I remember getting a check then. I don’t think direct deposit was as much of a thing at that time. Everyone in my office was still taking our paycheck to the bank to deposit it every 2 weeks back then.
How many millions of Americans now lack bank accounts, homes, mailing addresses, and incomes?
How was it handled the last time in 2008?
Direct Deposit has been around since the 80s, It’s just been in the last 10 years or so that employers have insisted upon it.
You don’t need a bank account or an income, assuming the government has your address. Not that many people are going to be losing their houses by April - in California the local governments are forbidding evictions when rent is late due to virus-related reasons.
Which leaves the homeless, and usually giving the homeless $1,000 is not going to be a good idea. There is a move here to use vacant hotel space to house them. Let local governments spend it for them on food, clothing and housing.
The criticism of the program the last time it was done was that people used it to pay off debt or add to savings, not for consumption, so it didn’t help the economy much. The Obama payroll tax cut was to provide people with an incrementally bigger paycheck which would encourage more consumption. This is based on the behavioral economics concept of buckets that you put money into - windfalls go into a different bucket than paychecks, and gets spent or saved differently. I think Sunstein was responsible.
It really won’t help now since it is hard to consume if the stores are closed. Making sure everyone gets unemployment insurance payments will help more. But it is still a lot better idea than the payroll cut under current circumstances.
There is a big difference between now and then: Amazon is open. And they are hiring 100,000 new workers and giving all workers a $2 an hour pay raise.
I am not saying one company will make all the difference. But there are new segments of the economy that can function even if brick and mortar stores fail.
Details are out: Democratic and Republican senators have tentatively agreed on a package to send “$2,000 to every American earning less than a million dollars per year.”
I was hoping it would have been limited more, so that those who earn $300-999k are also disqualified, but it is what it is.
America gets means-testing obsessed as it is, but in this case it would be more stupid IMO to waste time poring over everyone’s documents to check if they qualify for a means-tested handout and to check for fraud. It’s better to just give it to everyone now, and in the future raise taxes on the top brackets (obviously it would take the Dems in power for the second part to happen).
Also, there are probably a lot of small-business owners who have no income source right now but on the books have a gross revenue of hundreds of thousands annually, but it would take a ton of effort to confirm that they actually make under the threshold if you properly account for business expenses and whatnot.
server error dupe
My SIL (former senior financial executive), facing a cash crunch, just sold stocks low for a cool quarter-million-buck loss. A kilobuck or two won’t ease her pain much - she and useless hubby waste a lot. They may yet end up residing in our little RV. But if they talk politics, they’ll get a tent in the meadow instead. Charity has limits.
I find US homelessness numbers elusive. Some sources say about about 555k persons on any given night, others point to ~1.5 million children at any time, and up to 20% of college students. I (so far) can’t find numbers on Americans lacking mailing addresses, which includes many in Indian reservations and border-area colonias.
Who else likely won’t be mailed bailout checks? Will itinerant workers, nursing-home residents, troops, parking-lot campers, the incarcerated, or the recently deceased receive anything?
Many people seem to have forgotten that in the FOLLOWING year, there was a line on the 1040 for the purpose of repaying that loan. There was never any free money given out. The $300/$600 that we got in the first year was deducted in the second.
I’m trying to find out if this is going to happen again. I’ll happily take whatever they offer, but I’d like to know NOW, whether it means that next year’s refund will be that much smaller.
No, there wasn’t; I believe you are the one who has forgotten how it worked. There was a line on the 2008 return (due in 2009) to REPORT how much you received, which enabled those who did not receive the full amount originally to claim an additional credit, but it wasn’t a deduction and you did not have to repay anything.
See the 2008 Form 1040, line 70, and the accompanying instructions on pages 61 through 63.
I suspect (and hope even) that the checks will be for people who file tax returns, and sent to that address.
Not quite. IIRC it became taxable then next year, you didnt have to pay it all back, only maybe 28%.
Note that this IS NOT a single $2000 check to every American.
It’s $1000 now and maybe $1000 in another six weeks. That’s $167/week.
:rolleyes:
Whoop-de-fucking-doo.
…It’s $2,000 more than we would have gotten otherwise.
That’s a big assumption. It’s not like the government has a big master list of everyone in the USA, updated constantly.
I just filed my 2020 tax returns, which aren’t due yet. My 2019 returns have an incorrect address. My bank, credit card companies and the postal service are in possession of my current address but I don’t register an address with the government and I don’t notify them if I move. Freedom and democracy.
I don’t see, logistically, how the government will get the info to “just send a check to everyone”. They have social security and disability info, tax returns - and maybe access to local tax rolls. But there would be lots of duplicates between those lists, and possibly lots of outdated addresses. I’m really curious to see how this will work.
So now the eligibility threshold is $1million? A report I read earlier was that $65,000 was being considered. That’s quite a difference.
A $1 million threshold is beyond ridiculous. I’m not really sold on this idea in the first place, but if it were going to be implemented it should target those under the most potential strain. Like $100k or less - $65k would be fine.
Giving a check for $2k to someone making $750k/year is the worst fucking kind of pandering.