Stimulus Rant

You know I'm not one to go on a rant about the government, there's just too much to rant about. But I'm confused about something, and kinda feeling rant-y.
Ok, we got our stimulus money last night. I'm not going to complain that 'it's only $600' or that 'the government can't just print money!'.  

Here's my issue. A few months ago they sent out $1,200. 4 of the 5 people in my family got it. The one that didn't is the the one it would have made the biggest impact on, my oldest. He was 17 then and saving for a car and the money to move out on his own. $1,200 would have been a big deal to him.  
Now the second round comes and same story, 4 of the 5 in my family get it, but not the one who is  ow 18 working hard and saving harder to start a life of his own. He's buying his first car in about 6 hours, the $600 he didn't get accounts for a sizeable part of that purchase for him. 
$600 doesn't impact Mrs. Boost and I. It's nice, sure, but it's not going to change our lives, or stop impending financial doom (no, we don't have any financial doom heading our way....that we know of haha). 
I just don't understand why a person between the ages of 17 and 24 doesn't get a stimulus check. I remember those years. It's tough. 

Just makes no sense. That being said, he'll get the stimulus, just not from the government.

I wish I could refuse it and take the tax credit. I've been extremely fortunate- I don't need the money. Others do. I don't wanna pay for what I believe to be a loan from the government that I don't need. I know $600 isn't much in the grand scheme, but if more people like me refused, others would have access to it, like your kid. 

Mndsm said:

I wish I could refuse it and take the tax credit. I've been extremely fortunate- I don't need the money. Others do. I don't wanna pay for what I believe to be a loan from the government that I don't need. I know $600 isn't much in the grand scheme, but if more people like me refused, others would have access to it, like your kid. 

I agree. I would turn it down as well. I am also fortunate in that I haven't missed a day of work and am still doing 40-hour weeks. 

I've been doing my best to ignore politics lately, so I had no idea that citizens between the age of 17 and 24 don't get the stimulus payments.  What's the reasoning behind that?

It's the US Government.  Handouts are for the wealthy. not people who need it.  But we also need to spend $500 to make sure we don't give $10 to someone who doesn't deserve it for moral reasons.

Indy "Nub" Guy said:

I've been doing my best to ignore politics lately, so I had no idea that citizens between the age of 17 and 24 don't get the stimulus payments.  What's the reasoning behind that?

Basically, independent adult vs dependent. Are they able to be claimed as a dependent? So if they're not actually a dependent, they'll get it when they file at the end of the year. I can't imagine who would possibly file as a dependent this year. 

I don't know if I'll get it or not. Depends on how they assess income. I'm lucky to be well employed and our owner has been very generous with regular bonuses all year. 
 

if I do get it I'll likely donate it to charity. A local food bank or something. 
 

I agree with Pete in general. I'm hoping we can change some of that in time but I'm not optimistic. Also, I suspect this thread will blow up quickly. 

Here is how I understand it.  This is meant to stimulate the economy therefore it needs to go to people that don’t need it.  That way it can be spent frivolously on produced goods and services.  

If it went to someone scraping by what would happen, continue to pay for things like shelter, food, clothes from goodwill.  That’s no way to save the economy.

Please tell me I’m wrong, I’m starting to lose faith.

Does anyone know how to get a breakdown of why you're getting what you're getting from this?  There's a decent lump sitting in the "pending" category from the IRS according to my credit union, but I'm curious what the breakdown is.

Is there a income level that you don't get this? I'm guessing we qualify only because we have a load of kids..

Like many others, we've been really fortunate this year, and I'd be okay with skipping this and it going to people who lost/don't have a job, with housing uncertainty, etc.

Oh, and I'm saying this not necessarily as a political statement, but because I never thought I'd get to write it :)

I agree with Bernie and Trump.

Feel free to delete it if it's too political.  That was fun though :)

How come shelter, food, and clothes from Goodwill wouldn't stimulate the economy?  It's still money circulating. 
 

I'm not sure the stimulus was intended to stimulate spending, as much as it was an attempt to stimulate voter turnout (one way or another)

WonkoTheSane (FS) said:

Is there a income level that you don't get this? I'm guessing we qualify only because we have a load of kids..

Yes.  It's not for the "the wealthy".

U.S. citizens and resident aliens who meet income requirements and who cannot be claimed as a dependent on another person’s tax return are generally eligible. Income is based on your 2019 adjusted gross income (AGI). Individuals earning under $75,000 and heads of households under $112,500 typically qualify for the full $600 stimulus payment. Those married and filing jointly or surviving spouses earning under $150,000 usually qualify for a $1,200 payment.

I don't get a check *shrug*.

I would agree that the criteria for who recieves a check is dumb. 

akylekoz said:

Here is how I understand it.  This is meant to stimulate the economy therefore it needs to go to people that don’t need it.  That way it can be spent frivolously on produced goods and services.  

If it went to someone scraping by what would happen, continue to pay for things like shelter, food, clothes from goodwill.  That’s no way to save the economy.

Please tell me I’m wrong, I’m starting to lose faith.

No matter where money is spent, it moves the economy, but the more transactions the merrier. That is what a moving economy is: transactions.

Someone spending $10 sixty times moves the economy a lot more than someone spending $600 once. 

A Stimulus check will not help the folks much, that own businesses that have been shut down by this insanity.

A year ago I would never believe that one would not be able to walk into a bar and have a drink on new years day

Wouldn't it make more sense to use the funds for "extended" unemployment to target people who actually have lost income?

While I don't disagree that it should go to people that really need it, and that $1800 over a year is stupidly low, there's a lot of essential workers that view it as a bonus for working when people were able to sit at home and get money.

I'm a big fan of limited governmental intervention in my life and just try to depend on myself but I do think that this is a time that the government had to give back a lot of money to get people thru this.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not sure the stimulus was intended to stimulate spending, as much as it was an attempt to stimulate voter turnout (one way or another)

Except at this time, we are about as far from an election as we can get.  11 months from the obscure odd year election, and 23 from a mid-term.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I'm getting ready.............

Before this gets locked. 

alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not sure the stimulus was intended to stimulate spending, as much as it was an attempt to stimulate voter turnout (one way or another)

Except at this time, we are about as far from an election as we can get.  11 months from the obscure odd year election, and 23 from a mid-term.

Except that ALL of the discourse, posturing, and debate on this issue was during the election cycle just completed. 
 

The politicians don't give a damn whether the stimulus is effective at this point. The only thing that mattered is that they could argue about it over the last several months. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Chunkymidgets.org???

Hahaha!

In reply to SVreX (Forum Supporter) :

I'm not checking to see if it's a real site.....

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I'm definitely not either!!

Neither the US nor the state constitutions were written with the intention of protecting us from the flu.

The govt cant protect us from a virus, it's not physically possible under reasonable conditions for everyone.

How did greater good get converted to "if I can save one person"?