POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

[psych]

Will these stimulus checks be based on 2019 income/taxes? Or, if I file my taxes now, before this bill is (hopefully) passed in March, will they use my 2020 tax returns?

 

[Handyman]

I don't think so, unless the better weight of experts show that more stimulus cash to that group will have a bigger long term benefit. His first duty is to come to the aid of the people, but cutting back on the ceiling does not impact the most needy. If you live in NYC or SF, 150k is not much, I realize.

And they aren't voting against him anyways.

What I can't seem to find is what this means for the rest of the package. Is he basically lowering that but keeping everything else in? (money for States, minimum wage) If so then I wonder why do it at all. If he wants to pass it on it's own it is a smart move then imho because you can then add more later in the larger bill.

I kind of think that this is him throwing a bone to the GOP crew that came to him with a proposal. He is lowering the overall cost by being closer to their thresholds (targeting) but keeping the higher dollar amount. Its an attempt to show he is willing to negotiate in good faith and see if they are willing to as well. If they balk he can burn them with it then since even GOP voters support $1400.

I again likely get screwed (unless somehow I am considered head of household but I never got how any of that worked) but I need $1400 a lot less than say my parents or my GF do and they will do fine. If the numbers are correct the VAST majority will get the full amount while also making Manchin happy that people who are less in need won't get it.

Avoiding Reconciliation on this also leaves that open for something else as well which is a nice option.

 

[Kepler]

Will these stimulus checks be based on 2019 income/taxes?

Hope not. 2019 income has very little to do with 2020 income for a lot of people.

 

[Handyman]

We need cost of living adjustments for all this, including income taxes. You shouldn't be punished just because you live somewhere expensive.

I am sure the new head of the Budget Committee is willing to listen ;^)

This should make busterman happy this is what he was advocating for.

 

[Handyman]

Will these stimulus checks be based on 2019 income/taxes? Or, if I file my taxes now, before this bill is (hopefully) passed in March, will they use my 2020 tax returns?

According to the WaPo article that hasn't been decided yet. I would assume 2019 unless you file 2020 when all is said and done though.

 

[Handyman]

Hope not. 2019 income has very little to do with 2020 income for a lot of people.

If you havent filed your 2020 though for some reason it would make sense to go with 2019. The first round was based on whichever was the last year you filed 2018 or 2019 IIRC.

 

[burd]

I definitely think it’s the right move fiscally, no doubt about that at all. Politically it is massive blunder though. Hopefully this means that the minimum wage going to $15 stays.

Well, Drew, I was actually thinking the experts might say a more liberal stimulus might be better fiscal policy, given the specific circumstances we are in. I believe some have said we need a large stimulus and the sooner the better.

 

[psych]

If you havent filed your 2020 though for some reason it would make sense to go with 2019. The first round was based on whichever was the last year you filed 2018 or 2019 IIRC.

Yeah I seem to remember that too. They (the GUBMINT!) would likely just recoup it in 2022 on the tax returns if you got the full amount based on 2019 tax returns, but your 2020 tax returns revealed you shouldn’t have received the full amount, right? I feel like I remember reading that somewhere too.
Any chance Romney’s childcare plan gets included in any of these bills, or at least co-opted?

 

[rufus]

I'm not keen on it, cause the Repubs are whining that people with 'high incomes', meaning $75,000, shouldn't be getting money, while whenever they talk about tax cuts, people making three times that are referred to as 'middle income'. Also, if he's going the reconciliation route to get this passed, he doesn't need to appeal to Republicans anyway. maybe if this is what it takes to get Manchin on board with the rest of the $1,9 trillion.

But still, the people who need this money the most are those people with incomes below $50,000. So if this is what it takes to get that money to them, so be it. As Kep says, take it, and then come back for more.

 

[MichVandal]

I'm not keen on it, cause the Repubs are whining that people with 'high incomes', meaning $75,000, shouldn't be getting money, while whenever they talk about tax cuts, people making three times that are referred to as 'middle income'.

But still, the people who need this money the most are those people with incomes below $50,000. So if this is what it takes to get that money to them, so be it. As Kep says, take it, and then come back for more.

I doubt anyone who constantly calls on them for this obvious hypocrisy will ever get any traction- that, and their "concern" about the debt- since it's their leaders that push it up the most when the economy is good.

Anyway, President Biden was in congress for a LOOONG time. He knows how it works. Which means you start higher than you really want, and let the other side think they are getting a good deal. So calling it caving when it's just a compromise that he likely planned for is rather over the top.

He also gets a lot of credibility among the racists, making them think he's working with them. Seeing how they ran things the last 4 years, it's pretty clear they have no idea what negotiations are about.

If the racist party wants to think he caved, fine. I'd be more confident that he got the racists to cave on something he would like, and still got what he wanted.

 

[Kepler]

Take the GOP up on it. Give the money to everyone and then raise taxes on the rich to claw it back.

 

[Drew S.]

I doubt anyone who constantly calls on them for this obvious hypocrisy will ever get any traction- that, and their "concern" about the debt- since it's their leaders that push it up the most when the economy is good.

Anyway, President Biden was in congress for a LOOONG time. He knows how it works. Which means you start higher than you really want, and let the other side think they are getting a good deal. So calling it caving when it's just a compromise that he likely planned for is rather over the top.

He also gets a lot of credibility among the racists, making them think he's working with them. Seeing how they ran things the last 4 years, it's pretty clear they have no idea what negotiations are about.

If the racist party wants to think he caved, fine. I'd be more confident that he got the racists to cave on something he would like, and still got what he wanted.

You’re bang on about the hypocrisy. All we’re going to hear for the next couple years is how all these people got checks when Trump was in office and GOP controlled the senate who didn’t get checks once Biden was president and Dems controlled the senate. They have no shame at all and will definitely be using it.

 

[rufus]

https://prospect.org/api/amp/first100/wonk-case-for-limiting-eligibility-covid-relief-checks-is-wrong/?__twitter_impression=t

Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the more tightly targeted checks would cost $420 billion, as opposed to $465 billion. That’s what we’re fighting over? $45 billion in a $1.9 trillion package, to deny middle-class people (almost definitionally speaking; they make just over the median income) relief? That’s the holdup?https://prospect.org/api/amp/first1...elief-checks-is-wrong/?__twitter_impression=t

https://prospect.org/api/amp/first1...elief-checks-is-wrong/?__twitter_impression=t

we're quibbling about $45 billion. Give people the money, and then pass Lizzie's wealth tax.

 

[psych]

And they aren't voting against him anyways.

What I can't seem to find is what this means for the rest of the package. Is he basically lowering that but keeping everything else in? (money for States, minimum wage) If so then I wonder why do it at all. If he wants to pass it on it's own it is a smart move then imho because you can then add more later in the larger bill.

I kind of think that this is him throwing a bone to the GOP crew that came to him with a proposal. He is lowering the overall cost by being closer to their thresholds (targeting) but keeping the higher dollar amount. Its an attempt to show he is willing to negotiate in good faith and see if they are willing to as well. If they balk he can burn them with it then since even GOP voters support $1400.

I again likely get screwed (unless somehow I am considered head of household but I never got how any of that worked) but I need $1400 a lot less than say my parents or my GF do and they will do fine. If the numbers are correct the VAST majority will get the full amount while also making Manchin happy that people who are less in need won't get it.

Avoiding Reconciliation on this also leaves that open for something else as well which is a nice option.

Your last sentence...I thought the stimulus checks are apart of his first budget reconciliation bill, which at this point is basically a bunch of Covid relief (like the checks) and a minimum wage increase?

 

[Handyman]

Well, Drew, I was actually thinking the experts might say a more liberal stimulus might be better fiscal policy, given the specific circumstances we are in. I believe some have said we need a large stimulus and the sooner the better.

I think part of the problem is research has showed people used the Stimulus to either add to savings or pay down debt. (both very smart) There is an argument to be made that it doesn't really stimulate the economy so much as give people a stronger footing.

I could use the money...but if I have to sacrifice it so those that NEED the money can get it I will. This is not Mitch's plan or Susie's plan...the vast majority of people will get what they were promised and it isn't being done by fiat.

 

[Handyman]

Your last sentence...I thought the stimulus checks are apart of his first budget reconciliation bill, which at this point is basically a bunch of Covid relief (like the checks) and a minimum wage increase?

I am going on the assumption the concession is to try and get the 10 GOP votes. If it isnt then there is no point in lowering the numbers unless Manchin is trying to screw over his own Governor and his party.

 

[Stauber1]

Ju

 

[Handyman]

Ju

Jitsu? ;^)

 

[Handyman]

This Might Be Why Biden Moved

 

[Stauber1]

Somehow I managed to butt-post

Yes, I have a very talented booty