Tentative Economic Stimulus Deal Reached

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]


Edit Your Comment

  1. cashmerewhore says:

    CNN.com is saying it’s $600 per tax paying individual and $1200 per tax paying couple…

    I liked the $800 deal better, but I won’t complain for “free” money.

  2. FatLynn says:

    My first instinct is that this is pretty stupid. Wouldn’t the people making 75K+ be the most likely to take the money and actually spend it? The lower earners are more likely to pay off debt, based on behavior last time they did this.

    Someone tell me why I am wrong, because I feel like I must be missing something here.

  3. MameDennis says:

    The explanation I’ve heard is that high-income people are likely to just stick the extra $ in the bank.

  4. savvy999 says:

    Is it prorated up to that 75/150k limit?

  5. jaydez says:

    is this free money or is it an advance on next year’s return?

  6. Ben Popken says:

    Lower income people are more likely to spend the money where the economy needs it most, the critical beer and cigarette industries.

  7. headon says:

    If they can afford to give it back why the hell did they take it in the first place.

  8. punkrawka says:

    Wow. When they did this in ’01, I was in college and not eligible. Now I’m not eligible for being over the income threshold. Not a bad statement on my life, but I would love to get something back from the government once in my life.

  9. SoCalGNX says:

    Just think, if we could get all the illegals to quit sending their money home and let it recirculate here, we wouldn’t need help from the government!

  10. satoru says:

    If you’re making around $75k in certain parts of California you’re poor :P No love for the dot-com bubble families!

  11. cashmerewhore says:


    Free money. Check in June is what they’re trying to do.

  12. EBounding says:

    I’m going to buy 300 cups of coffee.

  13. satoru says:

    @SoCalGNX: With the way the US dollar is performing lately, I think they’re sending money TO America! :P

  14. cashmerewhore says:


    Yeah, I’m glad I’m middle class in the midwest. I qualify.

    However, I was going to be pissed if it was based on paying social security taxes, because I am not an eligable SS employee full time (I do pay into it at my PT job, but working 5hrs/wk isn’t enough for benefits).

  15. El_Guapo says:

    Oh man, i’m right at the limit of 75k. Those rotten bastards! *shakes fist*

  16. zentec says:

    Great, now our government is giving payday advance loans. We get $1200 tacked onto the $30,000 per person owed for the federal debt.

    Stupid. We should just take the pain of bad money management, corruption and malfeasance and be done with it. This economic stimulus won’t fix the real problems of the economy.

  17. cashmerewhore says:


    eligible. i fail at spelling today :/

  18. satoru says:

    @Ben Popken: I was thinking that as well. The sub-prime meltdown seems to have shown that low-income families have sub-zero understanding of finances. I think that money would just end up in the hole of pay-day loans or some other stupid place where it won’t actually do any good.

  19. JiminyChristmas says:

    Instead of this:

    Workers who get a paycheck (even if they don’t earn enough to pay taxes)

    It would be more accurate to say this:

    Workers who get a paycheck (even if they don’t earn enough to pay federal income taxes)

    Even if one is paying 0 in Federal income tax you are still paying 6% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare taxes, and you may or may not be paying state income tax.

  20. picardia says:

    Yeah, no cash for me — I’m not rich, but I live in New York, which puts my middle-class salary for here in the wealthy zone nationwide. Hmmmph.

    However, even during the brief window when I thought i might get some of this, I felt like this was pretty much wallpapering over the hole in the wall.

  21. econobiker says:

    Are the big oil companies going to subsidize this payback or do they still need help with their quarterly profits???

  22. CarlR says:

    Anyone have any guesses as to what numbers they will use to determine the income thresholds? If they need to do this quickly it seems like they will need to use the numbers for TY2006 tax returns?

  23. mantari says:

    Mantari: Screwed again! Subsidizing the little guy! Hey, I still qualify as middle class, too, you know.

  24. JiminyChristmas says:

    @headon: They (i.e.: We) can’t afford it. It will directly add to the annual budget deficit.

  25. Rando says:

    @cashmerewhore: The money is by no means free. It is printed out of thin air which hurts our economy and hurts us, the consumer, in the long run.

  26. edebaby says:

    this is not FREE money, people.
    how clueless could you possibly be?
    we’re just digging a deeper hole.
    of course, I suppose that it makes sense that the people who make less than $75K/yr would be doing the digging…

  27. mantari says:

    Okay… I have to put on my Consumerist Complainer hat:

    “This new policy is an OUTRAGE! It is so anti-Capitalist that I can’t believe this isn’t an idea straight out of communist Russia! We’re actually PAYING people who are a failure at Capitalism? We’re rewarding those who AREN’T fully leveraging themselves and their assets?

    Where is Newt Gingrich when you need him? Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his conservative vault right now!”

  28. Snarkysnake says:

    Should be labeled the Ironclad Incumbent Protection Act of 2008. I have never seen a more transparent attempt to assure the reelection of 33 Senators and 435 Representatives.This is free candy being handed out before the election for class president in the 6th grade stuff,you people ! Is the economy really that bad ? What are these politicians going to do if unemplyment hits 7-8- or 9 %? (Its a shade under 5 now)If you’re hurting,hey- I’m glad you’re getting some quick cash. but the savings rate is negative,and people in general are turning tricks on Peter to pay Paul now.What to do if we really have a recession ?

  29. scatyb says:

    Just had to throw the Mormon thing in there, didn’t you Ben?

  30. samurailynn says:

    I agree that this is not really good for our economy, but I could use some extra money this year. I’ll probably be putting it into home renovation projects.

    Does anyone know when we will get the “stipend”?

  31. unklegwar says:

    Fantastic. Apparently I’ve worked too hard in life to be eligible for any of this.

    Another FU to the middle class. And yeah, 75K where I live ain’t much.

    They probably know that I’d just invest it. Not run out to blow it on a new iPhone, or other crap.

  32. johnva says:

    I hate how the media has been reporting on these numbers for the last few days, but there is no explanation yet of the details about who will be eligible. The devil is in the details – I’m sure they will find some way to make sure I don’t get this.

  33. zibby says:

    Bah. Nothing for me. I totally would have blown it on something stupid and stimulating, too.

    Cost of a PS3 and a couple of games is about $600 – I bet Sony sees a nice pop in sales, seems like the sort of thing people will buy with the gubmint money.

  34. cashmerewhore says:


    They’re shooting for June.

  35. “Hi, Apple? About that iPhone I’ve been wanting…”

  36. m4ximusprim3 says:

    First off, i would think most of the people who would qualify this are saddled with so much debt, they actually are likely to spend the “free money” rather than use it to pay down debt- what’s $300 when you’re down 8k in credit cards and upside down on your mortgage?

    Second, this is totally wet TP over the hole in the plaster. It would seem like even if everyone went out and spent every cent, it wouldn’t be enough to jump start the areas of our economy which need it- namely housing and such.

    This reeks of political shennanigans. But hell, mine will buy me a new 100mm macro lens, so who’s counting?

  37. lalawgirl says:


    Nothing for me too. Just one more way I am getting screwed by Bush.

  38. HRHKingFriday says:

    @FatLynn: Well, if you’re in debt that assumes you don’t have a lot of cash. So, if your cards are all maxed out, you’ll use the tax cut as much needed cash, rather than pay off debt and then max out that card again.

  39. Sucko-T says:

    How is Bush screwing you, he wanted it to be $800 per taxpayer no matter how much you made. The democrats are the ones who wanted the amount reduced.

  40. WhaDa says:

    STUPID. Borrow from our kids to pay for our greed.

  41. moorem2 says:


    nice Futurama refrence.

  42. FatLynn says:

    @HRHKingFriday: In 2001, most people used it to pay down debt. I would expect the same behavior this time around.

  43. edebaby says:

    Right On!

  44. ladycrumpet says:

    Assuming I get something, it’s gonna get stashed for emergencies.

  45. HRHKingFriday says:

    @snarkysnake: See: Lollypop economics
    @mantari: Yes, but when we talk about failures of capitialism, how can we call people who work 60 hour weeks failures? And to that end, what would we do with these failures? Eliminate them? The real failures are a the people at the top that wanted all their profit now, and could regulate their growth for long term profits. Actually, thats the one thing the tech industry has been doing right after the dot.com collapse. They’ve been growing slowly and defying speculation that would have only made them short term profit.

  46. primechuck says:

    @JiminyChristmas: 15.3 SS Tax + Med* + State Med*

    If they politicians didn’t get votes by “Unilaterally” “Coming together” in a “Bipartisan Way” to buy votes. A better stimulus package would be to simply remove some taxes or say, give a 90 day tax holiday on Diesel and Gasoline. Lower income people don’t pay federal income tax, they hardly pay any taxes period. However, energy taxes are a core cost of business and you could easily save lower income people 100s and businesses thousands with a tax holiday…rather than free money in the mail.

  47. yg17 says:

    So if I meet the requirements, but am declared as a dependent by my parents, do I get anything?

    I think this is a horrible idea, and IF it helps, it will be very short term, and no matter what Dubya does, I still won’t ever vote republican in my life, but as long as the government is sending out money, I’ll take it.

  48. Erwos says:

    Man, another year or two, and we might not qualify for that sort of thing. Of course, we’ll probably spend half and save half (or save more, I guess), so we’re clearly not the targets for this.

  49. HRHKingFriday says:

    @FatLynn: In 2001, less people had maxed out credit card bills and staggering energy bills. But, you could be right, people don’t tend to change that much.

  50. johnva says:

    @FatLynn: Even if it does get used to pay down debt, it might help the current crisis by providing extra liquidity to the banks. Not that I’m saying that I really support these rebates, but spending isn’t the only way that extra money could help alleviate the current problems.

  51. jaredutah says:

    Well, even being LDS (Mormon) and making more than the threshold it doesn’t look like I’ll get anything, even with my 2.5 kids. So, now I’m very sad that I won’t get any FREE money….or wait, money that I as a tax payer will have to pay back with interest in the future…oh well, guess I’ll just have to pay for everyone elses FREE money…sheesh.

  52. ancientsociety says:

    Awesome! I’m glad the money I pay thru taxes will be given away to everyone who DOESN’T PAY TAXES. And I love how the childless amongst us get screwed AGAIN – if you have kids, you are already able to claim massive exemptions and credits on your taxes.

  53. BOSMike says:

    So, any idea what that $75k individual / $150k family income limit is based on? Adjusted Gross? 2006 Return or 2007 Return?

  54. mdkiff says:

    First of all, this is very different than 2001. In 2001, we got money “back” from the IRS because Bush was lowering the bottom tax bracket from 15% to 10%, so every taxpayer’s tax bill would be lower the following year. If you were paying taxes that year, you got the equivalent amount of the reduction in advance. This appears (so far) to be money out of thin air, as a commenter above mentioned – nothing to pay for it planned, and also not giving it equally to all people (can you tell that my wife and I live in a “rich” area and make too much to be considered?).

  55. Erwos says:

    @mdkiff: Hint: this is as much about vote buying as it is about economic issues.

  56. GothamGal says:

    I am astounded that individuals who don’t make enough to pay income tax, will get $300, and I will get nothing because I pay tons of tax because I make over $75,000. Is this a joke?

  57. Big Poppa Pimp says:

    This is a really bad idea policy-wise and extremely unfair. Just a thinly disguised transfer payment from the middle class and upper-middle class to the poor. And with a six-month lag before checks are mailed, this will do nothing for the economy. Yuck.

  58. mrafternoon says:

    Right on- i can pay for my gasoline for the next 6 weeks!

  59. zibby says:

    @GothamGal: Well, yeah…but it’s more polite to call it “progressive”.

    Now get back to work, chump.

  60. kidnextdoor says:

    Is this for workers getting a paycheck in 2006 or 2007?

  61. matt1978 says:

    @Erwos: Buy my vote all day long. I’d like to have a sense of outrage, but sweet, sweet cash wins every time.

  62. GothamGal says:


    I’m so happy that I get to pay for the poor people like you. You could at least come over and clean my home as a thank you. I have a French-maid outfit that you can wear. It would be fun.

  63. warf0x0r says:

    @zentec: Think of it as Triage. Don’t destroy the country when you can just add a few thousand per person on the debt you pay later. That’s the ultimate goal here save what’s left to save and deal with it later.

  64. Skiffer says:

    @GothamGal: Fucking no good shitheads in Congress, what kind of bullshit is this?!?

    Well, guess I’ll just have to make my own money like normal…I have a feeling stock in spinning hubcaps is gonna spike…

  65. SadSam says:


    I was thinking free cupcakes, but your comment totally nailed it. Gee- the administration is just now figuring out the economy is in the toilet and will hand out the ‘free’ money right before the election. Hmmm…

  66. chortik says:

    once again the middle class is paying the bills of the country.

  67. Ugh . . . I think we get our W2s today at work. I’m not happy with the thought that I might just top 75k by a dollar or two this year. I don’t understand why those of us who bust our asses to get where we are and pay the most into taxes aren’t worth stimulating economically as well.

    The trickle-down theory of economics is in a corner, quietly weeping.

  68. LawyerontheDL says:

    They’re calling it a “tax rebate”? How is it a rebate if people who don’t pay taxes are receiving it? I’d call it a gift.

  69. ottergal says:


    Amen. I guess it’s no different than any other day, but usually it’s not so obvious.

    It makes me mad to think my ex-roommate, who went to great lengths to make just enough money to qualify for the Earned Income Credit, gets money for sitting on his ass all day while I get shit for going to work and being a productive member of society. Maybe it’s time for me to start mismanaging my finances to get some payback.

  70. dgcaste says:

    Don’t Tase Me Bro – 2007
    Subprime Meltdown – 2008

  71. dgcaste says:

    So if I get my $900, where’s the best place to spend it?

  72. alhypo says:

    This is a great deal for those who are about to die, but for the rest of us, the only reasonable thing to do is to invest this money so that its relative value is maintained rather than spend it. The government is borrowing that money and we, the people, will just have to pay it back plus interest sometime in the future.

  73. dgcaste says:

    @ancientsociety: Correct. When I was single, my tax return averaged $1200. As soon as I got married and had a kid, it spiked to $5800. My wife doesn’t work. My kid does, she’s an intern in China, but she won’t return my correspondence……

  74. mrosedal says:


    There is no such thing as free money…we will pay for this eventually. I don’t mind the extra money right now, but I view it with quite a bit of skepticism.

  75. ancientsociety says:

    @LawyerontheDL: Exactly!

  76. joharp says:

    What does this mean for a college student who makes 7 grand or so a year?

  77. zibby says:

    @GothamGal: I am so there – would tonight be too soon?

    Don’t worry, I’m not getting jack out of this deal either.

  78. SpenceMan01 says:

    So my $800 went to $300 so we can give people who DON’T pay taxes money? Thank you Dems! ..and to think: some of them are still b*tching because the plan isn’t going to help expand unemployment. They’ve got a severe case of Robin Hood Syndrome going on.

  79. UpsetPanda says:

    This might be a stupid question…is this based on how you file your taxes? Does it matter if a couple files individually or together? I mean, I wouldn’t want the government to treat my joint filings one individual and only give us one check when there are two of us.

  80. missdona says:

    @SpenceMan01: And they’re looking to my paycheck and/or “rebate” to finance it.

    Our government does not have extra money sitting around waiting to be given to the people who don’t contribute.

    It’s disgusting.

  81. Phunk says:

    I think this could really help the elderly that are on fixed SS incomes a bit. I know it’s not much, but it could make a meaningful difference with someone who doesn’t have much extra to pay bills with.

    There’s a disturbing amount of assumptions people on this thread are making about how people will spend this money. Yeah, there’s a lot of deadbeats out there, but I think that overall it’ll probably be used for the same thing the last one was, paying down debt and other obligations.

    Its also pretty disingenuous to say that the poor skip out on paying all taxes. I don’t think recipients of straight up ‘welfare’ will qualify for this and the working poor still pay SS as well as state (in some cases) every week or 2 like everyone else. They also get hit with the sales tax, just like everyone else.

    I make a hair under the cap (on the books), so I should be getting this freebie. I’ll probably dump it into something that will make me more money.

  82. missdona says:

    Msnbc says

    “The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose income exceeds $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, aides said. Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps rise higher for individuals and couples with children”

    Who knows how they’re defining “partial rebates.”


  83. weave says:

    I read a comment somewhere that summed it up perfectly. We’ll need to borrow money from China to give “rebates” to people so they can go out and buy cheap crap made in China.

  84. Geekybiker says:

    I have it even better. I went from $800, to nothing. The cap getting lowered kicked me out of the rebate unless they do something like taxable income. Weeee I get to pay $800 extra in taxes so people dont pay taxes in the first place can go blow it on beer and pork rinds.

  85. dugn says:

    Since I only have one child, I must not be a ‘real’ Mormon. Ho hum.

  86. ancientsociety says:

    @Phunk: Stereotypes or not, I – as a taxpayer – have a problem giving away MY money to those who don’t pay taxes, and hence do not contribute to this “rebate”.

    BTW, my wife and I both grew up poor and, for a time, our families were both on some form of welfare. We can both say that our families never milked the system and were very frugal with the money. Now, as grown adults living in the city, I see people on welfare EVERY TIME I go to the grocery store buying overpriced junk food on their LINK card and then paying for their liqour in cash from a wad of 20s and 50s. So, if I now have a “stereotype” of most welfare receipients milking the system, I won’t apologize for it.

  87. Mojosan says:

    Screwed again because I’m honest and hard working. I love the polotics of envy.

  88. JMH says:

    This is stupid. It’s a band-aid on a gunshot wound. If the money isn’t getting spent on cigarettes and beer, as Ben pointed out, then it’s getting spent on more manufactured goods (and, thus, headed directly to China). This kind of political grandstanding does NOT fix the long-term problems with our economy. The government’s time would be better spent finding ways to encourage corporations that have enriched themselves by keeping prices paid by American consumers constant while cutting costs by eliminating American jobs to take advantage of cheap offshore labor to keep those jobs here.

  89. JMH says:

    (I should add that I make the above comment as someone who will be in line to receive a rebate and who also makes enough money to have contributed to the rebates.)

  90. hexychick says:

    MSNBC is reporting that those making up to 87K will get partial rebates and is also claiming the amount for us less than 75K earners with no kids will be closer to $600, not $300: [www.msnbc.msn.com]

  91. lalawgirl says:



  92. SkyeBlue says:

    A bit of stereotyping going on here but alot of lower income people can’t even AFFORD to buy beer and cigarettes! That is like saying all the higher income people who do receive a check will just go out and buy some cocaine with it. Stupid.

    If they are like most of us maybe they will use it to actually fill up their gas tank, or go to the Dr. because they have been sick and have been putting it off since they can’t afford or don’t have insurance. Or maybe they will pay their stupendously high heating bill, or fix their car or maybe buy their children some clothes.

    The way I look at it at least some of our money is going to be put to good use instead of being wasted over in Iraq!

  93. Munsoned says:

    I don’t qualify as I’m over the threshold. Can I get the $$ too if I “swear” I’ll spend every last cent on domestic beer?

  94. Javert says:

    I cannot believe they are doing this? What happened to encouraging people to save? Hey, how about this as a reward for people…the first couple grand of interest each year is tax free or at least tax at a much reduced rate, not your tax bracket.

    And so the redistribution of wealth begins….

  95. missdona says:

    @SkyeBlue: re: good use

    That would be the case if we had it to give back. Our government is currently in a $260BN deficit. We have to borrow this money to give away.


  96. Munsoned says:

    Did anybody else notice this?

    “To address the mortgage crisis, the package also raises the limits on Federal Housing Administration loans and home mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase to as high as $725,000 in high-cost areas. Those are considerable boosts over the current FHA limit of $362,000 and the $417,000 cap for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan purchases.”


  97. LionelEHutz says:

    I’m going to buy some mercury laden sushi and some toys with lead paint on them.

  98. iblamehistory says:

    @yg17: I’m wondering the same thing.

    As a 22 year old student who works part time, I made a little over $8,800 in 2007. I’m sure my parents will be claiming me as a dependent, although I don’t live with them, since they pay my school fees.

  99. SpdRacer says:

    @satoru: No, just no love for the land of fruits and nuts!

  100. backbroken says:

    So the idea is that they give folks more money so that they can go out and buy more stuff.

    Why don’t we just cut out the middleman, Joe Taxpayer, and simply cut these checks payable to China?

  101. backbroken says:

    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.

  102. stinerman says:

    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.

  103. Siegeman says:

    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?

  104. danms6 says:

    @backbroken: Seeing as the money is probably coming from China in the first place, they could essentially just keep it.

  105. Pithlit says:

    @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.

  106. NotATool says:

    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.

  107. CuriousO says:

    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?

  108. Pithlit says:

    @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.

  109. johnva says:

    @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.

  110. CuriousO says:

    @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.

  111. CuriousO says:

    Wow and I obviously do not have any grammar skills….sorry, long day!

  112. GearheadGeek says:

    @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. ;)

  113. Pithlit says:

    @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.

  114. rbartlet says:

    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.

  115. Marginal propensity to consume…. Hmm I think I blogged about this in 2006…

  116. deadlizard says:

    This stimulus should be different in New York City, where you can make 90k a year and still be considered “poor”.

  117. bkpatt says:

    @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.

  118. kjherron says:

    “What to do, what to do. One 300 dollar hookerbot or 300 one dollar hookerbots?”

    I’ve been waiting forever to use that line…

  119. JiminyChristmas says:

    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.

  120. HooFoot says:

    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!

  121. jeffjohnvol says:

    – 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.

  122. jeffjohnvol says:

    Also, supposedly it only applies to taxable income, so that is after deductions.