Just wanted to note that this is literally impossible.
If you are 20% below the poverty level, that means your income is 80% of the poverty level.
If you are 100% below the poverty level, that means that your income is zero.
You cannot reduce a positive integer by more than 100% and still have something left.
OK, whatever. All I know is that my income falls below the US poverty level, making me eligible for food stamps, free lifeline cell phone service, and my state making my Medicare premiums for me.
But your source does not say “X% below the federal poverty level.”
It says “below X% FPL.”
There is an important difference between “X% below” and “below X%.”
You can have an income that is below 130% of the poverty level, but you cannot have an income that is 130% below the poverty level.
Sure. I wasn’t criticizing your political argument, or your point that the OP is a tool. I was simply critiquing your mathematical description.
I actually understand the OP’s point (and by all counts, I’m a flaming liberal).
If you’re taking home 2000 a month in Social Security (or SSDI or whatever) - you’re still getting that 2,000 a month.
If you were working to earn that 2,000 a month, chances are pretty good that your income has been cut.
Neither person is living well on that money - but I can buy the argument that the stimulus ought to go to the person whose income has been impacted.
Now, as I understand it, the stimulus is based on what you earned last year so they don’t even know whether you’ve lost your job or had your income reduced.
Plus: what is going to happen with that 1,200 dollars? The recipient will spend it - putting more money in the hands of people and businesses. I’m not an economist, but there has got to be some significant trickle-down effect. I think that is the intended effect; it is not replacing anyone’s income for more than a couple of weeks.
For what it’s worth, we’re likely getting very little from the program; our income was high enough and we only took one kid as a dependent on our 2019 tax return, and I’m very grateful we’re in that position. My in-laws are living solely on social security. I’m not going to be too upset that my in-laws are likely getting 2,400 (1,200 apiece?) from the program even though their income is impacted not at all.
When a top Google result for defining “poverty level” includes the phrase “130% and below the federal poverty level”, it’s easy to see how one can get them confused.
This has nothing to do with the definition of the poverty level. It has to do with basic mathematical reality.
When you are talking about actual things that exist, like money, you literally cannot have an income that is 130% below any number, because reducing any number by more than 100% gives you a negative number.
It would be just as wrong to say “My income is 130% below LeBron James’ income.” It’s not. It might be 99.95% lower than James’ income, but it can’t be more than 100% lower.
Imagine it this way: I give you a basket filled with $100 bills, and ask you to remove 130% of the money in the basket. How are you going to do it?
Hey, I’m just an editor; to me it’s a simple transposition error. 
Write an IOU?
There are other programs for people who have lost income. The OP doesn’t seem to understand that people who are making over $7,000 per month, and have lost no income at all, are still getting stimulus checks. If they are getting them, then there is absolutely no reason at all for Social Security recipients to not get them. Hell, I’ve been traveling a lot for work to help contain the virus spread. I get paid extra to travel for work. So, I’m actually making more right now due to this virus–not less. I still get a stimulus check. If I get it, then certainly someone on a fixed income from SS should get it. The OP is just being grumpy.
If the OP was making the argument that all these people in situations I mention should not be receiving checks, and that these checks should only be going to people who have lost their income, then that would be different. He seems to be specifically upset about Social Security recipients, though. He doesn’t seem upset about other people earning a government paycheck or who have otherwise maintained or even increased their income recently. Attacking SS recipients alone is not logical or consistent.
I’ve been on SSDI for the past twenty odd years. I’d much rather be working. Hypothetically speaking, if I get a stimulus check I’ll probably use it to pay back the ‘loan’ of a relative who has been helping me make up the shortfall between the $775 I get each month from the government and the cost of rent and electricity. I suspect whichever relative I pick, will then put the money in their savings account to ‘loan’ me again later.
The last job I interviewed for was a bus, an el train and a walk away from me. I would have had a total commute of at least three hours every day. I was so sad and disappointed when I didn’t get the job.
I forgot where I was going with this. Oh yeah, I had no idea I was a Boomer and was pillaging the future. At 45, I never thought I’d be a Boomer. I apologize.
Us Gen-Xers always seem to be invisible, am I right?
Now I kind of feel the need to blow $2900 on something we don’t need or want, in addition to the stuff that we’ve already budgeted for. Stocks are dirt cheap right now, which is my inclination (529 and two Roths to fund this year), but I’m not sure if that stimulates anyone. Sitting in checking, I suppose it’s helping Chase maintain its ability to make loans.
Thanks for the very best answer to the OP and a clear explanation of why he is [del]full of shit[/del] mistaken.
It’s poorly written. Try “130% the federal poverty level and below”.
Seriously, I was just minding my own business and this mathematician dude from over at the college hands me a basket full of money. He started talking about percentages and shit. I ran. The money is cool and all, but check out the basket!
Yeah, I realize I misspoke. I meant my income is below 130% of the federal poverty level.
Here are the questions though, from the government’s perspective:
Is it a sort of lifeline check meant to help people in need, is it literally an economic stimulus check meant to sort of spray gas into the economy’s carburetor, or is it supposed to be both?
Assuming its primary role is as an economic stimulus, and not some sort of social program, what people are most likely to have the biggest effect economically spending their $1200 or so? What retailers/industries are likely to have the biggest effect if stimulated?
I can completely see a situation where the most bang for the government’s stimulus buck might well be to give that $1200 to someone who doesn’t need it in the hopes that they’ll spend it on non-essential goods and services right away, rather than either spending it on essentials like toilet paper, food or soap. Or to someone a little more financially secure who socks it away as a hedge against near-future financial uncertainty in the face of continued lockdowns or future lockdowns.
Why are winners of millions of dollars in a lottery receiving stimulus checks (assuming income was sufficiently low on their most recently field tax return)? Because is quicker to base eligibility on a tax return that IRS has. Similarly somebody with no income in 2019 and 2020 could be ineligible.