[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Has anyone come up with a reason why afc's "claw it back next year when people file their tax returns" thing isn't reasonable?

I think it's perfectly reasonable. Tell people up front "If you make over X we're going to count these cheques as income" and have the IRS proceed accordingly.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think there's pretty obviously a reasonable debate to be had here about whether this policy is a good idea, and we have one side of that debate quoting news articles and making principled points while the other side accuses them of being "privileged" or "ghoulish" or "ignorant", other than Maritime Q Scout...

That's an interesting way to say that the side quoting news articles and making principled points in wrong... I mean, I still like it, just a cool way to go about that

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That sounds an awful lot like trickle-down economics. Isn't that the justification for cutting taxes for high-earners - they'll spend that money on home renos, restaurants, etc, and that's good for everybody?

How exactly is giving everyone $2,000 trickle down economics? Isn’t trickle down economics giving the money to the rich and have that money 'trickle down to the poor?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Has anyone come up with a reason why afc's "claw it back next year when people file their tax returns" thing isn't reasonable?

And wouldn't that be the case anyway? These funds would be taxable, no?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Has anyone come up with a reason why afc's "claw it back next year when people file their tax returns" thing isn't reasonable?

it's totally reasonable, and what needs to happen. Exactly how Canada has handled it (at least some programs).

Get the money out now. Classify it as income. For next year's taxes, have a surcharge on that income, based on other income for the year.

But get the cheques out quickly.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Bad idea, IMO. Say you make the threshold $70k. What do you with the people who made $70k in 2019 but have been laid off since April?

Yeah I definitely see your point for sure and it’s valid.

Let’s say you do the 2019 income thing, then, next step, people can apply just like CERB. Then you would have at least cut out a huge swath of people that need review and don’t need it.

I guess other way is give it to everyone and claw back on taxes following year... probably that does just make the most sense. Still I don’t think Cliffs point should just be so arbitrarily dismissed. It’s a valid point regarding government spending that Canadians should be really genuinely worried about I think.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Has anyone come up with a reason why afc's "claw it back next year when people file their tax returns" thing isn't reasonable?

I think it's good and agree with the part about giving 3-4 checks out instead of one. I'd like to see the claw backs more impact based after a certain income. ie, everyone under 50k keeps them, 50k-100k keeps them if they lost income due to COVID.

Now you got me and maybe that senator back at the table :-)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

it's totally reasonable, and what needs to happen. Exactly how Canada has handled it (at least some programs).

Well, we kind of ####ed it up. When CRA is even saying the rules weren't clear (oh, are tax rules normally really easy to understand?), you know they could have done a better job. But obviously, us rolling the program out badly doesn't mean they have to.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

so Trump gets a cheque?

The US President make $400K annually.

Even if he did donate it, that's still income. If you actually believe he donated a penny of it, I kinda expect you to storm the capital on the 20th.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, we kind of ####ed it up. When CRA is even saying the rules weren't clear (oh, are tax rules normally really easy to understand?), you know they could have done a better job. But obviously, us rolling the program out badly doesn't mean they have to.

Oh, I'm not saying they handled it well (they didn't, in some respects), I am just saying that is how they handled it (attempted to handle it?).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by #-3

The US President make $400K annually.

Even if he did donate it, that's still income. If you actually believe he donated a penny of it, I kinda expect you to storm the capital on the 20th.

Umm, it was a joke, referencing his tax filings. Relax, dude.

[driveway]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1347275992822267905

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You are a Mod, correct?

Incorrect! And what's the diff? Can't a guy ask a question?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

And wouldn't that be the case anyway? These funds would be taxable, no?

All stimulus checks have been tax-free.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I think it's good and agree with the part about giving 3-4 checks out instead of one. I'd like to see the claw backs more impact based after a certain income. ie, everyone under 50k keeps them, 50k-100k keeps them if they lost income due to COVID.

Now you got me and maybe that senator back at the table :-)

The problem with this is:

1) How do you verify someone “lost income due to COVID”? Their annual bonus was $20 less this year than last year. Was it because of poor personal performance? Lower overall profits because of a bad business decision? Fewer sales because of increased competition? Or because of COVID?

2) Handing out money and then saying “well, you may have to pay that back” is going to cause uncertainty and then people won’t spend the money. So that defeats the whole point, doesn’t it?

3) What are you going to base the income numbers on? AGI? Taxable? Something else? And how are you going to keep people from manipulating that baseline number?

Just go the easy route and hand out money to everyone, regardless of what they make now or made last year.

And if you really want to target the “needy,” give double checks to anyone who was on unemployment at anytime during the past 10 months, or to anyone on any sort of government welfare benefit now (food stamps, Medicaid, etc). The government knows who those people are already.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I wish I had your crystal ball.

Restaurants are doing well? They sure aren’t in my neck of the woods. Extra money to people who could eat out has been business-saving for them and their employees.

Select businesses (big box mostly) are doing ok and in some cases like Amazon amazing. A lot of others are not, small businesses especially.

IMO, giving people more spending money can only be a good thing for all businesses, those that need the shot in the arm and those that don’t.

Restaurants aren't doing well. But that's not because people don't have money to spend on them. A one time $2000 right now is not going to move the needle on restaurant health.

Service industries are doing well, construction is booming, housing is booming, auto industy is doing well, home renos are doing well, bike stores had their biggest year ever, kayaks were sold out for months, computers and gaming stuff are all sold out.

$2000 checks will mostly go to the places that are already doing well. People aren't going to be taking vacations and going out for dinner with their checks if they weren't comfortable or weren't allowed before.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Restaurants aren't doing well. But that's not because people don't have money to spend on them. A one time $2000 right now is not going to move the needle on restaurant health.

Service industries are doing well, construction is booming, housing is booming, auto industy is doing well, home renos are doing well, bike stores had their biggest year ever, kayaks were sold out for months, computers and gaming stuff are all sold out.

$2000 checks will mostly go to the places that are already doing well. People aren't going to be taking vacations and going out for dinner with their checks if they weren't comfortable or weren't allowed before.

If I had to guess, a lot of that money is going to bank, credit card, medical, utilities, and rent debts. For a lot of people, it's already spent and will be forked over to someone else almost immediately.

Oh, and drugs of course.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I'm just gonna own up to this and say I'm having a bad week and I'm cranky as hell. Apologies to everyone for how I'm going about this. Quit drinking for the month, stressful week at work, new meds, and then all this bull#### has me out of sorts.

all this bull#### has us all out of sorts, I decided to adopt one my foster sons younger brothers a few years ago, he was 9 and granted I'm almost 60 and single but the brothers had been with me a few years and everything was (and still is) going well, at the time I wasn't in the least worried, I make good money the house is almost paid, I know how to parent it all made perfect sense and would be so much easier than being a parent at 30 or so.

Now I am stressed out every night worrying about it all falling apart and us being broke or me catching cancer or other catastrophic scenarios, I have a recurring dream that I am wandering a wasteland with him and his brother pushing a shopping cart and living off rabbits and pidgeons, I havent been this stressed since my divorce when I thought I might have to move to Winnipeg.

I'm in great shape financially and have no real reason to worry, I cannot imagine what you younger guys with families are going through.

[IGGYRULES]

[QUOTE=HockeyIlliterate;7684921



2) Handing out money and then saying “well, you may have to pay that back” is going to cause uncertainty and then people won’t spend the money. So that defeats the whole point, doesn’t it?


.[/QUOTE]

This is privilege and a lack of understanding! I stopped reading at the end of Buller point 2. Give your head a shake man.... If they get the money and need to put food on the table or make their rent they'll spend it. Do you honestly think they'll be worried about having to pay it back???? If they get the money and don't need it and don't spend it then great! Wow.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

2) Handing out money and then saying “well, you may have to pay that back” is going to cause uncertainty and then people won’t spend the money. So that defeats the whole point, doesn’t it?

Originally Posted by IGGYRULES

If they get the money and need to put food on the table or make their rent they'll spend it. Do you honestly think they'll be worried about having to pay it back???? If they get the money and don't need it and don't spend it then great! Wow.

That's just it. If the relief cheques are considered income, those with little or no income in 2020 won't pay any of it back (since their total income won't meet certain thresholds). Those well-off will pay most or all of it back.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Umm, it was a joke, referencing his tax filings. Relax, dude.

I thought the post you quoted was humorous