This is pretty stupid, and you can see why in the first few paragraphs:
After being badgered to death by moderate Senate Democrats, the Biden administration has agreed to put stricter limits on who will be eligible for a relief check as part of its big COVID recovery bill.
Centrists such as Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia have spent weeks urging the administration to “target” the new round of $1,400 economic impact payments more narrowly to lower-income families in order avoid spending money on households that might not be facing financial difficulties at the moment. On Wednesday, Democrats said they would phase down the checks more quickly for higher earners than originally planned. As a result, approximately 11.8 million fewer adults and 4.6 million fewer children will benefit from a payment, according to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Singles who earn up to $75,000 will still receive the full check amount. But the payment will ramp down to zero for those who earn more than $80,000, well below the previous cutoff of $100,000. Married couples who file jointly will still receive their entire check if they make up to $150,000. But payments will fall to zilch for those earning more than $160,000, down from the previous threshold of $200,000.
Maybe it’s just me, but NOT BEING ABLE TO PASS ANY BILL OTHERWISE seems like a pretty good reason to me.
Now Manchin and Sinema and whoever else’s reasons for opposing the bill as is, might be pretty bad, but I would argue the overall reason team Biden is acquiescing to these dipshits is pretty fucking solid.
MattM
John, as a constituent, do you think Manchin is crazy enough to actually be a “no” vote on the package if he hadn’t gotten this?
Chetan Murthy
Was there anybody else *besides* Manchin and Sinema? Just curious. B/c that article sure doesn’t make it clear. FFS, these “journalists” don’t even tell the reader who’s to fuckin’ blame.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I agree it’s a stupid headline, but I don’t know who Jordan Weissman is, and I don’t know how influential Slate is these days. When you see this same message amplified by Rose Twitter, Do Something Twitter and most especially by their allies among the Elected, that’s a problem
Old School
I read that reducing the eligibility trims about $12 billion out of the $1.9 trillion bill.
So a savings of .06%!
Paul W.
I think this is DUMB and the Dems should get ripped for it, because if we don’t fix this now and make sure everyone who got the first round of checks also gets the second then we are giving the Republicans the keys to the house in 2 years. Meaning, we should make sure Dems know doing this to save <1% of the total spending of this bill is wrong, and we use the House version which doesn’t reduce payments.
And I say this defending the “slow” creation of this bill, all of the process and deliberation around the $15 minimum wage. If you can’t give people something simple to sell, something both Georgia Senators ran on, then what the fuck are we doing?
Baud
@Old School:
No. It’s not a “saving.” The amount of the bill is fixed. Any “savings” get reallocatd to other needs, perhaps even more progressive needs, perhaps not. But it’s not unspent money.
raven
@Paul W.: Baloney
BruceFromOhio
This is why I stopped reading “popular” or “mass media” – it’s either horribly, stupidly wrong, or is disconnected from the reality the rest of us rubes are forced to live in.
I can envision Schumer, Biden, and Harris getting together after this one passes and deciding to take the gloves off. If these ‘moderate, centrist’ Democrats want to hang with Yertle and his crew, let them fucking hang. We got about 18 months to make it right, and NO time for fucking around.
Betty Cracker
@MattM: That’s my question too. Republicans are a lost cause, obviously, but were centrist Dems like Manchin and Sinema really ready to tank the bill over this? If so, they’re goddamned idiots. If not, maybe the framing isn’t that bad after all.
janesays
It’s absolutely infuriating that Manchin and Sinema have the degree of control they do, but it’s also just a mathematical reality. Of course it would have been better had it not been tinkered with, but it is what it is. We can pass a bill that is less than the ideal version we wanted, or we can put a bill on the floor that fulfills all of wishes and watch it get voted down 52-48, and we get absolutely nothing, and Biden’s presidency is immediately crippled less than two months into his term.
As for the specific reduction, some people need to get a grip. If you are single person with no children and you make $80,000 per year (which works out to more than $5K per month AFTER taxes), not getting a check for $1,400 isn’t going to put you out on the street, and if it does, you’ve got much bigger problems to deal with. I like Rep. Jayapal, but when she refers to these checks as “survival checks” for married couples bringing home $10,000 per month in combined income, it makes us look ridiculous.
Means-testing is an inefficient and stupid way to do business, but it also carried weight with a lot of less informed voters (it would be better to just give everyone a check – even people like Zuckerberg – and then claw back the money in taxes from those who don’t really need it). And it’s something we have to bite the bullet on with ZERO votes to spare.
Brachiator
Please let me repeat what I said in an earlier post.
Goddam this is stupid!
I suppose there will be news “analysis” about this. But here is something that tax professionals are seeing in 2020.
The threshold for stimulus payments is based on AGI, adjusted gross income. But in a significant number of 2020 returns, AGI is maintained or increased by unemployment compensation or by early distributions from pensions, including pensions of people laid off because of Covid.
So, the overall economic security of a many high income earners could be in steep decline.
I will give bonus points to any news story that points this out.
I have reviewed a lot of tax returns and talked to maybe 100 or more preparers around the country. I am not getting the impression that mid to upper income people (say 50k to 200k) are all rolling in the green.
I am surprised at the number of returns I’ve seen with early distributions from pensions. Many of these people appear to be in their mid 50s, so they are still some years away from Social Security and full retirement. So they may hit a gap where they need income but have depleted retirement saving.
I expect that ultimately there will be some good analyses from the Federal Reserve and other groups on the potential impact of this.
It grates that some in Congress, which has access to smart analysis, is instead are falling back on economic conventional wisdom.
Covid economic relief should be broad based. Targeting to the supposed most needy is asinine economic policy.
John Revolta
Fuck Slate
Baud
@janesays:
The payments always have been and were always going to be means tested. The debate is over how aggressively they are means tested.
One legitimate unanswered question is how to deal with 2019 or 2020 incomes, which may be vastly different. I heard they were working on it, but I don’t know where that stands.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Chetan Murthy: Jeanne Shaheen is a name I’ve seen. I’d be surprised if it was only those three.
FTR, I think more money to more people is better politics and better, but this bill still far from some kind of new austerity
ETA: the message Dems who want to make this bill a win should be driving home is that there’s a lot fucking more to this bill than these checks. Go find me seven unemployed people looking at their support running out in ten days (?) and ask how worried they are about households with
$180K$160 a year not getting $1,400.tom
@Paul W.: All the Democrats in the House, Senate, and in the White House except for two wanted the wider distribution. No Republican wanted it. Given there is no margin in the Senate, this is what happened. Blaming all Dems, when a small minority of them, and ALL republicans opposed it, is unjustified.
ETA: What Raven said.
piratedan
my biggest issue with it is that we’ve spent X number of days with this shit while the clock is ticking on millions of families, people waiting in the balance to have certain Dem Senators be the final hurdle that these folks have to clear before getting assistance.
Over what essentially? that the bill MAY have been TOO generous to some middle class families?
really?
THAT’S YOUR FUCKING HILL TO DIE ON? I have no problem holding the GOP in contempt over this because there are no expectations that they will do the correct thing at any moment on any issue, but for fucks sake, if you’re gonna pick a battle in the future, please make sure its a goddamn hill worth dying on.
Served
This is a great little reversal of the “$15 minimum wage is too high for rural areas” primal scream. $80,000 is too low of a cut off for cities! Of course, we know which population the Senate is designed to appease. C’est la vie I guess!
Sinema hasn’t publicly supported or championed a policy except for the filibuster as far as I know. She just keeps yelling about compromise without working to achieve a single on. Just cynical maneuvering.
Manchin is out living his fantasy of being the only sane man in DC, but at least I think he actually believes it.
laura
Desperate times call for stingy measures said no politician who hopes for reelection.
Cheryl Rofer
Keep in mind that there is other money in the bill, too, for cities and businesses. If this is the only change that is made, it’s not going to be the difference in the 2022 election, when nobody will remember it because we will be out of the pandemic and doing well economically.
That said, I would be happy to hear less from Manchin and Sinema
ETA: We can also say in 2022 that NO Republican voted for relief. That may help in the congressional elections.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Served:
Not a doubt of that in my mind.
James E Powell
It’s a stupid headline, almost as stupid as reducing the number of people who will get the checks. Was there any question in anyone’s mind what the headline would be?
Every Democratic member of the senate & house who does not fully support Biden on everything he wants is an asshole.
janesays
@Paul W.: Are there really going to be a lot of single Democratic voters out there who make $80,000 who are going to run away from the party because they won’t be getting a check that most likely is just going to go into their investment portfolio anyway? Or married couples making $160K per year doing that? If your household income is $160K per year, you make more money than 90% of the country, and even in places like San Francisco, you’re still in the top quartile with a $160K household income.
Baud
@MattM:
The GOP will get to offer amendments, and Manchin could vote for their amendments, which would force the rest of the Dems to decide whether to trash the whole package or swallow the amendment. Better to have him pissing in the tent.
Martin
Stockton, CA has been doing a guaranteed minimum income experiment for 2 years and some results are coming in.
Much of the problem with the stimulus is that it avoids the problems causing the disagreement. Because it focuses on 2019 taxes (several million 2019 returns still haven’t been processed, so those households are SOL anyway) it completely misses the point because it’s incapable of targeting people affected by the pandemic. Either the feds or the states know exactly who has lost jobs, and that could be the focus on the stimulus, along with a welfare provision for low income people, but nobody is willing to focus attention on that part of the problem. This isn’t a defense for Manchin – but man the Dems could have a much better program here if the government wasn’t hamstrung/incompetent at having this data available for decision making.
Omnes Omnibus
Is it still a good bill? If yes, then let’s pass it and move on to the next fucking fire that we need to put out. That is all that really matters.
WaterGirl
The Senate will send checks to fewer people because there were only 48 Democratic senators who were willing to send to the people in the Democratic plan, and ZERO fucking Republicans.
Fuck these people. I am running out of patience with their bullshit framing.
Paul W.
@tom: It’s fucking stupid on Manchin’s part, but even stupider for Democrats who are running in 2022 who are not him. You think voters in the other 48 states aren’t going to notice that they got checks previously and now they don’t? An additional level of means testing is being applied, and it is being applied against 2019 income which… has nothing to do with who actually is making those amounts in 2021.
It’s stupid, bad politics and I think the rest of the caucus has the ability to bribe or withhold parts of the bill he does like until Manchin gives up this idiotic crusade that ends up excluding people like my unemployed fiance was right between 75-100k 2 years ago and now collections unemployment.
Martin
@janesays: If they made $80K in 2019 and $0 in 2020 because the pandemic killed their job, then yeah, maybe. Neither side of this addresses that problem, but the overall Dem position hits so many people that the numbers that get left out get fairly small.
If Manchin/Sinema really wanted to reduce the cost of this program, Dems should give them an out and put them in front of improving federal data collection so that these things can be much better targeted in the future. The data improvement costs would be trivial relative to what it could save.
Omnes Omnibus
@Paul W.: I will agree with you that it is stupid. I will disagree that it is going to matter in 2022 or 2024.
WaterGirl
@Paul W.: If the choice was no bill or having fewer people at higher incomes receiving checks, then the outcome they chose is absolutely the right one.
That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t suck.
I hope Biden and every single Dem don’t pull any punches when they talk about why this change was made.
Cheryl from Maryland
My opinion is that means testing is fucking stupid. Bad enough that Biden campaigned on $2000 disaster relief checks, but the checks were reduced due by $600 due to the December relief under Trump, but now here’s another change. And for what? More work for the IRS, confused criteria for means testing (I’m not filing my taxes until after March 15 as one bank thinks they can update my info until March 15th), bad messaging for Kelly & Warnock in 2022. Do Manchin, Sinema, and Shaheen want Senate Majority Leader McConnell? None of them are up for re-election until 2024.
Baud
@Martin:
Again, no savings. Reallocation of money for other purposes.
janesays
…
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
On the Internet, nothing can suck mildly. It’s always an earth shattering suck.
WaterGirl
This headline is worse, in my opinion – this is the Washington Post, and they pin it all on Biden.
Biden limits eligibility for stimulus payments
FUCK THEM
tom
@Paul W.: I agree it is a bad bill. I disagree that the entire Dem caucus should be held responsible. I don’t know if anyone has leverage over Manchin and Sinema. And I think in 2022 and 2024 we can hang this on the Republicans, since none of them support any sort of relief.
Paul W.
@janesays: I live in NYC in a city where a large number of households or filers, including my fiance, fall into that bracket according to their 2019 taxes.
However, NYC has taken huge hits and now many people who had “good” incomes 2 years ago are existing with the benefit of unemployment and for whom this is a meaningful cut. My overall household is fortunate in that I kept my job, but half of my friend group is unemployed or underemployed, and I think the Democrats of my state and at large are dumb to think that primaries or generals will be easier if someone who has ALREADY gotten one check hears that more are coming… but now they are excluded because a Democrat decided to exclude them.
Brachiator
@janesays:
You can’t say what someone’s economic situation might be, or how close they might be to losing everything.
I have no problem with means testing or the first stimulus proposals.
The idea is to give tax free money to a wide range of people to help them maintain.
People keep saying “give the money and claw it back in taxes.”
This is wrong.
This is not the point of the stimulus.
And even if it were, you would need to make a lot of changes to make sure that lower income taxpayers don’t lose refundable credits or be left with tax balances which cannot easily be re-paid.
Chetan Murthy
TL;DR It’s not so much about people who are making $80k/yr right now, but people who did so in 2019, and -then- suffered income loss due to the pandemic. B/c 2020 taxes haven’t gotten in yet.
@janesays:
I think the real issue is, it’s based on tax returns, and right now, the only such returns are from -before- the pandemic. So 2019 tax year. Someone who made decent $$ in 2019, could have lost their job. A *lot* of small businesses went into free-fall, and I can imagine that lots of them are run by sole proprietors who are basically unemployed now. I don’t know how unemployment works for them.
It’s about that — not so much about whether somebody who’s making $80k today is gonna spend it or bank it.
I read that people could get their 2020 taxes in early, and that might result in 2020 returns being used for considering their eligibility. I would hope that that was made clearer. But then also, the online tax prep companies don’t make it easy to access the free version of the form. And *no way* you can submit by paper and have a prayer of it getting processed within the next N months, so you gotta submit electronically.
HumboldtBlue
Man, so much winning. Good thing Dems captured the Senate so that good, helpful, impactful legislation could pass.
Baud
@tom:
It’s not a bad bill. The entire debate is taking place within the professibe space. That it will end up slightly less progressive than we would like does not make the bill bad.
Baud
@HumboldtBlue:
It’s an excellent thing that the Dems captured the Senate.
janesays
@Martin: If they made $80K in 2019 but $0 (or any amount under $80K) in 2020, they’ll most likely be getting a refundable tax credit when they file.
I assume that will probably also hold for 2021 income (people who didn’t qualify for the checks last year because they made too much in 2018 or 2019 but fell within the threshold in 2020 are able to claim refundable credits on their 2020 returns).
Paul W.
@WaterGirl: My argument is that it isn’t the case that there is no bill without this.
Manchin gets to look tough by reducing it in the Senate, but Democrats as a whole should use the momentum of this bill needing to get over the finish line to make sure the final language in the reconciliation bill is the House and not Senate version.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: People are idiots, and many internet people are not exceptions.
different-church-lady
A mere five weeks ago there was a Stalin wannabe in the White House and now we’re all back to fighting to the death over whether the dress is blue and black or white and gold. It would be wonderful, except it’s completely stupid.
zhena gogolia
@Baud:
God, I have to stay away from here or at least these posts for a while.
It would have been so much better if Mitch McConnell were still majority leader! //
Omnes Omnibus
@Paul W.:
Will Democrats lose NYC over this? There are a lot of cities in the country where $80,000 is a very comfortable income for a single person.
WaterGirl
On a happier note:
Opinion: A senator’s surprise call for filibuster reform shows the urgency of the moment
bble
This is all politics and basically a nothingburger when it comes to policy. As observed, it’s not gonna make much of a difference for individuals with 80-100K income (and couples twice that), and it’s only $12B out of $1900B. Manchin and Sinema are getting their mugs in the news as Mavericky Moderates, which for them is gold, and also as observed, the math is such that the rest of the Dems are stuck with it. And now insh’Allah the Dems will cram the bill down the throats of Real Americans (who, oddly, approve of it by more than 3-1, and even Republicans by 3-2), and Biden will give his big broad golden-Labrador smile, and spring will come with flowers and birdies and warm weather and vaccinations for all.
zhena gogolia
@different-church-lady:
Public option!
bbleh
This is all politics and basically a nothingburger when it comes to policy. As observed, it’s not gonna make much of a difference for individuals with 80-100K income (and couples twice that), and it’s only $12B out of $1900B. Manchin and Sinema are getting their mugs in the news as Mavericky Moderates, which for them is gold, and also as observed, the math is such that the rest of the Dems are stuck with it. And now insh’Allah the Dems will cram the bill down the throats of Real Americans (who, oddly, approve of it by more than 3-1, and even Republicans by 3-2), and Biden will give his big broad golden-Labrador smile, and spring will come with flowers and birdies and warm weather and vaccinations for all.
Omnes Omnibus
@janesays:
Come now, let’s not be sensible.
Brachiator
@Cheryl from Maryland:
It’s not more work for the IRS and everyone was expecting a $1,400 stimulus. It has always been in the draft legislation.
AGI thresholds happen throughout the tax code. Even seniors are used to it with taxable Social Security payments.
debbie
Is it based on W-2 income or on AGI? Is it 2019 income or 2020 income?
schrodingers_cat
@Omnes Omnibus: Self realization is an admirable trait.
John S.
When the checks go out and millions of people don’t lose unemployment benefits, nobody will give a shit about this nickel and dime stuff.
Democrats need to learn how to accept victory, crow about it and move on to the next thing for the political journalists to complain about.
Brachiator
@Omnes Omnibus:
It is an OK bill. But absolutely should be passed.
WaterGirl
@debbie: I don’t see how there will be time to base it on 2020 income. Unless there’s some recourse to get a tax credit if you would have gotten it based on 2020 income.
For instance, my income took an 18k hit this year because of COVID, but the IRS has no way to know that.
zhena gogolia
@bbleh:
Two friends got their J&J appointments today! One of them is my husband!
Omnes Omnibus
@schrodingers_cat: Maybe I’ll give it a shot sometime.
janesays
@Brachiator: Someone who survived entirely on unemployment benefits in 2020, even in the states with the most generous benefits and accouting for the additional federal money, still made far, far, far below $75K last year. The most generous unemployment in the country is about $600/week. That’s $31,200 for the year. Add in the 16 weeks of extra $600 from the feds, and then an extra $300/wk for ten weeks, and you still come up under $50K for the year – far below the $75K threshold. You could draw an additional $25K from a pension, and you would still fall within the threshold.
Assuming that they’ll be applying the same rules for this stimulus as they did for last year’s stimulus, anybody who fell within the threshold for 2019, 2020, or 2021 will ultimately get the money, even if they were above the threshold for 2 of those years. The people who made too much in 2019 and 2020 but fall within the threshold for 2021 won’t get a check with everyone else, but they will get a fully refundable tax credit next year. It’s not ideal and will hurt some people, but nobody who found themselves struggling in any year between 2019 and 2021 is going to get iced out completely.
debbie
@WaterGirl:
I didn’t get the second payment ($600) and my 2019 income should have qualified me for that. I tried filling out the worksheet, but damn, those things are inscrutable.
Brachiator
@bble:
This is not true.
However, the absolute victory, if I have it right, is that they did not lower the income threshold to $50,000 as some dopes were advocating.
And other components of the bill seem to be intact.
janesays
@debbie: You should be given a credit when you file your 2020 return.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@WaterGirl: considering her image as the sensible midwestern moderate, I would say that’s significant.
also: I know some people judge the quality of any legislation Dems pass by how angry it makes their right-wing step-dad/ boss/ loudmouth brother-in-law, I can assure from the time I spent looking for this write up on twitter, they’re furious about this
TLDR: a 29% increase in marketplace subsidies
guachi
My stimulus checks have basically nowhere to go. Combined income of wife and I is about $120,000 before you start getting into all kinds of deductions, which last year brought our taxable income to about $50,000.
It’s getting sent right to my retirement account. Just like the money last year. I can’t travel because the military won’t let me. Only yesterday we were allowed to go to restaurants. Can’t buy a bicycle because demand greatly outstrips supply. Can’t buy an new computer GPU because cryptominers keep buying up all the stock.
schrodingers_cat
@debbie: Did you sign up for a direct deposit?
different-church-lady
I’m going to repeat my jest from when the first checks went out last year:
I’ll leave it all to you to figure out how to apply this to the current situation.
WaterGirl
@debbie: That sucks. If the change in the Senate today sticks even through the final reconciliation process, I will likely be in the same boat with this next one.
Mart
@Martin: recall hearing that the cost of filtering recipients can be higher than just tossing out the checks.
debbie
@janesays:
I gave up on that worksheet and just decided to claim the whole $600. I have no doubt they’ll let me know if I’m wrong. ?
different-church-lady
Also applicable: http://wondermark.com/c1524/
debbie
@schrodingers_cat:
No, nothing’s shown up in my account.
janesays
@Brachiator: Correct. The people who will be impacted by this are…
Singles who make between $80K-$100K per year
Heads of households who make between $120K-$160K per year
Married couples who make between $160K-$200K per year
Anybody who makes more than that or less than that will see no significant change (although someone who made between $75-80K last year will presumably be getting a smaller check than they would have under the old rules).
Anybody who would have qualified for the full benefit under the original plan will still qualify for the full benefit under the new thresholds. It’s the people at the top who would have only qaulified for a partial benefit who will be getting iced out.
Chief Oshkosh
The headline makes sense in that Manchin and Sinema have no actual good reason to do what they’re doing. None. And, for better or worse, they are Democrats.
That said, I agree with the sentiment that a much more important story would be the one headlined “Republicans have no actual plan for pandemic relief.”
schrodingers_cat
@debbie: There was a form you could fill on the IRS website when we got the first stimulus. That’s what we did.
Brachiator
@janesays:
As I noted in an earlier comment, we are starting to get data from 2020 tax returns. More than 55 million have been filed already. It is far more complex than you suggest.
The standout examples are people who have high AGIs composed of unemployment compensation and early pension distributions. Many of these people have a temporary high AGI but no job in 2020 or future years.
Some of these people may be over the threshold. I cannot say yet how many.
Getting money this year is better than possibly getting money next year. And there is no way that you can assert that these folks will be OK in future years.
This compromise could have been far worse. But it is an opportunity lost, for no good reason.
janesays
@Baud: I know that for last year’s stimulus checks, it was based on either 2018 or 2019 returns, but if you fell within the threshold in 2020 (but not 2018 or 2019), you will be able to claim a refundable credit when you file your taxes this year. I assume that will also apply to this round of stimulus. In other words, everybody who qualified in any one of those three years ultimately gets the money (though some will only be just getting it now when they file their taxes).
James E Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
Agree completely, but are the Democratic Guardians of Moderation through fucking with it?
trollhattan
Echoes of early 2009 and the stimulus-lite then the achingly difficult process of getting ACA through. When you have these razors-edge vote counts nothing comes easy and in its ideal form. Nothing.
Now pray a Dem senator doesn’t get taken out my a meteor.
James E Powell
@WaterGirl:
What did you expect them to do?
JaneE
Maybe I am living in the past, but $180,000 for a couple seems like a lot of money, and still a lot for any but a large family. Maybe some people earning $180,000 year before last really did completely lose most of their income this last year, but I expect more than a few did not. The higher the income level, the more likely they can telecommute or have savings or other assets to use. Retirees got the option to not make mandatory IRA/401k withdrawals. Anyone really needing the income probably didn’t do that. Most retirees probably didn’t see any reduction in their income unless they chose to take less. I have a real problem seeing how people making more than half the population by far are so desperate for cash that $1400 could mean the difference between having a home or not, or providing food for the family or not. Maybe with more than one kid in college, I guess.
WaterGirl
@James E Powell: Fairly describe the situation. Would that be too much to ask?
James E Powell
@HumboldtBlue:
I understand that otherwise sane people might say this out of frustration. But seriously, can you imagine how fucked we would be if we hadn’t won both of those Georgia senate seats?
janesays
@Paul W.: The benefit will ultimately go to everyone who qualified in either 2019, 2020, or 2021, though it may not be seen until a tax return is filed.
IOW, if your GF would qualify based on her 2020 income (but not her 2019 income), she’ll ultimately get the money.
James E Powell
@WaterGirl:
C’mon man, you know they never do.
JaneE
@Brachiator: People who take their retirement as a taxable lump sum have been getting hit for decades. There used to be a way to split the income over at least a couple of years, but if you do a transfer directly to the new trustee of your funds there should not be any additional tax liability, unless you are required to take a double distribution because of timing. By now there should be no excuse for not knowing the tax implications of all your options.
Damned_at_Random
via JoeMyGod:
The Hill reports: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a staunch Trump ally and fiery fiscal conservative, has told colleagues that he plans to force the Senate clerks to read aloud the entire $1.9 trillion COVID-relief bill on the Senate floor, which could slow it down by as much as 10 hours.
Again-“For no good reason” The Senate is chock full of posturing assholes. I’m surprised they can even name post offices
Jim, Foolish Literalist
One. Point. Nine. Trillion. Dollars.
WaterGirl
@James E Powell: It bothers me a lot more now. A lot more.
Silly me, I thought after Trump and the attempt to overthrow the government, maybe the reporters might learn to do their fucking jobs.
laura
@Martin: Stockton’s former mayor. He lost his bid for re-election and that’s a damn shame. I hope he runs again- for mayor or any Office. Michael Tubbs did the most difficult right thing and it improved the lives of many in the city.
piratedan
and I appreciate the folks out there explaining that instead of the money going to safely middle-class households or individuals (for the sake of argument), it gets reallocated to different places where the need is greater. All in all a good thing…
but you see….
there’s this thing called optics and bad faith arguments and if these folks (Manchin and Sinema) had simply left this shit alone, there’s no controversy, there’s no mechanism to allow the press to play the “both sides” game, there’s no potential wedges to be driven about who is “deserving”, there’s no delay… there’s simply the fact that Dems are acting to helping people in need due to the pandemic.
and where do people get their information from? the people doing the shitty headlines.
germy
Biden’s Plan Will Cut Childhood Poverty In Half
(alternate headline)
janesays
@JaneE: You’re not imagining things. Relatively speaking, most people in the top quartile of income brackets in 2019 came out OK last year. That doesn’t mean nobody in those brackets lost income, just that the percentage of people at the top who experienced income loss was significantly less than the percentage of people in the middle and the bottom who experienced income loss.
Most households who cleared $160K in 2019 are doing OK right now. Some of those households may have experienced some decline in total income last year, but very few are in danger of losing everything. I know there are exceptions… but that’s what they are. Exceptions. I realize that is little consolation to anyone who falls into that category, but in the big picture, it is a relatively small group of people.
Baud
@germy:
Who’s going to retweet that?
Baud
@piratedan:
No one here is praising Manchin or Sinema.
Gvg
@janesays: A lot of people on Nextdoor said they didn’t need the last 2 because they were lucky, so they donated to food banks etc. my impression is a lot of ordinary people thought the earlier payments weren’t targeted enough. I don’t think this is a killer. My understanding is the target uses the most recent tax return, so if you are hurting, file early. I think I have read you can claim it on your tax return for 2020 if you don’t get it but should.
I am pretty sure the IRS would like as much notice as they can get of what will be passed.
germy
I’m a moldy moldy man
I’m moldy thru and thru
I’m a moldy moldy man
You would not think it true
I’m moldy til my eyeballs
I’m moldy til my toe
I will not dance I shyballs
I’m such a humble Joe.
janesays
@Brachiator: If a single person can’t get by on $5,000 per month in take home pay, they most likely need to re-examine their life choices. I know there are some people who may have special circumstances (maybe an expensive medical condition?), and I feel for those people. But they are the exception, not the rule. 99% of single people making $80K+ per year in this country can meet all of their basic needs just fine on that income, even if in most fairly expensive cities. You probably won’t be living in Manhattan or in one of the expensive hipster neighborhoods in Brooklyn on that, but there’s always Queens and the Bronx.
And I say this as someone who doesn’t bring home anywhere near $5K per month.
Splitting Image
The fact that Sinema’s and Manchin’s votes are required to pass the bill implies that the Republicans are unanimous in opposing it. This shouldn’t be surprising since the most “moderate” member of the Republican caucus is a vulture capitalist who has said that he enjoys firing people.
Winning the two Georgia seats wasn’t a step towards getting the original bill passed without Manchin or Sinema mucking with it. It was a necessary step to getting it voted on at all. Passing the altered bill means that the good guys are up $1.9T and down $12B. This is a net gain.
Hildebrand
As soon as this is passed, and the checks roll out, no one (outside of the very small subset of folks who make between 160k and 200k) will care. This is a process story.
janesays
@Brachiator: The clawback would apply to Mark Zuckerberg and the like, not people who fall within the income thresholds.
different-church-lady
Dunno if y’all are aware of this, but the federal government has a way of knowing whether you were receiving payroll income in 2020.
different-church-lady
@janesays: Clawback is a technical term for Zuckerberg still pays an effective tax rate lower than mine, yes?
janesays
@Omnes Omnibus: Not a lot, the vast majority. An individual income of $80K per year puts you easily in the top 20% of earners in more than 90% of the country. No, it’s not rich by any means, but you are doing much better than the vast majority of your fellow citizens if that is your annual income.
Even in NYC, $80K per year is higher than the median HOUSEHOLD income ($64,000/year), which means the median individual income is a fair bit less than that. If you’re a single person pulling in $80K in NYC, you are still making a good bit more than most other New Yorkers.
Gvg
@piratedan: I have never ever seen a law pass without lots of people meddling. It’s built into people, not just politicians. Something like the compulsion to argue “someone’s wrong on the internet”. They always see something that they think is desperately important to fix. We have to relax a little bit. Not give up or don’t care, but just let some smaller matters go.
janesays
@WaterGirl: It’s nice to see momentum growing for it, but Klobuchar isn’t the one we have to worry about persuading to get on board. And I’ve got a feeling that Manchin and Sinema aren’t the only two who don’t really want to kill the filibuster (hello, Sens. Leahy and Feinstein).
Still, I’m glad she’s taking a very public position on this. Not many have yet.
janesays
@debbie: AGI, and it will ultimately be based on either 2019, 2020, or 2021 income. Meaning, if you only qualified in one of those three years (and not the other two), you will ultimately be getting the money (but you may not see it until after you file your 2021 returns next year).
I assume the immediate payments will be based on 2019 tax returns, but those who didn’t qualify in 2019 but did in 2020 or 2021 will be able to claim it on their returns.
Omnes Omnibus
@Gvg: The sausage making simile is there for a reason.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@janesays: also Angus King, and I suspect a few others who are keeping their heads down. I don’t think we’re gonna see the filibuster die, not without a couple of miracle election cycles, but I’m less pessimistic about reforming it. I’ve seen people say on twitter, without quotes or evidence so FWIW, that Manchin and Sinema might be open to (again, FWIW) to reform.
debbie
@janesays:
Thanks. That seems unnecessarily complicated, so it must be right!
janesays
@WaterGirl: for the purposes of the immediate checks going out, it will be based on 2019 income. But if your income qualifies you in either 2020 or 2021, you will still get the money, though you may have to wait a while for it.
Baud
@debbie:
Isn’t it more generous if there are more years you can use to qualify for the check?
tom
OT, but the state of Michigan is opening vaccinations to those 50 and older.
debbie
@Baud:
Definitely, but I thought that kind of averaging ended when income averaging was ended.
Baud
@debbie:
Is it averaging? I assumed one would get a check if their income qualified in any of the years.
Omnes Omnibus
@debbie: It won’t be averaging. It hasn’t been for the first two. Don’t make it more complicated than it needs to be.
janesays
@Hildebrand: And I’m guessing most of them won’t care enough to abandon the Democratic Party over it, since the vast majority of them will survive just fine.
debbie
@Omnes Omnibus:
I wouldn’t have to if things were in plain English, goddammit.
janesays
@different-church-lady: Good point.
OK, so the top 0.0001% probably isn’t the best example, since they’ve the tax code rigged so heavily in their favor that all of this is meaningless.
The affluent lawyer couple who brings home $280,000 in combined income will see the clawback.
janesays
@Baud: It is. If you made $180K in 2019, but lost your job in 2020 and only brought home $60K last year, you’ll qualify for the full credit, even though your average for the two years was $120K. Though you probably won’t be getting the check right away when the bill passes.
Omnes Omnibus
@janesays: Source for it being averaging?
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
She’s saying it’s not averaging.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: Okay, my bad.
jnfr
Definitely some people who expect checks will notice when they don’t get checks. It’s hard to say how many of those will be affirmatively harmed by that, since they are the upper edge of the income limit. But they’ll be pissed, or at least annoyed.
I think it will matter far more what happens after that. If the vaccines roll and the pandemic is mostly quashed, the economy should rebound pretty nicely. If we get an infrastructure bill, and we really get chugging on the changes needed for clean energy, better agricultural systems, and other climate-related activities, I think the annoyance will probably fade.
None of that will matter much if we can’t get voting rights legislation passed.
James E Powell
One sad fact is that we have no idea how many
treacherous & disloyalmoderate Democrats were holding this up. We don’t know who to call or write.What really hurts is that none of their usual bullshit reasons apply here. There is literally no group of voters outside of hardcore Republican voters who wants those checks reduced. Not in WVa, not in AZ, not in any state.
They are assholes, they will continue to be assholes, but we have to move on.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@jnfr: hear hear to all of this
ciotogist
@Hildebrand:
According to the Slate story, that’s 11 million people. Enough to swing elections.
Baud
@ciotogist:
Only if they all move because of this. In all likelihood, almost none will.
bluefish
Cuz stupid is how we roll in DC and across the country. Except, not really, cuz we ain’t that dumb, not really, as a new but not really silent majority of the rational.
I grieved so for John Lennon when he was killed. Doing the math. I was 25.
I saw read an interview with Paul from some years ago and they asked him what gave him hope. He answered something like, if not exactly, “There are more of us.”
I think, hope, and pray that is true. I believe it is, all over the world. I believe it’s true. Four separate verbs, each it’s own connected but distinct state of being.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@James E Powell: how many voters in Maine wanted Bret Kavanaugh and a 1.7 trillion dollar, trickle-down tax cut? I’m assuming the latter was no more popular there than in the rest of the country. Susan Collins pretty much sailed to re-election.
Hope this bill doesn’t get fucked up any further, and on to the next fight, and hope that BK’s apparent fondness for beer and burgers and rage fits catches up with him.
janesays
@jnfr: Some of them will be. Not all of them. One of my brothers has made between $85-90K for each of the last 4 years and will make that again this year, which means he will be getting iced out this time even though he got some money last year (his first check was $650 because of the phase out, and his second check was $50).
The lowest income single people who won’t be getting checks this time didn’t get the full $1,800 last year, assuming their income has stayed the same for the last 2 years. If your stimulus checks last year were based on an $80K income, you got $950 on the first check, and $350 the second time.
Under the House plan, someone whose stimulus would have been based on an $80K income would have gotten $1,120, not $1,400. The phase out was between $75,001 and $100,000, which works out to a reduction of 5.6% of every dollar over $75K. 5.6% of $5,000 is $280, so $1,400 – $280 = $1,120.
Anyway, my brother’s reaction to realizing he won’t be getting a dime was, “Oh well, it was just going into my retirement account anyway.” He’s not really that bothered by it, because he’s missing out on no more than $840, which is the most he would have gotten under the House plan (based on an $85K income). $840 isn’t nothing, but if you’re making $85K per year, it’s probably not going to break you.
janesays
@ciotogist: The most that any of those 11 million people will be missing is $1,120, and that’s only for the ones whose lowest income between 2019-2021 was $80K. For those who made at least $90K every year between 2019-2021, they’ll be missing out on $560 checks. The ones who made at least $95K in that span will not be getting the $280 checks they would have otherwise gotten under the original plan.
The max benefit was always capped at $75K income. And it still is. Anyone who made between $75K-$100K was not going to get the full benefit in the first place, and didn’t get it on the last stimulus, either.
Everybody who was going to get a $1,400 check before this modification will still be getting a $1,400 check.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Nothing like handing Trump and the Repubs the ability to say that he/they covered more people with their stimulus packages than the Democrats.
Democrats need to change their symbol from the donkey to just the rear half of the donkey.
Brachiator
@janesays:
The clawback would apply to Mark Zuckerberg and the like, not people who fall within the income thresholds.
There is no reason to send Zuckerberg any money in the first place aside from some bizarre egalitarianism.
You still have to do means tested exclusions for everybody else.
What’s the point of that?
janesays
@Brachiator: There are some who believe it would be more efficient to just send literally everyone a check for $1,400, and sort it out later by clawing back the money from those at the top when they file their taxes. No means testing at all on the front end, everybody gets a check. I’m not sure where I stand on that argument, just saying it’s out there.
It’s like the argument in favor of M4A or free public college education for everyone, even the children of the wealthy. Or $50K student loan forgiveness for a plastic surgeon making $600K per year. The argument is that means testing adds an extra layer to the bureaucratic process that might wind up hurting some people who fall through the cracks for whatever reason.
WaterGirl
@janesays:
That is my understanding, also, and that is the problem.
WaterGirl
@Odie Hugh Manatee: It’s our job to make sure people know that 48 democrats wanted everyone to have that money this time around, and zero Republicans wanted to help anyone in any way.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Odie Hugh Manatee: I don’t know how many people will look at it like that, but…
….unfortunately they’ll have people like you and AOC (!) to reinforce this skewed reading of events.
janesays
@WaterGirl: I believe you will be able to get the credit for 2020 when you file your 2020 return, which means you’ll have to wait an extra couple months. If you already filed for 2020, there is probably some mechanism to claim the money based on that (amended return, perhaps?), but it obviously won’t come as quickly as those who get it based it based on 2019 income. It sucks, but I don’t think it’s going to necessarily mean waiting for many months, hopefully less than three. I think the only people who will have to wait a full year are those who didn’t qualify for 2019 and won’t qualify for 2020, but will qualify for 2021.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
It’s not ideal. But this bill will pass mid-March, and people will be filing their 2020 returns mid-April. It’s not a huge gap.
jnfr
@bble:
I am in favor of this scenario!
planetjanet
@janesays: @janesays: You are overgeneralizing with a heavy dose of judgment. There are plenty of areas with a high cost of living and high rents. Why should the motivation be that they won’t lose everything. How about just making things a wee bit easier.
janesays
I did a little research on last spring’s bill, and it turns out the credit was officially for 2020, but obviously since nobody had filed yet for 2020 last spring (since the year was barely into the second quarter at that point), they had to base the checks on the available data, which for the vast majority of people was their 2018 return (as most people hadn’t yet filed for 2019). If you only got a partial check because your income was in the phase out bracket in 2018, but you fell below the phase out bracket for 2020, you’ll be getting the difference on your 2020 return. If you made too much in 2020 to qualify but were sent a check based on either your 2018 or 2019 income (obviously not many people fall into this category), you won’t be penalized on your 2020 return.
I assume that the same rules will apply to this disbursement.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I guess they like John’s blog, eh? I like the ‘assisting the enemy’ bent, nice touch.
janesays
@planetjanet: The median individual income in the most expensive cost of living cities in America is well below $80K.
Obviously, someone who lives in an expensive city and makes $80K per year will feel the impact of not getting the stimulus more than someone who lives in flyover country making the same amount. But the vast majority of them will still be OK. There are certainly some exceptions, but most people who make $80K per year (with no dependents) can get by on that income, even in places like NYC. Can you afford to live in SoHo or the East Village on that income? Almost certainly not, unless you have roommates. But there are places in NYC where you can rent for under $1,500 a month, and if you are bringing home $5,000 per month AFTER taxes and the only person you are responsible for is yourself, you can make it by on that, unless you feel compelled to eat out 5 days a week, aren’t willing to use MTA to get around, see 10 Broadway shows per year, and will only buy 100% organic at Whole Foods.
Point being, the number of single people in America without dependents who are truly struggling to meet their basic economic needs on an >$80K annual income is very, very small. I’m sure you can give me a bunch of anecdotal examples of the guy you know who makes $95K per year and is about to get evicted for whatever reason, but the number of people in that predicament are few and far between.
Brachiator
@janesays:
It is not efficient at all. It just scratches some progressive itch. You still have to change the tax law to prevent people from paying taxes on the amounts later. You still need to establish a threshold.
It is also much more expensive. And so, much less likely to ever pass as legislation.
People also seem to know nothing about the other current changes designed to help lower income people, such as the 2019 tax year look back for earned income, for the EITC and ACTC, or Form 7202, for self employed people who were affected by Covid.
And as I noted before, the disdain of means testing here is bizarre given all kinds of income thresholds for individuals.
Also, people should stop talking about “just $1,400.” For a family of four it could be as much as $7,000.
lowtechcyclist
@WaterGirl:
I’m with you on this. Biden didn’t limit eligibility; Manchin, Sinema, Shaheen, and possibly some others did. Plus every last single fucking Senate Republican. Let’s not forget them.
But getting back to John: Manchin, Sinema, Shaheen, etc. are in fact Democrats. The Slate headline didn’t say “Biden,” it didn’t say “Schumer.” Collectively, this was the most the Dems were willing to do for people. Sucks, but it’s true. Even if most Dems wanted to do more, they needed 50 votes, and this was the best deal all 50 Dems could agree on.
I realize and accept that, sure, but the headline’s still true. And I’ll admit that I’m a bit pissed that Manchin and Sinema, having already collected their pound of flesh in killing the minimum wage hike, insisted on coming back for more.
janesays
@Brachiator: A family of four would get a maximum of $5,600, not $7,000 ($1,400 x 4 = $5,600).
The phaseout for married couples filing jointly begins at $150K.
A family of 4 that has $160K in household income would have gotten $4,480 under the House proposal, because the phase out cap in that bill was $200K, which means 11.2% of every dollar of income over $150K is subtracted from the original $5,600, which results in it reaching $0 once you hit $200K. $160K – $150K = $10K. 11.2% of $10K is $1,120. $5,600 – $1,120 = $4,480.
That’s obviously not pocket change, but again… if you’re bringing home $8-10K per month in after tax income (depending on where you live), most people can still get by in most places, even in a 4 person household. Obviously, it would be difficult to make it on that in a place like San Francisco, but the number of households in SF that bring home roughly $160K per year is probably pretty low.
Yes, I’m making generalizations about MOST people. It’s how most policy is crafted. The overwhelming majority of families of four with a $160K household income aren’t going to be harmed meaningfully (actual harm, meaning groceries have to be foregone, medical bills have to be unpaid, mortgage/car payments have to be missed, utilities have to be shut off). It’s shitty that anybody might experience real economic suffering because of this modification, but it really is a relatively tiny amount of people who will find themselves in that boat.
Brachiator
@lowtechcyclist:
Yep. I think this sucks. But as far as I know right now, and I have not read the details, they did not lower the income thresholds. This would have been a big ass mistake.
So, it is not perfect. And it indicates that there are people in Congress (and their staffers) who don’t understand the issue.
But what some Democrats and almost all Republicans wanted would have been significantly worse.
ETA: It also pisses me off that the Republicans gave the Orange Beast everything he wanted when the first stimulus came up. Just so the asshole could put his signature on the checks.
Ruckus
@janesays:
I’d be very happy to have ever made $80K a year. Even for one year out of the 60 that I’ve been earning something.
janesays
@lowtechcyclist: Still not an accurate headline.
There is a very good reason for why they are sending fewer people checks than what the House bill provides – it appears to be literally the only possible way to get the bill passed at all.
I’m sure at least 40 Democrats were willing to do more, but it doesn’t really matter. The most that most of the Democrats were willing to do was to send out checks to everybody who got last time; the most that Democrats could do – because of the mathematical necessity of needing unanimous agreement in their caucus to get anything passed – is send out checks to fewer people than was in the House bill.
Annie
@Paul W.:
I have been able to work from home, and get my full salary, throughout all this. I do not think I should have gotten the first stimulus check and when I did get it I gave it to a relative who was unemployed. Better to give the money to people who need it.
Brachiator
@janesays:
Again, you make empty assertions about what people should be able to do.
And again, the preliminary data suggests that a significant number of household income is made up of unemployment compensation and pension distributions, especially among some middle and upper income households. This suggests a wage shortfall. These people may not be getting along so well the rest of this year.
Actually, it’s not. Smart economists are going to try to look at a number of variables, including cost of living in various regions, employment trends and other factors.
You have no way of knowing this.
And the purpose of the rebates was not, and should not be, just to help the most needy. The idea is to help prepare for a hopefully robust economic recovery.
Even the economists and pundits who expect the money to used for consumer spending have it wrong.
Much of the economy is suspended. Some sectors are still shut down, and people don’t have as many places to spend their money.
Even if upper income people saved smaller rebate checks, this might be deferred spending or investment.
janesays
@Brachiator: It’s not an empty assertion about what people “should” be able to do. It’s a factual reality that the actual cost of living for the vast majority of families of 4 in America is less than $10,000 per month. There are very few situations in which a family of four with an annual household income of >$160K can’t afford to shelter, feed, and clothe themselves
You know what else I can say with confidence? 75% of Americans would kill to have a household income of $160K per year and not be getting a stimulus check. I’m happy to trade places with anyone who wants my forthcoming stimulus check if I can have their $80K per year income.
Ruckus
@debbie:
Same here, no second payment.
Now I wouldn’t say that I should have automatically gotten it, as I have no idea what the concept of who does, who doesn’t, is/was. I managed to only be out of work for about 6 weeks last year.
Ruckus
@Mart:
Very likely, which is why it is actually rather insane to bother. In the federal government budget it’s a rounding error. It’s possible that the military spent more on note paper than will be saved.
hilts
When she’s up for re-election, I hope someone primaries the gentle Cinnamon lady from Arizona.
janesays
TWO things which seem contradictory are both true about this situation…
Omnes Omnibus
@janesays: Agreed.
Ruckus
@janesays:
3. They both make $174,000 per year from their salary. At $80K yearly income they are talking about someone who makes 46% of their yearly income. And both of them are from states that are not near the upper level for cost of living.
janesays
@Ruckus: Who is “they”? I’m genuinely confused about who you are talking about here. And are you saying they make $174K combined, or $174K each?
Omnes Omnibus
@janesays: Manchin and Sinema. Their salaries.
janesays
@Omnes Omnibus: Got it. You don’t have to sell me on Manchin and Sinema being assholes for pulling this pointless shit. But it’s the bitter pill we have to swallow with zero golden tickets to give out on anything. We don’t have to like it, but we do have to accept it, at least until 2023. The alternative is no bills get passed.
LeftCoastYankee
Dude, you have a pretty stupid Senator.
glc
And another take (or at least, different phrasing):
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35714644/moderate-senate-democrats-stimulus-checks/
LeftCoastYankee
Meanwhile 130K+ Oregonians (link below) who are relying on unemployment benefits will see a “pause” in their benefits, because Senator “Pay Attention To Me” and Senator “Fuck it, I got 7 more toes” decided to pick some meaningless nits for a few more weeks.
Link
Monala
Two things to add to this discussion:
1. For people whose income increased due to early distributions from a retirement plan, they have the option to claim the distribution over three years (in other words, they can choose to only claim 1/3 of it this year), and the usual early distribution penalties are waived.
2. Although some people will lose out on stimulus, others who were left out of the earlier stimulus payments are getting it this time around. This includes dependents ages 17 and up, who got nothing in the earlier payments. So if your family includes a high school senior, a college student, and grandma, you were screwed before. Well, no longer under this bill.
The second group who were screwed before but no longer, are the US citizen spouses and children of undocumented immigrants. They got nothing in the earlier stimulus packages, but now will receive their payments under this bill.
I guarantee you that many families with older dependents and those who are spouses/children of someone undocumented make a hell of a lot less than the upper income thresholds. They were completely iced out before and didn’t even get the partial payments of some higher income folks.
Nora
@WaterGirl: That’s the bottom line, and we just have to keep hammering at it. Perhaps it would be better if the headlines said something about how NO REPUBLICANS are interested in helping people AT ALL instead of saying Democrats want to reduce the stimulus, but if the media don’t make the case, then we have to do it ourselves.
NOVAdad
@JaneE: It depends on where you live. Single-family homes around here are $1m and up, with $1000/month property taxes. Most of the major roads are toll roads charging up to $40/trip. Parking downtown (where I work) is $20/day. A breakfast that would be $6 in West Virginia is $14 here ($60/sq ft lease, 19% tourist tax, etc.). Everything is expensive and getting more expensive.
I don’t have the luxury of moving to a less expensive location because this is the only place in the country where there are jobs for the work I do. My property taxes went up 20% last year because the state and county governments need the money. Will I see that reduced after this stimulus bill? Hell no.
My wife and I made just over $160K last year, and we have four kids who zoom schooled all last year because of the pandemic. Last week we were going to get a nice check to help pay down our debts and do some long overdue home repairs. This week we get nothing. For us it’s a very big deal.
Edmund Dantes
@Baud: here’s the stupid thing and why it’s dumb. Why is the spending fixed? We need to break Dems of this stupid habit of “that’s a big number”. I’d lay good money on 1.9 trillion was picked because they didn’t want a crooked number on a trillion dollar bill. There was no reason it needed to stop there.
planetjanet
@janesays:
Median income is half the population. So no, the vast majority are not necessarily doing just fine.
Pappenheimer
@Gvg: One of my favorite SF writers commented that many of his editors liked to “p*ss in the story till they liked the flavor”. Probably the same impulse.
janesays
@planetjanet: Median individual income in New York City is about $52,000 per year.
Which means if you are a single person with no dependents living in NYC and you make $80K per year, you are doing better than at least 2/3 of your fellow New Yorkers, if not 3/4. The vast majority of people in that demo may not be rolling in money, but they almost certainly aren’t just barely getting by economically, with very few exceptions. And if you believe that most single people without dependents making $80K in NYC are struggling to survive economically, what you are in fact saying is that at least 70% of the 8.4 million people who live in NYC are just barely able to feed and shelter themselves. Do you seriously believe that nearly 6 million of NYC’s 8.4 million residents are living on the brink of total economic ruin?
Nope. Doesn’t track. $80K in NYC for a single childless person isn’t rich by a longshot, but it sure as hell isn’t poor, either. There are at least five million New Yorkers who would love to experience that level of “poverty”.
Vesper
@Chetan Murthy: Shaheen from NH and Manchin were the two main drivers, along with Sinema.