(04-22-2020 06:02 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 10:42 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 08:42 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Still waiting for my autographed check from Donald.

Are you waiting for a check or for a direct deposit?

A check. I had recently closed the bank account they had on file. Actually today I read the checks are being prioritized by income (lowest first).

And if they had a bank account on file, then their first attempt was to wire it there, and only after that got rejected did they add your name to the check stack, so you will probably be among the last.

The wife and I got our 2400 the other day. We will put it in the "if the bottom falls out fund." Over the years I've been able to save, on top of other savings, income to last me for a year if the bottom falls out. Am working right now, mainly from home, but who knows what the future holds.

One thing I heard about yesterday which has not been talked about much, at least that I have seen, is that this process of sending out the $2400/$1200 is making it difficult for the IRS to continue to process regular refunds for 2019 returns. So while you may get your stimulus, your 2019 refund might get delayed.

See, if we were doing things my way and had a universal basic income (UBI) based on the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund, the government would already be sending everyone a check every month to being way, which might have reduced the need for this kind of stimulus. On the other hand, it would be a rather simple matter to just bump up the monthly UBI check for the amount of any stimulus payment. And the family status of the individual, so you knew how much stimulus to send, would already be in the system.

Of course, if we were really doing things my way and had privatized the postal service, and added a postal bank, like New Zealand, then everybody's check would just get automatically deposited in their postal bank account.

(04-23-2020 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  See, if we were doing things my way and had a universal basic income (UBI) based on the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund, the government would already be sending everyone a check every month to being way, which might have reduced the need for this kind of stimulus. On the other hand, it would be a rather simple matter to just bump up the monthly UBI check for the amount of any stimulus payment. And the family status of the individual, so you knew how much stimulus to send, would already be in the system.

Of course, if we were really doing things my way and had privatized the postal service, and added a postal bank, like New Zealand, then everybody's check would just get automatically deposited in their postal bank account.

seriously??!!!

I can't even begin to process the lack of incentive and gub'mint' tracking that clusterbang would create in a capitalist system....

smfh....

#goingPostal

(04-23-2020 07:19 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  See, if we were doing things my way and had a universal basic income (UBI) based on the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund, the government would already be sending everyone a check every month to being way, which might have reduced the need for this kind of stimulus. On the other hand, it would be a rather simple matter to just bump up the monthly UBI check for the amount of any stimulus payment. And the family status of the individual, so you knew how much stimulus to send, would already be in the system.
Of course, if we were really doing things my way and had privatized the postal service, and added a postal bank, like New Zealand, then everybody's check would just get automatically deposited in their postal bank account.

seriously??!!!
I can't even begin to process the lack of incentive and gub'mint' tracking that clusterbang would create in a capitalist system....
smfh....
#goingPostal

Yeah, seriously.

And here's why. Boortz-Linder (coming from two pretty conservative people, by the way) sets the UBI at about the subsistence level. You can stay alive, you can have a roof over your head, you can eat--but you won't be doing any of those things well. If you want to do better than that, you need to get a job.

And here's the flip side, when you get that job, the UBI doesn't go away. The homeless person sleeping under I-69 gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it, and so does everybody in between. You don't have the "welfare plantation" effect where for every dollar you make from a job, you lose a dollar to lost welfare benefits and taxes.

If you want to live in a dump and eat crap food, you can. If you don't, get a job. People who work should live better than people who don't work.

And one more thought. It really doesn't cost the taxpayers much more money than the current welfare system. Why? Because all the gate-keeping that goes with means-tested programs is damned expensive. We have programs where up to 70% of the cost goes to administration and only 30% to actual benefits. Here you would have 90-95% going to benefits, minimum. Heck, the IRS could run it with existing staff if we simplified the tax code, so zero marginal administrative cost.

So yeah, seriously.

(04-23-2020 07:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 07:19 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 07:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  See, if we were doing things my way and had a universal basic income (UBI) based on the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund, the government would already be sending everyone a check every month to being way, which might have reduced the need for this kind of stimulus. On the other hand, it would be a rather simple matter to just bump up the monthly UBI check for the amount of any stimulus payment. And the family status of the individual, so you knew how much stimulus to send, would already be in the system.
Of course, if we were really doing things my way and had privatized the postal service, and added a postal bank, like New Zealand, then everybody's check would just get automatically deposited in their postal bank account.

seriously??!!!
I can't even begin to process the lack of incentive and gub'mint' tracking that clusterbang would create in a capitalist system....
smfh....
#goingPostal

Yeah, seriously.

And here's why. Boortz-Linder (coming from two pretty conservative people, by the way) sets the UBI at about the subsistence level. You can stay alive, you can have a roof over your head, you can eat--but you won't be doing any of those things well. If you want to do better than that, you need to get a job.

And here's the flip side, when you get that job, the UBI doesn't go away. The homeless person sleeping under I-69 gets it, Bill and Melinda Gates get it, and so does everybody in between. You don't have the "welfare plantation" effect where for every dollar you make from a job, you lose a dollar to lost welfare benefits and taxes.

If you want to live in a dump and eat crap food, you can. If you don't, get a job. People who work should live better than people who don't work.

And one more thought. It really doesn't cost the taxpayers much more money than the current welfare system. Why? Because all the gate-keeping that goes with means-tested programs is damned expensive. We have programs where up to 70% of the cost goes to administration and only 30% to actual benefits. Here you would have 90-95% going to benefits, minimum. Heck, the IRS could run it with existing staff if we simplified the tax code, so zero marginal administrative cost.

So yeah, seriously.

I easily agree with the bold text.....

however, I cannot get past the portion of incentive vs. subsidization...

all I see in scope is a contradiction of terms.....

if incentive is reduced to the minimum of means, there will always be a larger percentage that toss hands in the air due to "X" as the variable relative to weakness....

I cannot prescribe to such for that reason alone....

it's why sig line 1b) vs. line 1c).....

(04-23-2020 06:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  One thing I heard about yesterday which has not been talked about much, at least that I have seen, is that this process of sending out the $2400/$1200 is making it difficult for the IRS to continue to process regular refunds for 2019 returns. So while you may get your stimulus, your 2019 refund might get delayed.

Makse sense given I'm pretty sure the IRS prioritized the stimulus checks once that was a thing.

(04-23-2020 07:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I easily agree with the bold text.....
however, I cannot get past the portion of incentive vs. subsidization...
all I see in scope is a contradiction of terms.....
if incentive is reduced to the minimum of means, there will always be a larger percentage that toss hands in the air due to "X" as the variable relative to weakness....
I cannot prescribe to such for that reason alone....
it's why sig line 1b) vs. line 1c).....

OK, to the person sitting on his butt doing nothing, this actually pays less than the current welfare system. To the person getting off his butt and working, this pays more. The division between working and not working is pretty well defined, whereas in the current system it isn't.

From something like $15,000 (poverty) to $55,000 (middle class) of earned income, for a family of three or four, your net spendable money, after taxes and welfare, is roughly the same in the current system. That's basically a 100% "effective tax rate" for anyone trying to transition from welfare-class poverty to working-class middle income. The only way to eliminate that is to make "benefits" not go away as you earn money. Run the numbers and the only way to do that affordably is to make the "benefits" subsistence level instead of a "living income." And believe me, you can survive on the prebate/prefund, but you don't want to.

(04-23-2020 07:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 07:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  I easily agree with the bold text.....
however, I cannot get past the portion of incentive vs. subsidization...
all I see in scope is a contradiction of terms.....
if incentive is reduced to the minimum of means, there will always be a larger percentage that toss hands in the air due to "X" as the variable relative to weakness....
I cannot prescribe to such for that reason alone....
it's why sig line 1b) vs. line 1c).....

OK, to the person sitting on his butt doing nothing, this actually pays less than the current welfare system. To the person getting off his butt and working, this pays more. The division between working and not working is pretty well defined, whereas in the current system it isn't.

From something like $15,000 (poverty) to $55,000 (middle class) of earned income, for a family of three or four, your net spendable money, after taxes and welfare, is roughly the same in the current system. That's basically a 100% "effective tax rate" for anyone trying to transition from welfare-class poverty to working-class middle income. The only way to eliminate that is to make "benefits" not go away as you earn money. Run the numbers and the only way to do that affordably is to make the "benefits" subsistence level instead of a "living income." And believe me, you can survive on the prebate/prefund, but you don't want to.

you're right....I don't want "too"....

we're not disagreeing on expenditure....we're disagreeing on what creates/drives "incentive"....

your numbers are sound.....in this specific case, it's not about that in my version of logic and what this country is all about....

I'll defer to Billy Bob's version of welfare reform....he was on the right path until the pubs/dems/lobbyists fk'd it up once again....now we have the herd fk'd up the arse due to another strain of viral bs....

it's a corporation/government/control issue....

JR can/has explain it in more detail....

time to hit the field and 'earn a wage'....

(04-23-2020 08:05 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  we're not disagreeing on expenditure....we're disagreeing on what creates/drives "incentive"....

OK, which creates more incentive?
1) you're getting $3,000 a month from Uncle, and if you get a job that goes away, or
2) you're getting $1,000 a month from Uncle, and if you get a job you get to keep it

I say 2. What say you?

Quote:time to hit the field and 'earn a wage'....

Exactly. And that's exactly the message I want to get out to the welfare mom. You want to live better, get a job, don't get knocked up again.

I actually think that the only way a person gets money from the government is if the person is WORKING. I do not agree that everyone should get a check. Look, the way I see people is not by where they are working but by the fact that they ARE working. No one is less of a person because he/she is a custodian, gardener, waiter, or any job where some people normally look down at the work. Work is work and if you get that paycheck from the sweat of your brow then you are to be commended. The only people that should get a check are the workers to bring their salary up to a living standard. If you prefer to live at mommy's house and not work then that's on you but if you put in your 40 hours of blood, sweat and tears then you deserve a working wage. Waiters for instance should not have to rely on tips. There's the stereotype that tells us that if we give them a working wage that they won't give you good service. Heck, I've been to restaurants where the service is lousy any way you put it and you still feel that you have to tip at least 10%. High end restaurants with their pricey food automatically brings that waiter a very generous paycheck but what about the small family run business where the food is cheap. Even at 20% that waiter isn't going to get the same paycheck as in a fancy restaurant. For that reason let's say the waiter at a fancy restaurant is making a killing then that person doesn't deserve additional money only if you make a certain amount of money. The restaurant owner of a small place shouldn't be the one to bear the brunt it will only force him to fire and have a minimal staff. The government with the elimination of sit on your butt recipients will offset the cost with those that are contributing with their taxes. You can't get taxes from someone that can't or won't work.

Look at David for instance, he doesn't work but he sure likes that monthly check. Why not give the money to the workers instead. David if he can sit in front of his computer and talk shiate with us can ALWAYS work for a telemarketer and then he would be compensated for working and perhaps give him some pride that he EARNED HIS PAY. I'm just using him as an example because he's always here crying his eyes out on how bad he has it.

With a working salary every job is important because you earned part of it yourself and perhaps if you were on welfare you can get out of it.

(04-23-2020 06:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  One thing I heard about yesterday which has not been talked about much, at least that I have seen, is that this process of sending out the $2400/$1200 is making it difficult for the IRS to continue to process regular refunds for 2019 returns. So while you may get your stimulus, your 2019 refund might get delayed.

Only if you were stupid or put it off and filed late. As with most things, do it the right way and it works efficiently. But yeah, it's easy to predict which posters will have issues.

What a clusterfuq! I was finally able to get to a page on the IRS site that didn't say "unable to determine your status" and it needed to know my AGI and amount paid (in my case) for my 2019 tax return and my banking info. I didn't have access to my printed return so I went to the page for the filing software I used and of course it was down for maintenance. When it finally came back up I had to log in 40eleven freakin times before I was actually able to access my account and then I couldn't pull up my 2019 taxes although there was a tab that showed I had indeed e-filed.

Thinking OK, it hasn't been processed yet I went back to the irs.gov site and entered my 2018 info. The site responded that I had entered incorrect info so back I go to get my 2019 info. After numerous attempts I was FINALLY able to reprint my 2019 filing and when I went BACK to the IRS for the 4th time it wouldn't let me back in stating that I had accessed the site too many times and would have to wait 24 hours before accessing it again.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH

Edit: ALL this after clearly reading that if I was a SS recipient - which I am - that I wouldn't have to do anything. What a freakin joke. Meanwhile some unemployed non-tax filing ass welfare recipient has already spent her stimfare check and the 5k she got for her 10 kids under the age of 16 by 8 different baby daddies.

I got close to 4k in my check but that's because I have 4 kids. I didn't need the money so it just went to saving.

(04-23-2020 06:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  One thing I heard about yesterday which has not been talked about much, at least that I have seen, is that this process of sending out the $2400/$1200 is making it difficult for the IRS to continue to process regular refunds for 2019 returns. So while you may get your stimulus, your 2019 refund might get delayed.

Refund?

No checks here...Including my wife's elderly parents living on SS...both over 85 years old.
None of us even need this either. This...and the extra $600 unemployment cash was very poorly thought out and executed.

(04-24-2020 08:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No checks here...Including my wife's elderly parents living on SS...both over 85 years old.
None of us even need this either. This...and the extra $600 unemployment cash was very poorly thought out and executed.

That was forced in there at the last minute by Chuck and Nancy Pants. It was not in the bill the Senate was ready to pass before Queen Haagendaas showed up.

I didnt have a bank account on file because I always owe taxes. Today was the first day it didnt tell me it didnt know the status of my payment. I was able to get in and update my account and routing number. That part went smoothly. You will need to know your adjusted income and amount of taxes owed / refund amount to complete the process from 2018 or 2019.

By the way, Treasury has said SS direct deposits should start happening today. (04/24)