The Administration and Congress have negotiated the outline of how the proposed economic stimulus plan will play out. Here’s how much in rebates you could be getting back, depending on your situation:
Workers who get a paycheck (even if they don’t earn enough to pay federal income taxes): $300
Workers who pay income taxes: $300+
Families with children: $300 per child, with a cap of perhaps $1200 total.
Individuals who make $75,000+ or couples who make $150,000+: nothing.
Drat, no Mormon bonanza.
Tentative Deal on Economic Stimulus Plan [NYT]
More From Consumerist
-
Nike Assured Me An Android App For FuelBand Was In The Works, Ditches That Plan, Shrugs
-
Thousands Of NJ Residents Don’t Realize They Were Scammed, Pass Scam On To Family & Friends
-
New Record Reached With One-In-Five American Households In Student Debt
-
Here’s A Hint For Hotels Losing Guests: Maybe It’s Time Free Internet Access Comes With The Room
-
Amazon’s Same-Day Delivery Could Make Bricks-And-Mortar Retailers Even More Irrelevant
FWIW…with the Fed slashing rates as quickly as they are, you’d be wise to spend that ‘rebate’ dough as quickly as possible. $600 might only buy you some gum and a lottery ticket by this time next year.
I’m LOLing at all the “rich” people who are complaining about not getting any money from the deal. Granted $75,000 isn’t rich in some parts of the country — and that is a problem in this deal that should be fixed — but try talking to someone who has tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to pay back and no job to speak of.
Not everyone who is poor is a crack-smoking kid factory.
Wow, as a non-tax paying student who made just a tad more than $3000, and had around $300 withheld, this just doubled my refund.
As for the whole “food stamps reinvigorate the economy” thing proposed by Ted Kennedy in the article, I’m a little more than skeptical. Wouldn’t that money go to you know, food, and the “saved” money to other necessities, instead of the ultra-high-defentition plasmas that drive our economy?
@backbroken: Seeing as the money is probably coming from China in the first place, they could essentially just keep it.
@stinerman: I agree, it’s ridiculous. My first reaction when I found out I wouldn’t qualify was disappointment, even though I know this is a stupid idea and won’t do a damn thing. But, after seeing some of the douchebag reactions from others in my predicament all over the internet today, I’m feeling better about not getting any of it. If they’re going to insist on this stupid scheme, I would rather see it go to people who could really use it.
Call your Senators and Representatives right now and let them know how you feel!
Tell them you’re making $76,000 or whatever and are ticked off that you pay taxes and get nothing back, whereas people who aren’t paying taxes are eligible for a rebate. Tell them that because of this you won’t be voting for them come election time.
I am probably the minority here amongst the under $75,000, but I do feel bad for the people that make more get screwed more. I make around $50,000 and I wish I made more. I think the government does send the wrong message by handing out free money to the people that do not work as hard or had other issues precluding them from making more money or having a better job. I think the money should be handed out to the people that make more because they will spend it. Poor people such as my self will just pay bills with it and that will not stimulate the economy.
Does anyone else agree? or am I crazy?
@CuriousO: You’re not crazy. You’re being very reasonable. I’d agree with you except I think the whole thing is a bad idea to begin with. I think they should narrow qualifications rather than just give it to everyone, because none of us can afford this in the long run, and the less being spent on this, the better. They should start shaving from the top rather than from the bottom, because while the rich pay more taxes in quantity, poor people pay more of their income proportionately. I also can’t get on board the poor people don’t work as hard as rich people myth, either. It depends on the individual.
@CuriousO: I think that if they are going to hand out money, it should go to people on the lower end of the income scale. Actually, I think richer people are probably LESS likely to spend it, because they already would be more likely to have enough money to spend on things they want. So while it would be a nice bonus for them, I doubt it would change their behavior very much. Poorer people might spend it on “bills”, but that’s still stimulating the economy. Even if it largely goes to debt repayment, that would help increase spending because it would free up money in poorer people’s budgets that would otherwise go to interest payments.
But I don’t think they should be handing out money.
@Pithlit: Well you are right about that poor people don’t work as hard as rich people, but the reason I said that is because I graduated HIgh School in 2002 and all throughout I saw my classmates being lazy not working as hard as me or my other class mated and the same thing happened in college. They either ended up dropping out or getting a crappy job and sticking to it. Their decisions came back to bite them in the ass and now they do not make enough as they wanted. I know some poor people that work very hard but made some bad decisions in the past and now they are stuck.
Wow and I obviously do not have any grammar skills….sorry, long day!
@ErnieMcCracken: That depends… by domestic do you mean made in the USA (as I would define it) or do you mean the mass-brewed crap from huge corporate breweries (as bars seem to define it.) I’d think that $2 Domestics would mean I could get Fat Tire or Anchor Steam that that price, but domestic in the beer world just means cheap.
@CuriousO: Some people do suffer economically from having had poor grades in school. I’m sure everyone knows someone like that. I know I also know some people who busted their butts, got really good grades, and still ended up poor. There are too many factors that go into it. I went to school that included some very wealthy neighborhoods in its district, so if I were to base my opinion on rich people from some of the kids I went to school with, I’d think they were spoiled, lazy and entitled. Of course, I know this isn’t really the case.
I am beyond sick of reading comments by uninformed people who think that if you make less than $75 K you are a “drain on the economy” and a “failure at capitalism.” They are conveniently forgetting that many people, including those comprising the military and teachers, make well below that figure. Get educated on a subject before you make such unfounded comments.
Marginal propensity to consume…. Hmm I think I blogged about this in 2006…
[tetricus.blogspot.com]
This stimulus should be different in New York City, where you can make 90k a year and still be considered “poor”.
@stinerman: “Not everyone who is poor is a crack-smoking kid factory!”
I know, look at Britney! A crack-smoking kid factory AND she’s rich! Ain’t life a bitch!?
This will do ZILCH to help the economy, but then again, they know this… ultimately, this is a 150 Billion dollar ad campaign for the state of the economy.
When people have money and are spending, there is a sense of calm, that all is well… when things get tight, people get antsy, and nobody wants antsy citizens. Antsy people start to do things to get themselves un-antsy – when they are antsy about money they scale back spending and they pay off debt, hardly what is wanted in an economy BUILT on debt.
700 Billion dollars in non-mortgage debt at last estimate, and articles everywhere pointing to skyrocketing balances and defaults. If you think the mortgage bubble is painful, LOL! Houses are secured debt, there is property and a home to collateral the debt. If you default, they take your home… they will take a loss in the foreclosure and firesale, but they at least have a sizable chunk of an asset. It’s going to be awful hard to come take all your ipods, home gyms, jewelry, and furniture… but at least that’s doable in some ways. What about all the consumables on credit? Gas, Groceries, Dining Out, Hotels, Travel… wow, nothing really to take there.
The mortgage crisis is still that calm breeze on the beach, a day or two before you pack up and head for the hills while the hurricane rips your world apart. Are you ready? If you are not, might I suggest using your stimulus to help you get there.
“What to do, what to do. One 300 dollar hookerbot or 300 one dollar hookerbots?”
I’ve been waiting forever to use that line…
Just so all of the $75K+ earners know where you stand: the median household [i.e.: this includes many two-earner families] income in the US is around $46,000. $75K puts you well into the top quintile of earnings. While you may not feel wealthy, you are better off than the overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens.
If you want to talk about fairness, let’s take a look at all of the tax writeoffs that primarily benefit the upper middle class and the wealthy:
-the home mortgage interest deduction,
-home equity loan interest deduction,
-tax-deferred savings like 401(k)s, 529s, HSAs and IRAs,
-capital loss deduction
Those things are worth jack shit to someone making $10-$12/hour because they don’t earn enough to save, much less lose in the stock market.
So, you can all sit back, enjoy the myriad tax benefits that allow people with money to get more money, and quit complaining about a few hundred dollars going to people who don’t have squat by comparison.
Damn, I know the rich generally turn this nose up at the poor, but I didn’t think Consumerist readers were THIS shallow! Am I the only one who realizes that $75K /year is still considered rich (or at least well off) in the areas of the country without insane costs of living?
I WILL be receiving a check in the mail. And it will be going straight into my IRA. Not all of us making under $75K are beer-bellied smokers on welfare. In fact, some of us even have those newfangled savings accounts!
- An individual with $2,500 in earned income in 2007: Disqualified because income fell below the $3,000 threshold. No rebate.
- A married couple with no children, with adjusted gross income of $100,000 in 2007: Would qualify for the full $1,200 couples. A $1,200 rebate.
- A worker with one child, who earned $9,000 and owed no taxes in 2007: Would qualify for the $300 rebate available to individuals who pay no taxes but earned at least $3,000, plus an additional $300 for the child. A $600 rebate.
- A couple with income of $145,000 in 2007, with three children: Would qualify for the full $1,200 for couples, plus $300 for each child. A $2,100 rebate.
- A couple with income of $160,000 in 2007 with two children: Would qualify for a partial rebate, reduced by 5 percent for every $1,000 in income above the $150,000 threshold. An $1,800 rebate – $1,200 for the couple plus $300 per child – would go down by 50 percent for this family. A $900 rebate.
- A couple with income of $200,000 and four children: Disqualified because their income exceeded $174,000, the phase-out limit. No rebate.
Also, supposedly it only applies to taxable income, so that is after deductions.