5 winners and 3 losers in the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus bill

[DonViejo]

Sen. Joe Manchin is a winner in the stimulus bill. Losers: deficit hawks, and people hoping for a $15 minimum wage.

By Emily Stewart, Ian Millhiser, Ella Nilsen, Andrew Prokop, Zack Beauchamp, and Dylan Scott Mar 6, 2021, 12:25pm EST

President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package is on the brink of becoming law. While it may not have been everything many Democrats hoped and dreamed of, the bill is a pretty big deal.

After days of wrangling over last-minute changes to the bill text, the United States Senate passed the relief bill midday Saturday. The vote was 50-49 along party lines. It includes $1,400 stimulus checks to millions of Americans, extends expanded unemployment until September 6, and doles out billions of dollars toward vaccinations, testing, state and local governments, schools, and businesses.

Much of the back-in-forth in recent days has been over making small changes to the legislation on the margins — margins, to be clear, that will affect millions of people.

The scope of stimulus check recipients was scaled back, so that they will go to people making up to $75,000 a year ($150,000 for couples) and phase out at $80,000 ($160,000 for couples). Previously, the phase-outs were set at $100,000 and $200,000, respectively. That change cuts eligibility for an estimated 12 million adults and nearly 5 million children, though it is worth noting this bill expanded check eligibility to adult dependents, such as college students and those with disabilities.

more
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/3/6/22313466/covid-stimulus-package-passes-unemployment

[EarlG]

1. On this idea of winners and losers

It would be tempting for folks on our side of the aisle -- not to mention the media -- to describe any watering down of the Covid bill as a loss for Biden and the Democrats. If that's the case, I hope those people will also go to great lengths to explain how the Republicans have won a great victory.

Because we certainly don't need to let people forget that Republicans voted in lockstep to rip pay raises away from hardworking Americans who have full time jobs but can’t get out of poverty.

And that when push came to shove, every single Republican voted against ANY relief for the American people, and voted against ANY help America needs to recover from the pandemic.

From a purely tactical, inside-baseball viewpoint, Republicans “win” when they prevent Democrats from enacting parts of their agenda. That's classic beltway journalism. But just because they call it a victory, that doesn’t make it one in the real world. By standing against the popular Covid bill, Republicans have hurt real people, and that's going to piss off a lot of voters.

Conversely, what did the Democrats lose? Well, they lost the chance to enact certain pieces of their agenda. In other words, they partially lost an opportunity to lift up some who are struggling, to do some good, to brighten the lives of hardworking people, to get America back on track. And they lost that opportunity because Republicans stood 100% shoulder to shoulder in opposition against them.

The Senate doesn't begin and end at Joe Manchin. Republicans need to own their opposition to this bill, and Democrats should make sure they own it. Let's make sure everyone knows what the consequences of a Republican victory look like.

[RainCaster]

3. Well said Earl!

[empedocles]

5. TY

[Demsrule86]

14. Well said and I agree...remarkable bill and I am proud of Democrats and of Joe Biden and

Kamala Harris.

[Demsrule86]

15. Well said and I agree...remarkable bill and I am proud of Democrats and of Joe Biden and

Kamala Harris.

[zanana1]

2. I'm safely under the $70,000 a year group.

My checkbook is crying.

[Baked Potato]

4. How about just pass a targeted tax cut to offset not raising pay?

Should get more support.

[Sibelius Fan]

6. Tax cuts don't help those who have little $ to tax.

[Baked Potato]

7. What i would like to see is Zero tax on income

less than $30k a year. That would help. I’m also for a UBI.

[roamer65]

9. The first 30k should be untaxed at a federal level for anyone.

The top marginal tax rate should go back to 50 percent, just as it was in 1982 but adjusted for inflation bracket wise.

[Baked Potato]

10. Yes, you said it better than me.

[roamer65]

12. I also think that somewhere way higher up in income the rate should go to 65 percent.

Probably around 10 million or so.

10 million now is 1 million in 1965 dollars.

Also bring in currency controls like the Chinese to stop tax evasion.

[Celerity]

13. Only a little more than half of adults pay any net federal income tax, so income tax cuts do little

to nothing to help that 45-47% or so. Some of that almost half number are also the ultra rich who use loopholes to pay nothing in terms of income tax as well. The system is broken.

[Baked Potato]

16. Agreed, it's broken.

The side problem of raising wages is inflation. Then, like in the late 70s and then Reagan years the interest rates for borrowing shot up and was bad. I remember paying 22% on a car loan in ‘84. And, my credit wasn’t too bad.

[Celerity]

17. 22% APR on a massively depreciating purchase is madness

speaking of inflation

I see some of the centrist/conservadem social media posters suggesting a 'compromise' of 10 usd (lol, not even 11 usd) for the minimum wage increase, with the full 10 usd effective by 2023 or 2024.

By then, 10 usd will be worth LESS (in terms of inflation-adjusted purchasing power) than 7.25 usd was in 2009 (when that 7.25 kicked in)

IF we then go the same amount of time (around 14 to 15 years, 2009-2023/24) before the next full increase, that 10 usd will be sub 5 usd per hour, maybe sub 4 usd per hour if inflation explodes.

[SoonerPride]

8. I stopped reading as soon as I saw "deficit hawks,"

There is no such thing. No Republican is a deficit hawk.

The last four years of trumpian excess proves that.

They didn’t squeal once about the deficit under trump.

Or Bush the lesser either.

“Deficit hawk”is a made up animal.

Like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.

[Mr.Bill]

11. In most areas of this country,

anybody making over 80K is doing some serious winning.

[Celerity]

20. If you take 75K to 85K as the level, then so not the case in many of the largest metro areas

Especially if you are a home owner (hello property tax plus full on utilities and insurance) with a mortgage (rent is also insane in many areas), and also student loans. Not to mention healthcare costs (many have 5K to 10K in premiums per annum, on top of 5K to 10K usd in deductible costs), and sometimes childcare costs, plus transportation costs. After taxes and all those other expenses, that 75K to 85K usd is eviscerated to a large degree.

Deffo not

some serious winning.

There is a serious anti-coastal, anti-large urban area bias by many on here. I had serious some serious cringe time when I saw some retired, out in the middle of nowhere poster claim that their 7.78 (and that was post tax) usd per hour in transfer payments income was more than enough for them, so people whingeing about 7.25 usd per hour (which is pre tax) should be happy with any raise.

[Mr.Bill]

21. Maybe we should index it to the cost of living.

Do it by counties or Congressional districts. We have a wealth of demographic information about economies. Let's use it. I live 150 miles from San Francisco and I guarantee it will take 5K to do for someone there what 1,400 will do for me.

[WarGamer]

18. concise and well written article.

Vox doesn't always deliver that, lol...

[JI7]

19. Minimum wage increase needs to be pushed at state level also

Things like same sex marriage and marriages marijuana legalization help get more support through that.

Florida voted for minimum wage increase while at the same time voting for shitty Republicans that oppose it.

[Mr.Bill]

22. Yes, but some states don't have the ballot initiative system,

so the legislators would have to do it. But ultimately we choose them, too.