Biden's push for stimulus checks sparks income eligibility debate

[Klaralven]

President Biden’s push for more direct payments is sparking a debate over what the income thresholds should be for the stimulus checks.

Many Republicans and some centrist Democrats say any additional payments need to be more targeted toward lower-income households, arguing they are most in need of relief and are more likely to spend the money quickly, providing a boost to the economy.

On Sunday, a group of 10 GOP senators made that argument in a letter to Biden announcing their own coronavirus relief proposal, one that includes payments "for those families who need assistance the most, including their dependent children and adults." The senators are now slated to meet with Biden on Monday to discuss coronavirus relief.

Progressives, meanwhile, insist that broad eligibility would ensure the money gets out the door swiftly, while providing help to people whose income has dropped during the coronavirus-induced recession.

Biden has signaled he is open to discussing income limits for additional checks in his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. The wide-ranging proposal does not specify any income eligibility requirements for new $1,400 payments.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/536619-bidens-push-for-stimulus-checks-sparks-income-eligibility-debate

I'd think it would be more effective as a refundable tax credit on 2020 taxes. The use of income in 2019 to determine thresholds doesn't really make sense, since that doesn't take into account the effect of Covid on employment and income in 2020.

[Squinch]

2. I support this. I don't need a stimulus check. Give it to someone for

whom it really matters.

I'll probably give it to a local food bank anyway, but why not make it a direct payment?

[Buckeyeblue]

5. And your giving it to the foodbank ensures it will get spent

So giving to you nets the results we are looking for. There needs to be a national push to spend the money or donate it to a charity that will.

[Happy Hoosier]

8. That's great for you, but...

Why are yoi making that choice for other folks? If you don’t need the money, by all means, send it to someone who does, but other “ineligible” people might well need the money. None of my expenses have decreased, but my income was down by 20% last year. And I am sure to be one who is ineligible.

[Klaralven]

11. Maybe the criteria should be the percent decrease of income 2020 versus 2019

That would target the people who have been impacted most.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. Funny how tax cuts and corporate subsidies always get reverse means tested.

But god forbid a working person or poor person catch a break or a breather....

[ananda]

9. I used mine for political donations.

Some of my candidates won, some lost,
but with Georgia, it was money well spent.

[Turin_C3PO]

12. But there's people

who may be in your financial situation who DO need a check. Maybe they’re supporting out of work children or are jobless, not eligible for unemployment, and don’t have savings. It’s best if the check gets sent out to as many people as possible.

[dsp3000]

19. I dont "need" one but it would be nice.

I'm glad to be in this kind of situation but there may be others who had a higher income, lost their job and are now scrambling to make ends meet. Everyone's circumstances are different.

[Walleye]

3. I've heard that a fast dime is worth more than a slow quarter

[wishstar]

4. Better to keep promise made of the full $2000 with $600 already paid out and faster payments too

Complicating things by making eligibility changes now after blanket promise of full $2000 or kicking it down the road to a tax credit where a refund would take months and require filing tax return wouldn't go over well with millions of families.

[Walleye]

6. Yes

[Bettie]

7. Money in the hands of people who will spend it

is good for the economy, good for local businesses.

[ananda]

10. Ermm.. it's always been this way.

They just used to have a way to use code language
and put on a veneer of respectablity.

They were always corporate fascists.

[Turin_C3PO]

13. But I already filled out my 2020 taxes.

Under your scenario, would I still get my $1400 in a timely matter?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

14. Why is this so fucking hard?

[ooky]

27. Because Republicans are involved. nt

[KatyMan]

15. Funny there's no income means testing

Or deficit worries when it come to tax cuts for the rich. Although I guess it's reverse means testing.

[leftstreet]

22. +1

[Bengus81]

16. This 1400.00 right now has no income eligibility requirments?

Seriously?? Damn...people making 2-5K+ a week sure as hell don't need to be stimulated. I thought they had a cut off of around $77k to get a check.

[Wounded Bear]

17. It does, but they're pretty high as I understand it...nt

[Klaralven]

18. It phases out above $75K single, $150K married on 2019 return.

But the point is that the 2019 return number is irrelevant to the impact of Covid in 2020.

[Turin_C3PO]

23. It's better just to get it out to as many as possible.

Better that some who don’t need the money get it then vice-versa.

[Demsrule86]

31. That's right...

[Keth]

20. ?

I don't know if this can be included in a relief bill, but social security recipients could use a bigger annual pay increase than the 1.3% - my sister gets social security and her increase was a lousy $11. Fortunately, her husband still has a good job, but what if she was on her own. I'm sure there are a lot of social security recipients struggling out there with groceries and gas prices increasing by way over 1.3%.

[KayF]

21. they are trying to make it as ineffective as possible

it would delay the checks, and not result in much of a savings.

[Mike 03]

24. Your last point is excellent. It makes NO sense to calculate eligibility based on

last year.

Some interesting expert on Bloomberg radio last night suggested the checks be targeted to individuals and families making $70,000 and under. I don't really have an opinion on that, but it did strike me that she used that figure and sounded so certain it was a good number. I wonder if that's a reasonable figure?

[Demsrule86]

32. This is a stimulus...lets go big.

[Johnny2X2X]

25. The $1400 is the stimulus, the UE bonus is the relief in my opinion

$1400 is great, we'll spend ours and donate part of it. It's going to help the economy. But people I know who aren't working need income every week, extending the UE and adding a $400 bonus to it means a lot more to those that are truly struggling than the $1400 in most cases.

What is obvious that needs to be done is boost regular unemployment in all of the states. In non crisis times, here in MI, getting laid off, is basically a sentence to financial ruin. The max here is $362 a week before taxes. Unless you're working within a month or 2, you're going to be ruined financially from losing your job. It's not enough to get by. Still needs to be means tested, but the ceiling needs to be raised several hundred dollars. And higher wage earners really feel it the worst. My bills are about $2200 a month before food, $3000 a month with food. I lose my job and the state of Michigan is paying me about $1200 a month take home, I can just about pay my mortgage with that, nothing more. So I have savings, I am responsible, do not live lavish lifestyles or have new cars. Done everything right for the most part, kept my debt low, earned a degree, trying to find the American Dream. My company closes, I could be totally ruined in just a few months. That's not OK, and I am way better off than most. Some people fall into ruin in a matter of weeks rather than months.

This needs to be a priority, UE benefits have been static in most states longer than minimum wage has.

[Kaleva]

26. My gross income in 2019 was $15,984.60 and I don't need it but I'll accept it.

My income this year from SSDI and a VA pension will be $16,167.48.

[ooky]

28. The people who need it are the people who have lost income because of Covid.

Find a way to get it out to those people quickly - no problem. But if that's not possible then stop talking about it and get the $1400 coming.

Continued government inaction is what doesn't make sense.

[JHB]

29. Send it to everyone. This is supposed to be an emergency relief measure.

For people too well-off to "need" it, tax it back from them.

[Kaleva]

35. How do u define "too well off"?

My income I'd about 16k a year and I don't need it. With my deducations, i haven't paid any income tax in years. How would they tax it back from me?

[David__77]

30. Democrats should have had no means testing on these payments.

...

[bigtree]

33. means testing relief isn't stimulus

...no one means tested the wealthy who reaped millions from the tax breaks, or the corps who took Covid loans.