Update - 3/11/21 - America Rescue Plan Bill is signed!

[Destino]

13 minutes ago, TK said:

Mine was pending Friday afternoon & cleared Monday afternoon. And with direct deposit, no signature from Agolf Twitler.

 

But is it enough to buy a set studio quality storm trooper armor?

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

I plan on helping the companies I love the most... those that sell me unreasonable amounts of fishing tackle. Also, I’m trying not to give Amazon any of it.  The corona virus has helped them enough already.

Yeah and we’re trying to figure out what we’d give to the local food bank

 

and the local schools are having their staff drive food to certain children. I’m sure they need more money. 
 

lots of options for people that don’t need it. 
 

plenty that don’t need it will do nothing with it. Fine. Whatever. There’s a bigger picture issue going on here. Time to wake up and ask yourself what’s important. A real fair bill? Or trying to limit economic collapse. 

[BleedBNG]

4 hours ago, sportjunkie07 said:

If you had a child post tax season, where do you go about getting the extra 500?

 

You will get that $500 bucks next year in the form of a tax credit.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

You need to stop thinking everyone of a certain income is of a certain situation

 

its good you don’t need it right now. It’s good I don’t either. 
 

but when you have to come up with a set of rules that gets a lot of money to as many of the right people as possible as fast as possible your level of detailed evaluation is impossible. 
 

I could see that level of evaluation for money handed out I June. And they better start those evaluations now. 
 

but our government is slow and incompetent. So they won’t. So this type of plan is what’s needed. 
 

I’d be in favor of no caps. Or maybe a cap at 1+ mil a year. I’m not even thrilled at that. The assumptions you’re making are dangerous on a national scale and I take them seriously so I don’t know where the line should be drawn for immediate cash injections. 
 

just be glad it’s less money going to corporations. 

 

I said, people whose income has not been impacted by the pandemic (making the same amount monthly both before the pandemic and during the pandemic) shouldn't be eligible for the extra monthly amount.  Why should they?  Financially, nothing has changed for them.  You absolutely have to have checks and balances and criteria on this. 

 

The "lets just give out free money to everyone" approach is not the answer.  There are long term implications of just giving generous handouts like that.  The money needs to go to those that need it the most.  Like the people that lost their jobs, are front line (retail, grocery, etc.).  That would include a couple where one got laid off and the spouse can work remote.  

 

 

[tshile]

36 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

I said

You’re arguing from a position based on notions of fairness, justness, etc

 

im talking about saving the economy 

 

also for your level of evaluation of the people to come close to working you need an agile competent federal government

 

we currently have a cynical cumbersome incompetent government. Worse they’re slow to be that

Edited April 16, 2020 by tshile

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Dont Taze Me Bro It would be great to put everyone in a box and create an equitable distribution of funds, but it’s just not that easy.  Similar to what they had to do to boost unemployment with a flat $600 across the board.  We are lucky the feds are capable of getting basic stimulus checks out, the moment you start picking and choosing, it only adds more time to getting the money in the hands of the people.  

[TK]

1 hour ago, Destino said:

But is it enough to buy a set studio quality storm trooper armor?

They drop like a rock when they get shot.

 

I'm going beskar.   

[skinsmarydu]

13 minutes ago, TK said:

They drop like a rock when they get shot.

And wind up lookin out a ziploc.

[Supernatural24]

9 hours ago, tshile said:

This is government work

 

did you not follow the ACA rollout?

 

they suck at petty much everything and almost in every way 

That’s intentional by those who want limited government. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

[goskins10]

9 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I said, people whose income has not been impacted by the pandemic (making the same amount monthly both before the pandemic and during the pandemic) shouldn't be eligible for the extra monthly amount.  Why should they?  Financially, nothing has changed for them.  You absolutely have to have checks and balances and criteria on this. 

 

The "lets just give out free money to everyone" approach is not the answer.  There are long term implications of just giving generous handouts like that.  The money needs to go to those that need it the most.  Like the people that lost their jobs, are front line (retail, grocery, etc.).  That would include a couple where one got laid off and the spouse can work remote.  

 

 

 

I get what you are saying. Ideally you would target those who lost their jobs. And by saving money there you could increase the income limits so you reach more people who are actually directly impacted. The issue is that the level of administration needed to do that for an initial stimulus would have seriously delayed anyone from getting money. Maybe you do that moving forward. But as someone else said if that is the plan, they should be putting in the framework for it right now. 

 

[tshile]

Speed is a key factor and that makes a slow system slower

 

additionally, for every step you add to ensure “fairness” you need to ask yourself how many people might wind up being determined to “not need it” simply because of paperwork errors or processing mistakes 

 

and then ask yourself what the costs of such a system are, including the costs of those mistakes. 
 

then add that all to the speed issue. 
 

when trying to save the economy we have zero time for any of that. If we had a competent government that put a framework for such a situation in place years ago, sure. 
 

on the fly like we’re actually dealing with right now? No way. Your efforts to save the economy would be seriously harmed by your effort to ensure some notion of fairness 

[goskins10]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Speed is a key factor and that makes a slow system slower

 

additionally, for every step you add to ensure “fairness” you need to ask yourself how many people might wind up being determined to “not need it” simply because of paperwork errors or processing mistakes 

 

and then ask yourself what the costs of such a system are, including the costs of those mistakes. 
 

then add that all to the speed issue. 
 

when trying to save the economy we have zero time for any of that. If we had a competent government that put a framework for such a situation in place years ago, sure. 
 

on the fly like we’re actually dealing with right now? No way. Your efforts to save the economy would be seriously harmed by your effort to ensure some notion of fairness 

 

Full disclosure is that I am in favor of a true UBI. I do not think there should be any means testing at all. Every person of working age in the US should get a check. But once you add any kind of means testing, then it should be focused on getting the help to people who need it most. 

 

I agree on this first round to just send them based on the limited criteria they have. But I also think that moving forward they need to do what they can to help focus the help where it's needed. Yes, a few people may get screwed but that is unfortunately going to happen. 

 

For me the bigger issue with this stimulus is the amount of money given to corporations that don;t need it and to individuals through the loss of value provision. So much of the stimulus money is going a small number of rich people - those worth over $1M. That should be eliminated - period. Both dems and reps looking out for their donors instead of the American people.  

[tshile]

49 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I agree on this first round to just send them based on the limited criteria they have. But I also think that moving forward they need to do what they can to help focus the help where it's needed. 

I was really just trying to add on to your post. 
 

I agree with everything you’ve said

 

the issue I take at this moment is that to do so going forward requires the government to start planning for it *now*
 

and based on everything I’ve observed about this administration from the day it started to the day this virus thing happened, they will not do that. 
 

so, keeping reality in mind, it becomes a “that would be nice but will never happen” sort of thing. So... I’m focusing on what’s possible and out of that what I think is best. 
 

at the moment, in terms of saving the economy, based on my incredibly narrow knowledge of economics, I’ll err on the side underestimating our government’s competence and agility and overestimating how much help people need and how many people need it

 

this is a crisis. We need decisive and sweeping action. Not more bureaucratic nonsense

 

look how long it’s taken to get to the point where someone is finally proposing a bill that recognizes a one time payment of 1000$ to people under 75k simply isn’t close to enough?

 

we don’t have time for this bull**** and from the way things look to me, the time we’ve already spent navigating this bull**** may have cause serious damage that it didnt need to 

 

no excuses already outlined how this economic crisis is unlike others. This was t caused by a fundamental economic issue were just finding out about. The economy wasn’t great but it wasn’t headed to Great Depression level collapsing either. 
 

our slowness and incompetence is going to make this so much worse than it needed to be. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by tshile

[goskins10]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

I was really just trying to add on to your post. 
 

I agree with everything you’ve said

 

the issue I take at this moment is that to do so going forward requires the government to start planning for it *now*

 

Edit for space

 

 

Fair enough and I could have been clearer that I agree with you also. We are violently agreeing with each other...  🙂  

 

It is a cluster and has been from the start due to the incompetence of the person in the WH, compounded by his unwillingness to listen to the experts until there is absolutely no other choice. It's all very frustrating. 

[No Excuses]

Also want to add that I read in WSJ about how a huge number of white collar workers are being laid of, whose jobs otherwise may have been deemed safe since they could work from home. Lawyers etc. These might be people who in their 2018 or 2019 tax returns showed a lot of income so may not qualify for really stringent distribution quotas. But if they are out of work, savings can start running out quick if they have high mortgages, lots of children and other expenditures. You may end up with a subset of high income individuals who had lifestyle creep and can't afford it anymore or people who stop their normal expenditures and start dipping into savings and only spend on essentials. The expenditures of these people support a lot of vital industries that employ lots of people.

 

There are a lot of downstream effects of the incoming depression and I think it will be useful if we don't view monetary assistance to American families as "bailouts" or "handouts".

Edited April 16, 2020 by No Excuses

[Larry]

14 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Looks like a horrible bill to me.  The cut-off is way to high, imo.  It's $260,000 for couples, then an extra $500 per child up to three kids.  I don't think we will be in this situation for one year, but who knows?  Example, you have a couple where one stays at home with the kid, the other makes $200K per year.  The employed spouse can work remote and gets the same paycheck, basically zero impact on their earnings.  

 

Now they are going to get $4500 per month extra?  They were fine and living comfortably prior to the bill and the bill would give them free money even though they were not impacted by the current situation.  That money could go towards others that need it more, or help out somewhere else.  I understand that a lot of people need it, and I'm all for helping others, but it seems like this wasn't thought out very well.  I think it needs more checks and balances.  

 

Just pointing out that yes, there are going to be people in this crisis who's income didn't change.  

 

I'm a home health care nurse, and my roommate is a respiratory therapist in a major teaching hospital.  Our income didn't change one bit.  

 

In fact, she started her two week paid vacation today.  (Scheduled four months ago.)  She can't do anything but sit around the house, but she's "getting paid for not working".

 

But how do you send stimulus to people who are sitting at home with no income and no job, but not to people who's income didn't drop?  Gonna require every individual to send in their payroll information from two months ago, and from last week?  

 

Pretty sure that the only way to do this without spending six months creating a bureaucracy, is to just send it to everybody.  And trust that the money you send to people who "don't deserve it" will stimulate the economy, too.  Like anything the government does, there's going to be people who get extra, and people who get screwed.  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I get what you are saying. Ideally you would target those who lost their jobs. And by saving money there you could increase the income limits so you reach more people who are actually directly impacted. The issue is that the level of administration needed to do that for an initial stimulus would have seriously delayed anyone from getting money. Maybe you do that moving forward. But as someone else said if that is the plan, they should be putting in the framework for it right now. 

 

 

I'm just thinking long term.  Yeah, maybe one or two months of the $2000 payments while they put together a plan to target those that are really in dire need of assistance. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

Pretty sure that the only way to do this without spending six months creating a bureaucracy, is to just send it to everybody.  And trust that the money you send to people who "don't deserve it" will stimulate the economy, too.  Like anything the government does, there's going to be people who get extra, and people who get screwed.  

 

I can tell you right now that if this passes (which I don't think it will - and I think they know it won't and are just tossing it out there as political leverage to get votes; and both sides are failing us imo, just for the record), we will put all $4500 per month towards our mortgage, every month until they stop sending out the payments.  Why wouldn't we?  

 

I imagine that would be the case for a lot of people, using it on things they don't need, or saving it, or putting down extra on mortgages/car payments/etc.  I get that what I would like to see takes time to set-up.  

[Larry]

Maybe a proposal for what I'll call "Taze's problem":  

 

Make the payments an interest-free loan.  And reportable on next year's taxes.  

 

If your total income next year, including your checks, is smaller than it was in 2019, then the loan's forgiven.  

 

If your income, including the checks, went up?  Then you have to pay it back.  

 

So, there's a determination as to who "needs it" and who doesn't.  But it's done next year.  (When there's been time to set it up.)  

[techboy]

10 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I can tell you right now that if this passes (which I don't think it will - and I think they know it won't and are just tossing it out there as political leverage to get votes; and both sides are failing us imo, just for the record), we will put all $4500 per month towards our mortgage, every month until they stop sending out the payments.  Why wouldn't we?  

 

I imagine that would be the case for a lot of people, using it on things they don't need, or saving it, or putting down extra on mortgages/car payments/etc.  I get that what I would like to see takes time to set-up.  

 

1. Money is fungible. If you put the stimulus towards your mortgage, that frees up money you otherwise would have used for your mortgage to be spent on other things.

 

2. "using it on things they don't need" is exactly what is necessary right now. @Destinoprobably doesn't need a new fishing reel right now (I don't think he's a commercial fisherman), but the people working at the business he's going to buy it from might argue that they need a job right now.

[tshile]

Yeah I’m not going to “need” anything I spend the stimulus money on. 
 

But I value my country and our economy and I recognize the money is being given to me to spend because we need people to spend money to keep things moving. I understand what my role is and I am willing to fulfill that even if it seems silly to some people. 
 

and if for some reason I can’t find something I want or if I start to feel ashamed or whatever about my situation then I’ll send it to the damn food bank. We might do that to start with. We haven’t decided. It’s not something that’s passed so we don’t have to decide. 
 

maybe I’ll give it to my neighbors who are laid off. I don’t know. I’ll do something with it. 
 

 

[Larry]

I'd spend it on Disney, but, y'know . . . 

[redskins59]

I sold my house in November when I moved from Virginia to Baltimore.  I am all for helping people out, but I also feel that I would like to take advantage of the unfortunate situation.  Now, I am definitely seeing price reductions left and right.  I must say though, we cannot have a sitation where people are making more money  unemployed.  

Who knows, I might lose my job too.  At the same time, I want real estate to tank.   

I would like to see a balance. 2000 to everybody?    What would it do to real estate?  I want that to go down at least.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

But how do you send stimulus to people who are sitting at home with no income and no job, but not to people who's income didn't drop?  Gonna require every individual to send in their payroll information from two months ago, and from last week?  

 

Pretty sure that the only way to do this without spending six months creating a bureaucracy, is to just send it to everybody.  And trust that the money you send to people who "don't deserve it" will stimulate the economy, too.  Like anything the government does, there's going to be people who get extra, and people who get screwed.  

yes. And, in my opinion, when you start trying to figure out “who doesn’t deserve this” you will (in addition to all the other problems we’ve outlined) wind up falsely categorizing people. People who need it will wind up being labeled as “don’t need it”. It’ll be because of a system error, a paperwork error, or a process error. Or a shortcoming of some sort. The bottom line is a household that needs it won’t get it due to error. 
 

Whatever perceived gain their is in trying to institute a level of fairness is simply not worth the negatives that come from it. Plain and simple. 
 

if you want to institute a level of fairness without causing more harm, institute it on the backend in how we’re going got tax people to pay for it when it’s all said and done. 
 

at that point there will be official filings for people who lost their job and lost income. You can raise everyone’s taxes (raise them more for people who make more) and provide offsetting credits for people that can show they absolutely needed the money when this was going on. 
 

then you have time to work out the kinks and have some notion of fairness

 

(I don’t expect our government to do that either. I fully expect them to continue their usual ways of privatized gains and socialized losses)

[StillUnknown]

I'm paying my tattoo guy in advance of some work we'll finish up when things open back up. He just had a new addition to the fam, and he's always taken care of me with all the work we've done in the past

 

I'm far from rich, but previous times of childhood poverty taught me to how to stretch out. What i dont spend on the tat, i'll send to some close friends and relatives who need it more than me

Edited April 16, 2020 by StillUnknown