Board 8 > Are you ok with the proposed 80k yearly income limit for the 1,400 stimulus

(+) Yeah! (+)

checks?

no
---

why not?

cuz he makes 81k

---

yes

---

No, for about 6 different reasons.

---

UltimaterializerX posted...

There should have been 2k per person with no strings attached. Instead, government gonna government.

Remember when Biden promised $2k checks would be out the door "the next day" if Georgia elected two Democrats?

it means I still get it so sure

anything to help me with not paying my school loans until I'm 50

---

Should probably be a bit higher. There are lots of places in the country where that isn't actually that much money

---

I make less than 80k, so yes. I'm greedy and selfish, and I need to replace something.

Phasing out that quickly is kinda dumb because you get some huge effective marginal tax rate in that band.

I dont think universal checks are great policy in the first place though (a large fraction of people getting the checks were not hurt financially by COVID, myself among them, and theres not a particularly compelling reason to give them money when it could be spent on something else more targeted).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Phasing out that quickly is kinda dumb because you get some huge effective marginal tax rate in that band.

I dont think universal checks are great policy in the first place though (a large fraction of people getting the checks were not hurt financially by COVID, myself among them, and theres not a particularly compelling reason to give them money when it could be spent on something else more targeted).

It's given as stimulus so people spend it.so.it helps the economy continue to run.

Nothing more complex than that really

---

I'm waay under 80k so sure <_<

---

No because it's supposed to be a stimulus check not a benefits check.

ShatteredElysium posted...

No because it's supposed to be a stimulus check not a benefits check.

---

They were never supposed to be stimulus checks then; they are welfare checks by that logic. The people who would immediately spend/invest them (like me) never got a dime.

ShatteredElysium posted...

No because it's supposed to be a stimulus check not a benefits check.

Except they've found that households that make more than 78k are very unlikely to spend the money, with the average estimated to spend only $105 of the $1400 check.

So it doesn't even function well as a stimulus at higher incomes.

---

Bartzyx posted...

Except they've found that households that make more than 78k are very unlikely to spend the money, with the average estimated to spend only $105 of the $1400 check.

So it doesn't even function well as a stimulus at higher incomes.

That's pretty surprising if accurate. If everyone I know who makes a six-figure salary got a check I would encourage them to immediately buy crypto!

Yeah that number is surprising to me too. Everyone I know who got the check previously spent it all.

GameStonk posted...

That's pretty surprising if accurate. If everyone I know who makes a six-figure salary got a check I would encourage them to immediately buy crypto!

which would do zero for the economy

---

That's investing, not spending

---

I spent all my stimulus on bills but don't worry, I'm getting a nice tax return and I plan on making a completely stupid purchase to do my part.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

which would do zero for the economy

Bartzyx posted...

That's investing, not spending

It's buying a piece of something that will increase in value over time, thereby allowing people to eventually use that money to buy even more. Great for the economy!

im with ulti, should be $2000, no strings attached and it should have happened months ago, even before Biden

---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Its literally your money. It comes from taxes.

Half of the country doesn't pay income tax.

How is half the country getting away with not paying their taxes?

---

Waluigi1 posted...

How is half the country getting away with not paying their taxes?

They're not "getting away" with it. That's the tax code.

Mitt Romney took a lot of shit for pointing this out in 2012 even though he was 100% right:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-47-percent-americans-pay-no-income-tax/

Anyone who is advocating for no income limit on the stimulus checks should also want a flat tax imo

No, the first portion of your income should always be exempt from income tax. You should not be taxed on the money that you need to survive, that's immoral.

The standard deduction and exemption was probably the most fair thing in the tax code.

---

terrible decision by absolute ghoulish people running one of the most evil governments the world has ever seen

---

Seems pretty bad. Shame our government cares more about the dollar and arguing over which side sucks more than actually helping people

pezzicle posted...

Should probably be a bit higher. There are lots of places in the country where that isn't actually that much money

If by a lot of places, you mean San Francisco and New York, then sure. 80k would basically quadruple my income.

ShatteredElysium posted...

Yeah that number is surprising to me too. Everyone I know who got the check previously spent it all.

Not that I've gone around polling people, but nobody I know of spent their check at all. Went immediately into the bank. Whether that was to save or to pay for future bills, I don't know. In my case, it was future bills. At the time, my income was severely below that of my expenses due to lack of work. (I made zero dollars over the summer.)

---

I mean not immediately spending the money is still good for the economy... People defaulting on their bills isn't exactly great on the macro level.

GameStonk posted...

They're not "getting away" with it. That's the tax code.

Mitt Romney took a lot of shit for pointing this out in 2012 even though he was 100% right:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-47-percent-americans-pay-no-income-tax/

So reading into it, the 47% are people literally too poor to pay taxes. That changes the context a lot...

---

I have no issues with it. If I'm making 80k I don't particularly need to be stimulated economically.

---

GameStonk posted...

Anyone who is advocating for no income limit on the stimulus checks should also want a flat tax imo

Flat taxes are stupid as hell.

---

Waluigi1 posted...

So reading into it, the 47% are people literally too poor to pay taxes. That changes the context a lot...

Right, exactly. I am just countering Ulti's claim that "your taxes paid for the stimulus checks."

For half the people, they didn't. Someone else's money is being redistributed to them.

Keep in mind this is based on 2019 tax numbers too, so it's still not even indicative of people who may have gotten laid off and need the help now still.

Just give people money. You're going to give corporations tons of money that they won't end up needing. Just give people money. This is so simple. Let people have money to live, and if they end up getting money they don't need, WHO CARES? Oh no, they might spend it somewhere else. It doesn't hurt anyone and it just helps people.

Completely pathetic by our government not being able to just do the simplest thing they could do for people right now.

---

i'm fine with it in theory - people making 80K+ should figure out their own finances

in practice, this doesn't work that well because lots of people lose/have lost their jobs no matter how much they were making
---

SeabassDebeste posted...

i'm fine with it in theory - people making 80K+ should figure out their own finances

in practice, this doesn't work that well because lots of people lose/have lost their jobs no matter how much they were making

Shouldn't people who lost their jobs be getting unemployment aid rather than relying on mass stimulus checks? I suppose you could argue that the states are so incompetent at distributing unemployment that nobody can be sure they'll actually get it, but if we're just treating these checks as a replacement for unemployment then they need to be much larger.
---

All things considered, I think it's kind of miraculous that we haven't seen destitution on a mass scale. There was 30% unemployment in some cities this past spring.

From what I understand, people on temporary unemployment (such as hair stylists and other non-essential workers) got completely hosed in the whole deal and eventually got denied money during times they weren't allowed to work.

---

And, obviously, their proposal sucks. $1400 sucks. Giving people $2000 sucks. All of it is just the bare dirt minimum they can possibly be doing right now, and they're utterly failing to even be doing that much.

---

Xeybozn posted...

Shouldn't people who lost their jobs be getting unemployment aid rather than relying on mass stimulus checks? I suppose you could argue that the states are so incompetent at distributing unemployment that nobody can be sure they'll actually get it, but if we're just treating these checks as a replacement for unemployment then they need to be much larger.

i mean, i thoroughly agree with all this, yeah. i don't really believe in economic-boost stimulus to begin with.
---

No. UBI is a fantastic idea. Socialism is not.

Galaxy brain take

---

LittleMac222 posted...

No. UBI is a fantastic idea. Socialism is not.

what's the difference

---