Regardless of the policy, politically it is stupid

[dsc]

to income test the checks at 50k for singles, and the rest. Think of the areas where 50k is a pretty good salary for a single person. They are often going to be red states, or at least red areas regardless of state. Similarly the places where 50k isn't a good salary for a single person are going to be in blue states or at least in blue areas regardless of state. So of necessity this will serve to transfer money from blue areas to red ones. That punishes our voters and rewards theirs. That is honestly dumb.

[AirmensMom]

1. I agree.

The threshold should not change. People will only remember that they got a stimulus check under the previous administration but not this one.

[Delphinus]

2. I have had

this conversation with my husband.

[Wounded Bear]

3. It's the wrong time to focus on trivialities...

they should be throwing money out the door by the trainload.

[abqtommy]

6. I totally agree.

[EndlessWire]

28. I agree.

Honestly, I think that Joe should up the amount to $5,000 per no matter who/what, and pass it using his method that excludes obstructive Repubs. Then we could say, well, you had your chance to give them only $1,400. Too bad!"

The 1% got theirs. Let people with homes and kids to feed get a little, too. Take it from the foreign aid we hand out like candy, and help our own people this year. $5,000 per is nothing.

I am itching to "get even" with those obstructive Repub assholes who are trying to distract us from Trump's trial. New guys are on the line, now, and it's time to let them know.

[Proud liberal 80]

4. Agree

And this $1400 is supposed to be the remainder of the $2000 that Biden and the GA Senators promised on the campaign trail....so if it is the remainder for people who already qualified for the $600, how are you going to lower the target income level?

Plus I am disappointed that Biden didn’t learn from the early stages of the Obama administration during them stimulus talks.

[Happy Hoosier]

5. Agree. HUGE mistake.

Joe is doing great so far, but this move makes NO sense and I think will significantly blunt the positive effects of this bill.

[KPN]

7. Agree 100%. This is a good comment for our Dem legislators and the

WH to hear. I’m going to send my Congressionals an email expressing this.

If anything, the income targets should be linked to average rents/cost of homes in States. But the devil is still in the details. KISS!

[rso]

8. Stimulus payments

The problem is that Manchin may not be willing to go along with the 75/150 k threshold, and we can’t pass it through the Senate without him.

[zaj]

18. So, you are saying that politically its stupid to...

... kill the whole bill over this issue?

Seems like this might be a key point in the discussion.

[rso]

31. Stimulus

No, I’m saying that if Manchin cannot be convinced to go for the 75/150 k threshold, Biden and Schumer have no choice but to go for the 50/100 k threshold.

[zaj]

33. Me too..

[uponit7771]

9. K&R, ... and based on what income? 2019 doesn't apply EMPIRICALLY and 2020 hasn't been filed !!!

Hayes is correct if you can back test for 2020 income tax the amount in 2021 !!!

[mopinko]

10. yup

i had a hi income last yr cuz i got a lump sum settlement of my last 2 yrs of alimony. year before that i had a good income mostly from said alimony,
but right now i am sitting on an empty 2 flat w a half done rehab directly related to covid.
i have savings, but my cash flow is in the shitter. i could use the money, but i'm not gonna get it.

[Turin_C3PO]

11. Another reason

it would be bad politically is that everyone in the 50k-75k range who got a $600 check was promised a $1400 check. They’ll end up thinking Trump gave them money and Biden didn’t. Best to leave the income requirements the same.

[obamanut2012]

12. Bingo

[Dlpger61]

13. True

I totally agree

[leftstreet]

15. +1

"$600 from Trump - 0 from Biden" is a midterm ad that writes itself

[Klaralven]

14. There shouldn't be a sharp threshold

You should get the full $1400 if income is less than $50 K. It should taper linearly from $1400 at $50K to $0 at $100K.

Any sharp cutoff threshold will be seen as unfair by those just above it.

[CaptainTruth]

22. +1

[liskddksil]

16. Call Your Senators and Representative to Demand That Income Thresholds Stay the Same

as prior two stimulus checks. We could potentially be screwing us out of power in 2022 and 2024 if people who make $50,000-$75,000 (which is not a lot in high cost areas) got checks 1st two times don't get a check this time.

Capitol Switchboard: [phone].

[dbonds]

17. Give the money to everyone, then tax it back later to those over a threshold.

[dawg]

19. If we go that way, it probably costs us 2022.

Maybe even 2024.

Millions of voters in the mushy middle who got checks under Trump but were considered too "rich" by Biden.

[Tommymac]

20. We spend the money locally in small businesses who are hurting.

It is a $$ multiplier.

We personally don't need the money that badly -we take it so we can help boost the economy by spending it at restaurants, hair salons, auto repair shops, and other LOCAL small businesses who were shafted by the last PPP package, which the 1% hi-jacked.

And give some to our young nieces and nephews who are really hurting - the amount given in a year to working class Americans is peanuts so far compared to what we could do, and what the rest of the Industrialized world is doing for their citizens.

This is a really BAD move. The RW leaning Media will support it, then they will start to berate President Joe for breaking his promise of giving $2000 to all Americans.

2022 Rethugs and the 1% will make this a HUGE Wedge issue - I truly believe it will really put us behind the 8 Ball then.

[Hortensis]

21. The wealth transfer from red to blue "problem" is what we always do.

It's why our entire nation is advanced and wealthy, instead of a patchwork of rich states and impoverished and underdeveloped ones, large areas never even having been electrified or have indoor plumbing. Wealthy states would have a constant problem of undereducated refugees from poor states -- and notably influxes of and raids by criminals and violent gangs of all types. And we'd be the rightful target of world contempt.

Also, let's mention that the spread of wealth secures state governments' agreement to comply with federal standards in all aspects. The National Guard didn't impose the uniform building code or voting rights for women.

The notion that this would punish "our" voters and reward "theirs" presumably hasn't been thought through. Anywhere from a quarter close to half of the residents of red states ARE our voters, and similar percentages in blue states are their voters. ALSO, the incomes of millions of people in all states don't fit the averages.

Us-them thinking, victim syndromes, and looking for ways to screw "them" "in return" are what's turned the Republicans crazy and meaner than snakes NOT something to copy.

And a huge no to geographic bigotry period, which we see far too much of right here in the supposed anti-bigotry citadel of DU. By definition, all bigotry is willfully hateful and stupid, and wanting to hurt entire states without even bothering to consider who's us and who's them is a proof positive that this is bigotry.

[dsc]

26. I have no problem with it being incidental to the policy but

here it ends up being the entire policy. It is hard to make the case that a single person making 60k in Manhattan is better off than a single person making 40k in Goldsboro.

[Hortensis]

27. Well, regardless of whether it's that simple or not, picking one

particular viewpoint useful for stoking victim mentality and then hitting that is what Fox, OAN, Newsmax, etc., do. All the time. Because it works.

That wasn't your plan, but just look at the quick agreements here to the message that WE're being victimized (punished!) to see how well it works. Triggering gut-level emotional response is done deliberately to subvert intellectual response.

[dsc]

29. Well why shouldn't someone who is making 60k in Manhattan

be infuriated that they get diddly squat while someone making 40k and living economically better, is getting a check? Heck, we aren't even taking the money we are saving to help anyone.

[Hortensis]

30. NOW you're talking individually, instead of geographically.

Not blue-state people being victimized to privilege red-state people over them, but an individually focused discussion of what's fair and equitable everywhere.

Equally, why should a middle-class red-state resident whose income exceeds the limit (because he went and got a college degree he's still paying for) -- and who needs relief -- be "punished" by a limit dragged down by hoards of lower-income citizens, half of them living in blue states?

NEED and economic appropriateness, not geographic bigotry.

[BobTheSubgenius]

23. Problem is...anything that's means-tested is going to fall this way.

Perhaps the numbers can be reworked somewhat, but I don't want to see Jeff Bezos eligible for the same cheque as unemployed parents, drowning in debt and ready to start eating the walls of their house.

[dawg]

24. Just use the same limits that were used under Trump for crying out loud.

They were already means tested.

Just don't make it so tight that people who got checks under Trump don't qualify for checks under Biden. That would be political suicide. Especially in Georgia.

[liskddksil]

32. Yep, we won the Senate on a promise of $2,000 checks. Failure is not an option nt

[BusyBeingBest]

25. It's dumb. It's also not really a stimulus if the payout is that stringent.

So if it's not really a stimulus, just call it charity or welfare or whatever.