credit next february, they need help now.

And im like you.. i am doing ok without the stimulus. But you know.. That local food bank needs it. And the service workers i tipped the entire first stimulus to seemed VERY excited that they would be able to make bills without too much worry for once. And you and I are not the only ones doing such things with it. Its a movement of mutual aid. You may not need it.. but your community DOES need it.

Also worth remembering.. Dropping the income limit does not put a single dollar in the pockets of those millions of americans who need that money more than us. Its not like Manchin is wanting to cut the top end to raise the bottom.. its JUST cutting the top end.

[Happy Hoosier]

101. Now hear me out

But not everyone in your income bracket is in the same position as you.

I know! Amazing concept !

[BradAllison]

103. It's a stimulus, you spend it

It doesn't matter if you don't need it.

[Mabadi]

108. I'm with you

People resuming that much can afford more than the basics.

[ecstatic]

110. The way I view it: We're all owed due to trump's criminal negligence

trump killed half a million people and counting, dreams ruined, lives ruined, plans ruined...

This is lawsuit worthy shit.

I'd put my pain, suffering, and inconvenience at around $15,000 at this specific moment in time.

If repubs want to cap the amount paid out to folks, they can start with capping their own checks, since they fully approve of trump's illegal, immoral and traitorous conduct.

[Tink41]

114. I take issue with

Someone who "made" 80 Grand in 2019 tax year who is now out of a job or income severely cut is thrown under this threshold.
This does not affect me, but if I compare what I made in 2019 compared to 2020, big difference. Haven't worked since February 2020. I really wish current income was taken into account, they are going off income before pandemic hit.

[wellst0nev0ter]

118. Do you know why Biden won?

Because of white suburbanites.

And now we want to cut off some of those suburbanites and save $12 billion—less than 1% of the total stimulus, and for WHAT?

Nobody likes means testing. Poor people have to jump through hoops to get coverage or help while the middle class feel that their tax money is just going to help the poor and not them.

It's time to think logically for once.

[radius777]

121. +1. Means testing is stupid and only divides our base

which is why Repubs want it and why the conservative Dems are just getting played. The Dem base is heavily urban and suburban, where incomes may be higher but cost of living is higher also.

Also 2019 tax returns are not relevant to the currrent situation.. even the 2020 returns may not be as people may now be laid off or struggling.

Just give people the money.

We can satisfy the conservative Dems by cutting something else that voters would not easily understand. But direct checks that they see others getting that they don't get - that creates resentment which Repubs love and will use in 2022.

[pecosbob]

120. I would also say I can't find much logic in people getting upset about means testing.

I made a small fraction of your income in 2020 and yet took no stimulus check. I'm an old widower with no children and no social life. Others needed it more than me. I can get by on a surprisingly small income even in an expensive city like Las Vegas.

Some sixty percent of Americans make less than 30K per year. Let that sink in for perspective.

[Deminpenn]

123. Ideally, the caps should have been adjusted for

local cost of living, but I think that was probably too complicated to do in a bill that Dems are trying to get through before mid-March so there's no gap in the extra unemployment payments.

Also, a much bigger deal to suburbanites is that their kids get back in school than stimulus payments. At least that's how it it in the wealthier suburbs in Allegheny county.

[MrsCoffee]

124. Try living in California.

Just saying.

Things aren’t the same everywhere.

[Kahuna]

125. I don't get it either. It's hard for me to believe that...

Last edited Thu Mar 4, 2021, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

people making more than 75k are going to be so pissed they will withhold future votes for Dems. I just can't see it.

[Swede]

129. The CERB in Canada was $1000 every 2 weeks.

You applied, you got it. Almost instantly into your bank. If you had unemployment insurance it took over once the paperwork was done.

Are you guys talking about a one time payment? Or is it biweekly, monthly?

[MrsCoffee]

132. One time.

We suck at just doing the right thing, so we have to get all wrapped up in others need something more than someone else. That works most of the time, but it’s crazy this time. Everyone has been affected by Covid in some way.

[FlyingPiggy]

134. Bc it would eliminate MANY people who will need the extra money

Plus, in some places where the cost of living is higher, expect wages to be higher. So to lower the wage requirement like that essentially takes out a BIG swath of people in certain places. In some places, making $75,000 is nothing in relation to the cost of living. And even without the cost of living indeed, some people may make even $90,000 but they are eyeball deep in student loans. Or have medical expenses. So many reasons. So I would rather err on the side of giving everyone help (even if it means giving to a few who don’t need it) rather than withholding and risk not giving to a few who really need the help.

[Cha]

138. There's this to help with the load for those

making over $75,000 a year!

Still, families that do not receive a direct check might still come out ahead in the massive $1.9 trillion package. The bill expands tax credits for children and childcare and those benefits will go to some of the households that received a check in December but no longer qualify for it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2706534

Hallelujah.. More help!

[LexVegas]

140. Cool story, bro. nt