Joe Biden 2021

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

And we already have a mechanism to capture income... taxation.

Just tax the rich.

- Give everyone school
- Give everyone healthcare
- Give everyone stimulus
- Tax the rich

This should be a winning platform because I am going to pay taxes regardless and in the current state I haven't received any stimulus. Don't means test it and let me have some of it too. I even say take the current cap off of it where if you make over $150k you get nothing or whatever the last two stimulus's means tested. 

Means testing is discriminatory and everyone should be able to bite at the apple!

[TXSG8R 3362]

I heard some senator say something along the lines of a couple making $300k with 3 kids were getting thousands of dollars in Covid relief. We make slightly more than half that as a couple ($180ish), no minor kids, and I got a $35 check last month. Does the money for minor children not get run through the income scaling or something? The alternative is the Republican senator was lying, which is crazy talk, right?

[aggie08 21792]

7 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I heard some senator say something along the lines of a couple making $300k with 3 kids were getting thousands of dollars in Covid relief. We make slightly more than half that as a couple ($180ish), no minor kids, and I got a $35 check last month. Does the money for minor children not get run through the income scaling or something? The alternative is the Republican senator was lying, which is crazy talk, right?

Nope. We got less than $650 and $600 of that was for our 13 month old.

He be lying.

I don't even think a $300k couple with 3 kids qualifies for the $1800 dependent allotment.

Edited February 3, 2021 by aggie08

[Js1 87175]

8 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I heard some senator say something along the lines of a couple making $300k with 3 kids were getting thousands of dollars in Covid relief. We make slightly more than half that as a couple ($180ish), no minor kids, and I got a $35 check last month. Does the money for minor children not get run through the income scaling or something? The alternative is the Republican senator was lying, which is crazy talk, right?

They lied. 

They also want to scale down the income requirements to something that only people making less than $50k would get stimulus funds, as if all those people in the $51k to $75k range in actual cities aren't struggling and/or wouldn't use them to stimulate the economy. 

[jimmyjazz 47129]

Yeah, I think the AGI (for a couple) just prorates betwen $150K and $200K, leading to a multiplier for the total qualifying stimulus (two spouses + N minor children).

[Dahobbs 18304]

27 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I heard some senator say something along the lines of a couple making $300k with 3 kids were getting thousands of dollars in Covid relief. We make slightly more than half that as a couple ($180ish), no minor kids, and I got a $35 check last month. Does the money for minor children not get run through the income scaling or something? The alternative is the Republican senator was lying, which is crazy talk, right?

That actually seems possible at salaries a little less than 300k. With (now) three kids, we have received (or will once we get our tax refund) ~$3,000 in total stimulus. Something to keep in mind, the means testing is based on AGI and children increase the phaseout threshold by $10,000 each. So a couple making $250,000 and contributing the maximal amount to two 401ks would have an AGI of 211K. The complete phaseout for married couples for the initial stimulus wouldn't be hit until $228,000 ($198,000 + $(10,000 x 3)). 

That said, I don't see a way a couple with 3 kids and making $300,000 could qualify. So, call it an exaggeration. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dahobbs

[washparkhorn 9973]

48 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Means testing

Means testing kills the economic arguments for stimulus. 

Taxation is the tool for sopping up excess liquidity in certain sectors. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

That said, I don't see a way a couple with 3 kids and making $300,000 could qualify. So, call it an exaggeration. 

But that's the point. They SHOULD be. All means testing are bastards.

[wildcat09 29578]

I need to invent some fake kids so I can qualify for some stimulus.

[washparkhorn 9973]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/02/03/will-end-hurting-tens-millions-progressives-push-back-dems-weigh-lower-income-cutoff

It appears Biden is getting his advice from the fucking US Chamber of Commerce:

But the new administration has also said it is open to negotiating the eligibility threshold for the $1,400 checks, which at least two of Biden's top economic advisers have said should be more targeted to those with lower incomes—an argument also made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's top business lobby. 

. . . 

Progressive members of Congress have argued that limiting the number of people eligible to receive relief payments would be a massive unforced error by Democrats, a needless restriction of popular relief that would weaken a legislative package which—according to some economists—is already inadequate to the task of fighting the ongoing recession, public health emergency, looming eviction crisis, and devastating surge in hunger nationwide.

Quote

 

Negotiations over who will qualify for direct relief payments continued as Senate Democrats on Tuesday took the first step toward approving a coronavirus relief package through budget reconciliation, an expedited process that requires a mere simple-majority vote—meaning a unified Democratic caucus would not need any support from Republican senators to pass legislation.

Speaking to HuffPost earlier this week, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) called into question both the political and economic arguments that have been advanced in recent days in favor of curtailing eligibility for the checks.

"We are in a low-interest rate, low-inflation period where the velocity of money has been reduced given the pandemic," said Khanna. "I have yet to hear a single coherent argument on how our economy will suffer if we give people $2,000 checks."

"We should not be alienating working-class and middle-class Americans by excluding them from Covid relief," Khanna added. "The argument is so obvious it's surprising it has to be stated."

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

It's just dumb the means testing is so low. If you want to tax the rich, set the means at $5mm or something. Setting it at $500k, even, is upper middle class in most urban areas.

 

[washparkhorn 9973]

Again - stimulus was designed to be aimed at repairing the enormous holes left in the economy from Covid. 

". . . Given the size of the current output gap, Congress should aim to provide a COVID-19 relief package of $3-4.5 trillion. This is based on our assumptions regarding the multiplier; however, using the lower multiplier favored by CBO suggests would imply the need for a $7.7 trillion stimulus to fill our current economic hole."

~https://groundworkcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/GWC2065-How-Much-Emergency-Relief-Will-it-Take-to-Revive-the-US-Economy.pdf

[Dahobbs 18304]

29 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

But that's the point. They SHOULD be. All means testing are bastards.

I wasn't arguing for or against. I was just describing the current mechanics. I personally don't see why a means test at a sufficiently high threshold, say 300k AGI, would be a bad thing. I don't think Elon Musk really needs any stimulus at this point. But, I also recognize that the overall budgetary difference between a 300k means test and no means test is going to be fairly limited. So, maybe the answer is why bother? I certainly wouldn't want a means test that cut off the middle class or even upper middle class. And really, income is a really poor basis to judge means. A guy with $20 million in assets can easily have an income of $0. Any income based test is always going to be biased against those getting paid salaries/hourly, i.e., the middle class and upper middle class. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dahobbs

[TXSG8R 3362]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It's just dumb the means testing is so low. If you want to tax the rich, set the means at $5mm or something. Setting it at $500k, even, is upper middle class in most urban areas.

 

It should definitely have some kind of COLA adjustment at a minimum. Anyone with a current unemployment claim should automatically get the max. I also wish someone would explain to me how a child in college isn’t eligible for shit when that’s probably the highest expense you have for a kid after diapers and day care. They also are the ones generally fucked by the downturn in retail, hospitality, and food service jobs. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wasn't arguing for or against. I was just describing the current mechanics. I personally don't see why a means test at a sufficiently high threshold, say 300k AGI, would be a bad thing. I don't think Elon Musk really needs any stimulus at this point. But, I also recognize that the overall budgetary difference between a 300k means test and no means test is going to be fairly limited. So, maybe the answer is why bother? I certainly wouldn't want a means test that cut off the middle class or even upper middle class. And really, income is a really poor basis to judge means. A guy with $20 million in assets can easily have an income of $0. Any income based test is always going to be biased against those get paid salaries/hourly, e.g., the middle class. 

The thing is, a sufficiently high threshold ain't what we are talking about. $1mm at a minimum and I'm being generous because it really should be NOT MEANS TESTED. 

No platform for means testing stimulus money, only pavement.

[washparkhorn 9973]

2 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

I also wish someone would explain to me how a child in college isn’t eligible for shit

The world needs ditch diggers. College isn't for everyone. Learn to code. ~neoliberals

[Js1 87175]

8 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

It should definitely have some kind of COLA adjustment at a minimum. Anyone with a current unemployment claim should automatically get the max. I also wish someone would explain to me how a child in college isn’t eligible for shit when that’s probably the highest expense you have for a kid after diapers and day care. They also are the ones generally fucked by the downturn in retail, hospitality, and food service jobs. 

The Biden package includes college students (adult dependents). 

[bad_teammate 13496]

Using pre-pandemic income is some sicko shit.

To hell with means testing. I hope everyone who has ever advocated for it in the past now realizes how awful it is.

Edited February 3, 2021 by bad_teammate

[TXSG8R 3362]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The Biden package includes college students (adult dependents). 

 

so maybe I’ll get $70 this time around. 😂

[Js1 87175]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Using pre-pandemic income is some sicko shit.

To hell with means testing. I hope everyone who has ever advocated for it in the past now realizes how awful it is.

Didn't that happen in rounds 1 and 2? It was based on 2018 or 2019 income, depending on what you had filed.  When you file your 2020 taxes, it asks if you got stimulus money in rounds 1 and 2 and how much.  If you got less than you should have based on 2020 income,  its supposed to come back to you in the refund.

[wildcat09 29578]

37 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wasn't arguing for or against. I was just describing the current mechanics. I personally don't see why a means test at a sufficiently high threshold, say 300k AGI, would be a bad thing. I don't think Elon Musk really needs any stimulus at this point. But, I also recognize that the overall budgetary difference between a 300k means test and no means test is going to be fairly limited. So, maybe the answer is why bother? I certainly wouldn't want a means test that cut off the middle class or even upper middle class. And really, income is a really poor basis to judge means. A guy with $20 million in assets can easily have an income of $0. Any income based test is always going to be biased against those getting paid salaries/hourly, i.e., the middle class and upper middle class. 

When the whole point is to help people who've been impacted by the pandemic, basing anything on 2019 income is beyond stupid. 

Edit: BT beat me to it.

Edited February 3, 2021 by wildcat09

[Js1 87175]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

When the whole point is to help people who've been impacted by the pandemic, basing anything on 2019 income is beyond stupid. 

Edit: BT beat me to it.

How do you base this third round of stimulus on 2020 income if the bill passes before 2020 taxes are even due?  Wouldn't it have to be based on 2019 income, like rounds 1 and 2, and, like I said above, you confirm what you received when you file your taxes and they refund you what you were owed if you got less (or nothing) than what you should have? 

[washparkhorn 9973]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

How do you base this third round of stimulus on 2020 income if the bill passes before 2020 taxes are even due?  Wouldn't it have to be based on 2019 income, like rounds 1 and 2, and, like I said above, you confirm what you received when you file your taxes and they refund you what you were owed if you got less (or nothing) than what you should have? 

Or one can simply not means-test distribution of stimulus designed to compensate for the giant holes left in the economy. 

The economics of the situation do not support the use of means testing. This is a systemwide loss of output. If Elon tips the Valet at Nobu a little more because of his stimulus check, he might buy a craft beer, which might support a beermaker, who might then buy more equipment . . . Stimulus is designed to stimulate the velocity of money. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Js1 87175]

Until Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Chuck Schumer or Bernie Sanders comes out and says it's being means-tested, I don't believe it will be. 

Everyone wants to immediately assume Joe Biden is going to go back on his word or flip to his centrist-y roots and he keeps not doing it.  

[wildcat09 29578]

Just now, Js1 said:

Until Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Chuck Schumer or Bernie Sanders comes out and says it's being means-tested, I don't believe it will be. 

Everyone wants to immediately assume Joe Biden is going to go back on his word or flip to his centrist-y roots and he keeps not doing it.  

I tend to agree, at least for now. He's been good so far, but it's annoying that they're even floating the idea that they're considering it. I don't see the point. I guess so they can tell some centrist Dems in the House that they floated it and the public hates the idea? I'm hoping it's just some intraparty messaging campaign like that intended to comfort some centrists that they won't get hurt by ads in 2022 claiming they helped rich people.

[washparkhorn 9973]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Everyone wants to immediately assume Joe Biden is going to go back on his word or flip to his centrist-y roots and he keeps not doing it

God-willing. 

Centrists always find themselves drifting off into voodoo economics. Let's hope Joe is smarter that the average centrist.

[Dahobbs 18304]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Using pre-pandemic income is some sicko shit.

To hell with means testing. I hope everyone who has ever advocated for it in the past now realizes how awful it is.

 

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

When the whole point is to help people who've been impacted by the pandemic, basing anything on 2019 income is beyond stupid. 

Edit: BT beat me to it.

Pre-pandemic income just determined whether the IRS would send a check in advance. If you qualify based on 2020 income, you'll get the money when you do your returns. My family received additional stimulus in our refund because our two daughters were born in 2020. I think using 2019 income was just the easiest way to judge potential eligibility before the 2020 returns were filed. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

or - just don't means test.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Until Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Chuck Schumer or Bernie Sanders comes out and says it's being means-tested, I don't believe it will be. 

Everyone wants to immediately assume Joe Biden is going to go back on his word or flip to his centrist-y roots and he keeps not doing it.  

This is a great, sane point. No sense in working myself up into a lather over imaginary, at this point, failures.

[Dahobbs 18304]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

or - just don't means test.

Sure, I have no issue with that for the next round. That said, my family doesn't need stimulus. I wouldn't be offended if we were excluded by a means test. The main reason I think a means test is silly is because it creates an administrative burden with little in the way of cost savings or redistribution to those more in need. 

[jimmyjazz 47129]

12 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Or one can simply not means-test distribution of stimulus designed to compensate for the giant holes left in the economy. 

Something like 75% of income tax filers would fall below the $75K (individual) cutoff.  It certainly seems to be a lot of bad will thrown after no good to try to save on that last 25%.

[wildcat09 29578]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Pre-pandemic income just determined whether the IRS would send a check in advance. If you qualify based on 2020 income, you'll get the money when you do your returns. My family received additional stimulus in our refund because our two daughters were born in 2020. I think using 2019 income was just the easiest way to judge potential eligibility before the 2020 returns were filed. 

Yeah I get it, I just think it's still a dumb design. If you wanted to do some form of means testing, it'd be better to just tax it back once someone files their 2020 taxes if they had a really high 2020 AGI. 

[Dahobbs 18304]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Yeah I get it, I just think it's still a dumb design. If you wanted to do some form of means testing, it'd be better to just tax it back once someone files their 2020 taxes if they had a really high 2020 AGI. 

That presents its own problems. I can see how the optics of taking money back would create political trouble. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

Biden has public opinion on his side to get it done:

 

[Js1 87175]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That presents its own problems. I can see how the optics of taking money back would create political trouble. 

And that's why it's not being done. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

[wildcat09 29578]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That presents its own problems. I can see how the optics of taking money back would create political trouble. 

Sure, but who's gonna cry for someone with an AGI of, for example, $500,000+ in 2020?

[bad_teammate 13496]

The Dems should absolutely put clean bills on super-popular issues before the Senate just to bait the Republicans into filibuster.

[wildcat09 29578]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The Dems should absolutely put clean bills on super-popular issues before the Senate just to bait the Republicans into filibuster.

Yeah, make Rand go on the floor and hold it open for hours talking about why nobody should get any government help.

[Dahobbs 18304]

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, but who's gonna cry for someone with an AGI of, for example, $500,000+ in 2020?

Given the limits they set, I think the bad publicity would have come from something like a single mom making $100,000.00 or one with two kids making $120,000.00 having to return money at tax time. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dahobbs

[wildcat09 29578]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Given the limits they set, I think the bad publicity would have come from something like an individual filer making $100,000.00 or one with two kids making $120,000.00 having to return money at tax time. 

Sure, but we're talking hypotheticals here. I think any means testing is dumb for the reasons you've pointed out, but setting the thresholds as low as they did is especially stupid.

For all there is to be optimistic about from the Biden administration so far, most other developed countries are giving their people monthly support while we're discussing at what level to phase out a one-time $2,000 check. That's...not great.

['stache 22131]

I really don't understand how $1000 or $600 every now and then is supposed to help people struggling to make ends meet. Rent and bills come up monthly, people have to eat daily. If the aim is to boost the economy by giving people extra cash to spend on stuff, then a few boosts here and there might make sense. If the aim is to help people struggling to eat or pay rent, I don't see how it helps but maybe delay the inevitable by another month. Now would be a good time to try a universal basic income. Everyone gets $1000 a month. We can absolutely afford it, if we are willing to tax appropriately, but that will always be the hangup. Can't tax the top 1%, because jesus or trickle down or something.

[Hagbard Celine 11218]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, make Rand go on the floor and hold it open for hours talking about why nobody should get any government help.

make them go on the record whenever possible.  make fox eat a dick all. day. long.

[hayden_horn 11402]

34 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Pre-pandemic income just determined whether the IRS would send a check in advance. If you qualify based on 2020 income, you'll get the money when you do your returns. My family received additional stimulus in our refund because our two daughters were born in 2020. I think using 2019 income was just the easiest way to judge potential eligibility before the 2020 returns were filed. 

this is good information. i got a joke of a stim check (even though i am fortunate enough not to need it at this time) because i blew up part of my 401k in 2019 to pay off all debt so we could buy a house. married, two kids, and i got like an $80 check. some stimulus that is. again, not that i need it, but i probably would have spent it on something.

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I really don't understand how $1000 or $600 every now and then is supposed to help people struggling to make ends meet. Rent and bills come up monthly, people have to eat daily. If the aim is to boost the economy by giving people extra cash to spend on stuff, then a few boosts here and there might make sense. If the aim is to help people struggling to eat or pay rent, I don't see how it helps but maybe delay the inevitable by another month. Now would be a good time to try a universal basic income. Everyone gets $1000 a month. We can absolutely afford it, if we are willing to tax appropriately, but that will always be the hangup. Can't tax the top 1%, because jesus or trickle down or something.

it's never been a trickle down, it's always been flooding up:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wall-street-s-best-year-ever-why-pandemic-has-been-n1252512

Quote

The bifurcated economy that took shape in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic destroyed the lives, savings and small businesses of innumerable Americans, but the year wasn’t a financial washout for everyone.

Between roughly mid-March and Dec. 22, the United States gained 56 new billionaires, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, bringing the total to 659. The wealth held by that small cadre of Americans has jumped by more than $1 trillion in the months since the pandemic began.

According to a December report issued jointly by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies using data compiled by Forbes, America’s billionaires hold roughly $4 trillion in wealth — a figure roughly double what the 165 million poorest Americans are collectively worth. The 10 richest billionaires have a combined net worth of more than $1 trillion.

 

['stache 22131]

28 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's never been a trickle down, it's always been flooding up:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wall-street-s-best-year-ever-why-pandemic-has-been-n1252512

 

Yup. I think a lot of people think of billionaires as just a thing without understanding how much it actually is. I like this video to make the point. No human being, no matter how hard they work, or how smart they are, is worth that much more than regular workers, the vast majority of which make less than a single grain of rice every year, and where minimum wage is like a fourth of a single grain of rice. That is just absurd. It's okay to tax people with that much wealth. Its imperative in fact for this country to continue. It won't last long if these wealth disparities continue to grow.

 

 

[Brisketexan 106876]

34 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

it's never been a trickle down, it's always been flooding up:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wall-street-s-best-year-ever-why-pandemic-has-been-n1252512

 

This.  Anyone who still talks about trickle down, supply side, Laffer curve, or any of that shit as a POSITIVE demonstrates themselves to be a liar, fool, or both.

And for the record, I'm a former fool.  Many moons ago, I thought that the trickle down hypothesis made sense.  Then I watched the evidence whenever it was implemented.  The evidence is pretty unambiguous -- ain't nuthin' trickling down to anywhere.

['stache 22131]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Anyone who still talks about trickle down, supply side, Laffer curve, or any of that shit as a POSITIVE demonstrates themselves to be a liar, fool, or both.

And for the record, I'm a former fool.  Many moons ago, I thought that the trickle down hypothesis made sense.  Then I watched the evidence whenever it was implemented.  The evidence is pretty unambiguous -- ain't nuthin' trickling down to anywhere.

I think the theory might work if you're talking about super high tax rates, like 90% and maybe even 70% from years past, or when the wealth being held by the top 1% (or so) is not so wide. But with rates as they have been for decades well under 50% for only the very top bracket, and with the types of wealth being held currently by the top 1%, the tax rate will make almost no difference. Will Jeff Bezos really be making business decisions based on whether he gets to keep a few additional percentage of his annual earnings? Fuck no, if it makes sense for him, he'll do it, regardless of some tax increases.  Anything he ends up saving these days is literally just sitting somewhere making him more money because no human being can spend anywhere close to that wealth in a thousand lifetimes.

[jimmyjazz 47129]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Anyone who still talks about trickle down, supply side, Laffer curve, or any of that shit as a POSITIVE demonstrates themselves to be a liar, fool, or both.

Well, the Laffer curve as a general concept seems sound.  Now, deriving any usefulness out of it is a mighty tall hill to climb.

[Born to Run 6601]

This.  Anyone who still talks about trickle down, supply side, Laffer curve, or any of that shit as a POSITIVE demonstrates themselves to be a liar, fool, or both.
And for the record, I'm a former fool.  Many moons ago, I thought that the trickle down hypothesis made sense.  Then I watched the evidence whenever it was implemented.  The evidence is pretty unambiguous -- ain't nuthin' trickling down to anywhere.

Well I have at times felt like the uber wealthy and politicians were pissing on me and that piss just trickle on down to my shoes.