[ASAP]

The whole damn thing makes exactly 0 sense... monthly or annual salary is a terrible gauge of whether one needs a check... it should be based on net worth (albeit that is nearly impossible to measure which is why this is stupid in any case).

example 1 - a person makes 100k but has 10k in savings and high bills, this person will be screwed if they lose their job

example 2 - a person making 40k a year but somehow has 300k in cash (inheritance or whatever) and has a minimal rent payment... this person has technically almost no use for a stimulus check

Well one could argue example 1 should have had more savings... sure... one could also argue our fine companies could have had cash on hand for a rainy day but now want a bailout....

this is all incredibly stupid and will just accelerate inflation.... btw I am not getting a dollar, my parents are gettting $2400... care to know who stands to lose more if something happens?

[Run Silent]

Agree with the OP.

Anyone who is able, should be filing their returns under the same plan as before - by 04/15. In general, these types of programs almost always require a tax return to be filed. You are able to file an extension for taxes owed without penalty right now, so a bit of a no brainer.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by eluded

It depends on where you're located. 150,000 a year in Kansas or Nebraska or Pennsylvania goes a lot farther than say New York or California.

I get that, but I say blanket it. Lots of those NY workers live in NJ b/c cheaper...

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by ASAP

The whole damn thing makes exactly 0 sense... monthly or annual salary is a terrible gauge of whether one needs a check... it should be based on net worth (albeit that is nearly impossible to measure which is why this is stupid in any case).

example 1 - a person makes 100k but has 10k in savings and high bills, this person will be screwed if they lose their job

example 2 - a person making 40k a year but somehow has 300k in cash (inheritance or whatever) and has a minimal rent payment... this person has technically almost no use for a stimulus check

Well one could argue example 1 should have had more savings... sure... one could also argue our fine companies could have had cash on hand for a rainy day but now want a bailout....

this is all incredibly stupid and will just accelerate inflation.... btw I am not getting a dollar, my parents are gettting $2400... care to know who stands to lose more if something happens?

No. If you have been making 6 figures for a while & only have $10k in savings, you suck at money management. Your own fault.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by ASAP

example 1 - a person makes 100k but has 10k in savings and high bills, this person will be screwed if they lose their job

At the risk of getting this thread moved under P&R, this example is no different than the person who spent a million bucks on a McMansion before the housing bubble popped, took out a jumbo loan, leveraged it up the wazoo with second mortgages, and then cried to Uncle Sam when their whole house of cards came tumbling down.

As someone who purchased a moderate two-bedroom house and lives well within his means (and suffered a huge medical issue with $12K out-of-pocket two years ago), why should I pay for someone else's irresponsibility?

On the topic of the check, those who don't need it can freely donate the funds to their local not-for-profit hospital, health care worker scholarships, food banks, etc. I actually donated $100 yesterday to a well-vetted local college nursing student hardship fund.....

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

At the risk of getting this thread moved under P&R, this example is no different than the person who spent a million bucks on a McMansion before the housing bubble popped, took out a jumbo loan, leveraged it up the wazoo with second mortgages, and then cried to Uncle Sam when their whole house of cards came tumbling down.

As someone who purchased a moderate two-bedroom house and lives well within his means (and suffered a huge medical issue with $12K out-of-pocket two years ago), why should I pay for someone else's irresponsibility?

On the topic of the check, those who don't need it can freely donate the funds to their local not-for-profit hospital, health care worker scholarships, food banks, etc. I actually donated $100 yesterday to a well-vetted local college nursing student hardship fund.....

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by FuriouslyFast

No. If you have been making 6 figures for a while & only have $10k in savings, you suck at money management. Your own fault.

Thats most of America... I don't fit into this group but again... tell me why corporations do not fit under the same standards?

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Thats most of America... I don't fit into this group but again... tell me why corporations do not fit under the same standards?

Most of American has been making $100k+ for a while now? Nope!

Don't get me started on all the corporations get away with & stick us with. Whole different topic & my head will explode.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by FuriouslyFast

Most of American has been making $100k+ for a while now? Nope!

Don't get me started on all the corporations get away with & stick us with. Whole different topic & my head will explode.

Most of america blows its money and saves little at all income levels.

[2000cs]

The point of the thread is to offer help getting the stimulus money to people we all know who might need it. Could be family, customers, vendors, yourself.

Politics and opinions on the wisdom of the stimulus belong in another thread in the Politics sub, please.

[Joekerr]

I'll be honest, as a business owner and as an individual, I'll take anything I qualify for on both levels, whether I need it at the moment or not, because if I don't need it right now, I probably will in the near future and at that point, it probably won't be enough anyways.

This thing isn't going to be over in a few weeks.

And the way I see it is that I've been paying my taxes just like everyone else, so if I'm entitled to anything as deemed by the rules the government creates (whatever they may be), then I'll take it, because why shouldn't I? If you don't like it, vote different next election.

I shouldn't have to deplete my savings so the government can support Joe Blow who wasted his money on ATV's and snowmobiles when he shouldn't have, just so he could have a toy, meanwhile, I don't have any of those and chose to save that money instead. Why should I be penalized for making a smart choice, and he be supported for choosing poorly. Not going to happen. I'll take anything I qualify for.

[RickFLM4]

Honestly, I prefer the checks weren't sent out at all. I'd rather see the money reserved for further extensions to unemployment coverage, cover COBRA / health insurance for people who lose their jobs, support small business retention of employees, etc. , as necessary. People who are still working and making money do not need a check, regardless of income level. They are no worse off than they were a month ago. Sending checks to people is designed to get people to go out and spend money they otherwise might not spend. People can't do that right now, unless they find (even more) toilet paper they can order from Amazon. Timing makes sense for economic support for people and businesses impacted through no fault of their own, but makes no sense for a stimulus.

Edit: But otherwise agree with OP, get taxes filed ASAP, especially if there was a change in address or decline in earnings to get you below the phase out.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by FuriouslyFast

No. If you have been making 6 figures for a while & only have $10k in savings, you suck at money management. Your own fault.

Lots of assumptions here.

I for one am totally against this wealth redistribution crap. If they just kept the provision for extending unemployment benefits, I'd be all for it. Or for those that have been impacted by reduction in their income due to reduced hours, I'm ok with them getting some help. It's total crap that this money is just going to be a blanket distribution of money with an arbitrary limit set which isn't adjusted based on area cost of living. This is no different than the other crap wealth distribution that happened a few years ago which did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.

Now I have to pay for both. At least I should get a reach around for taking it in the rear.

As you can tell, I'm not going to get a check and I do make in the 6 figures. Currently I don't need the check. It would help with my debt but certainly isn't going to make or break me currently. But if I do lose my job based on the arbitrary guidelines for receiving a check, I'd be screwed. Before you get on your high horse about I should have had x amount saved, I hope you don't ever have to go through a divorce. Those that have know the raping a guy goes through even though they're not at fault for the marriage failing. I just went through this. In addition to having to give half of some of my assets, I've been paying a ton in support, the ex's nursing school degree (which was in the 5 figures), and attorney's fees for both mine and hers (also in the 5 figures). Before this divorce, I had well over a year's worth of assets to cover my expenses along with significant savings. Oh and I also took it in the rear when I had to sell some of my investments to satisfy the divorce decree during this market down turn. There's a reason why many men going through this have a high suicide rate and I feel 100% contributed to my current heart/high blood pressure issues.

So I wouldn't broadly stroke that righteous brush.

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Honestly, I prefer the checks weren't sent out at all. I'd rather see the money reserved for further extensions to unemployment coverage, cover COBRA / health insurance for people who lose their jobs, support small business retention of employees, etc. , as necessary. People who are still working and making money do not need a check, regardless of income level. They are no worse off than they were a month ago. Sending checks to people is designed to get people to go out and spend money they otherwise might not spend. People can't do that right now, unless they find (even more) toilet paper they can order from Amazon. Timing makes sense for economic support for people and businesses impacted through no fault of their own, but makes no sense for a stimulus.

Edit: But otherwise agree with OP, get taxes filed ASAP, especially if there was a change in address or decline in earnings to get you below the phase out.

This is going to be a huge impact. Even if you have a healthy emergency fund set aside, COBRA and Health Insurance premiums will eat through that in a hurry!

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Lots of assumptions here.

I for one am totally against this wealth redistribution crap. .

That's a completely different proposal & one I was not referring to so I stopped reading there.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by Rmtt

This is going to be a huge impact. Even if you have a healthy emergency fund set aside, COBRA and Health Insurance premiums will eat through that in a hurry!

I have not had health insurance since Obamacare & thanks to Obamacare.

COBRA premiums are even more so not even sure how that helps anyone out there. Seems like a joke

[Littlebear]

"It's a system where "you socialize the losses and privatize the gains," which is not capitalism, he said.
There's "moral hazard everywhere," he added."

https://www.cnbc.com/id/34921639?mod=article_inline

Socialism for the rich; Capitalism for the poor!

Murf

[Capt Crunch]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

At the risk of getting this thread moved under P&R, this example is no different than the person who spent a million bucks on a McMansion before the housing bubble popped, took out a jumbo loan, leveraged it up the wazoo with second mortgages, and then cried to Uncle Sam when their whole house of cards came tumbling down.

As someone who purchased a moderate two-bedroom house and lives well within his means (and suffered a huge medical issue with $12K out-of-pocket two years ago), why should I pay for someone else's irresponsibility?

On the topic of the check, those who don't need it can freely donate the funds to their local not-for-profit hospital, health care worker scholarships, food banks, etc. I actually donated $100 yesterday to a well-vetted local college nursing student hardship fund.....

The problem is that you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just like welfare, of course there are going to be people that abuse the system. The question is whether the good that the program generates outweighs the abuses.

If you want to run the government like a business, then "good enough" should be good enough. If we cut checks to a bunch of people and it saves 90% of people from destitution but 10% go out and buy a gaming PC with it, I'd call that a success. I'm personally unwilling to do nothing because of that 10%. Is it unfair to people like you? Yes. Is it a net positive? I'd argue yes.

We do incremental improvement all the time in business. We make tradeoffs with compromises because perfection is never really attainable. Why not hold social programs to a similar standard? The vast majority have a positive ROI.

[jamesinaz]

If I qualify for this I will accept it. No, I don't think I'll ever need it. My income might be low enough to qualify but my net worth means I'm OK without it.

I live in a private golf community which has laid off all the food and beverage staff over this. They aren't paid a ton and most probably have little in savings. I'll slide some to them. My wife's sister is very poor and always needs money. We'll slide some to them.

Provided the money goes to people who need it I feel zero guilt taking it. At least I'll KNOW it went to people truly in need.

Let's all hope for a miracle vaccine in the short term so maybe those at lower economic levels don't suffer for long.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Most of america blows its money and saves little at all income levels.

But like the big corporations, if you make more than most of the population, you get no bailout. Go make more & learn to save.

[FuriouslyFast]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

If I qualify for this I will accept it. No, I don't think I'll ever need it. My income might be low enough to qualify but my net worth means I'm OK without it.

I live in a private golf community which has laid off all the food and beverage staff over this. They aren't paid a ton and most probably have little in savings. I'll slide some to them. My wife's sister is very poor and always needs money. We'll slide some to them.

Provided the money goes to people who need it I feel zero guilt taking it. At least I'll KNOW it went to people truly in need.

Let's all hope for a miracle vaccine in the short term so maybe those at lower economic levels don't suffer for long.

That's awesome. Most folks will not give it to people who need it, though.

Maybe your SIL needs to get a job or something, though? (Don't flame me,, I obviously do not know her situation)

[Darth One]

Some of you underestimate how many $150k+ households live paycheck-to-paycheck...