Thoughts on this bailout and “stimulus”?

[JohnCushman]

I'm a little confused by all of this. From google searches and not wanting to ask people and look dumb...somehow the IRS is involved in this process and it goes by previous tax returns. But, I don't have to file taxes since none of my income is taxable. The last time I did actually file taxes was 2017 when I was married and filed jointly. So, if I don't have a more current tax return will I not get a check? Do I need to file taxes now with no return in order to get the check? This check will be put in the bank for my summer visit with my son, so I'd like to get it, but is my tax filing status going to screw things up?

 

[jryoung]

I'm a little confused by all of this. From google searches and not wanting to ask people and look dumb...somehow the IRS is involved in this process and it goes by previous tax returns. But, I don't have to file taxes since none of my income is taxable. The last time I did actually file taxes was 2017 when I was married and filed jointly. So, if I don't have a more current tax return will I not get a check? Do I need to file taxes now with no return in order to get the check? This check will be put in the bank for my summer visit with my son, so I'd like to get it, but is my tax filing status going to screw things up?

If you have no obligation to file you should still get a check. If you have an obligation to file, and haven't, then you need to get on it. The IRS should know whether or not you have the obligation to file based on W2s, 1099s etc.

 

[JohnCushman]

Thanks, JR

 

[SAJ-99]

Any thoughts on airline *stimulus?

Let's have some fun with numbers.
- A/O 3/25 passenger numbers have dropped by almost 90% year of year, same date. (TSA.gov - checkpoint travel numbers)
- The industry employed about 713,000 people (FT and PT) as of January. (Bureau of Transportation stats - https://www.transtats.bts.gov). I believe the total includes people who work for FedEx and UPS which will probably be the most unaffected during this crisis, but we will keep them in the numbers.
- Airlines got $50Billion in the bailout. That is $70,000 per employee.
- within hours of the announcement, United said it wasn't enough and there would be layoffs by September if there isn't an improvement in revenue. This is certainly believable with a 90% drop in business.

The question is where do you apply the money to "save" the airlines. $70k per employee would almost imply that you could let them go bankrupt and reorg (again) and just pay the employees and let the investors eat the loss. The narrative from one side of the aisle is you don't want to encourage people to remain unemployed, and $70k might be enough to make me sympathetic to this view, but if less then it is just cheaper for us all. If you give the company money now rather than force chapter 11, you save the investors - equity in particular but probably some lower tranche debt investors too. The Airlines argue that this is a completely unforeseeable, government driven event. I find it hard to differentiate between this and September 11, which was also unforeseeable, and the recession that followed. After that, almost all the majors filled chapter 11. List of Airlines chapter 11 bankruptcies are here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_bankruptcies_in_the_United_States#Chapter_11).

The bailout means that airlines are not independent transportation service providers, they are essential infrastructure to the functioning of the country/world. They are utilities. If they want the government backstop like utilities, I want them regulated as such. That means I will start voting for politicians that want to give me more leg room. I don't give a shit if airlines ever make another cent in net profit as long as the places operate in a timely and safe manner.

I tired of all companies not managing for unforeseen events. The evolution of business over the last 15 years has shown that bigger is best because you are too-big-to-fail and don't have to prepare to survive a downturn, because you can get one from the government if you just hit the right note of "saving employee jobs" on the dog whistle to get congress ears to perk up.

You pointed out a fact that requires a little additional context.
The airlines must maintain service to all the destinations they served on March 1, 2020, through March 1, 2022, which could mean continuing to fly empty or near-empty planes.
While they need to maintain service to a destination, I think that can be one flight rather than several. Airlines have been given slot waivers. The rules say that the airline has to fill a certain % (I think 80%) of the flight slots to a destination airport or lose them the following year. The waivers mean that the airlines don't have to fly empty planes just to fill the slot. It doesn't benefit anyone to fly an empty plane, and the waiver saves the airline money and costs us nothing.

 

[Nameless Range]

This isn't really related to the bailout, but I kind of look at this thread as a discussion of the economic side of the virus. I thought this was interesting.


…if the US stayed completely shut down for two months, the typical US worker would work about the same number of hours this year as a pre-pandemic German worker. "

The coronavirus shutdown is revealing America's troubling obsession with work

Even a 2-month national shutdown would mean Americans would work about as many hours this year as workers in other rich countries do in a normal year.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[bushman13]

Congressman Massie provided some more insight on the cost of the Bill. Every household will end up paying 60K for the Bill, the most that same household could receive is 3k.

I've seen conservative memes going around parroting this logic, and I know it is oversimplified, but I'll be honest, I have tough time arguing against it. At the very least it sets perspective on how much F'ing money 2 trillion dollars is.

Of the 2 Trillion, 300 billion is being allocated to individuals as cash payments. What does $1200 do for someone who is out of work for a month or more with an uncertain future? Probably not much. If you have kids, the money may mean even less respectively.

There are 330 million Americans out there.

2,000,000,000,000/ 330,000,000 = 6,060. Imagine if every American got 6,060$. I'm not even arguing for this bill.As has been said above, there is no such thing as free money. I'm just pointing out the obvious. It sure seems like this bill throws a bone to those who need it most and gives the steak to those who don't.

Imagine if a single mother of 2, who is now out of a job, and likely out of childcare, got 6 grand for herself and each American she cares for. I think the economic woes of real people would be wildly alleviated. Not corporations who are "people", real people.

I'll repeat again I am not for this bill particularly. We can't afford it. But I'll elucidate for my own situation. I have 3 kids and am married. If this money were allocated to all Americans evenly, that would be $35,000 coming to our household. Instead we will get 3,900. The scenario that is happening is 11% of the other hypothetical scenario for a family of 5. Who's this bill really for?

Yes, I know I oversimplified it, and yes, I know this bill does other things for business owners, but it's hard not to think the simplified even-distribution scenario would be a far more utilitarian one.

 

[Sytes]

Congressman Massie provided some more insight on the cost of the Bill. Every household will end up paying 60K for the Bill, the most that same household could receive is 3k.

$60k... Be it an R or D, a politician he is.

2t / 128m = $16k. Maybe we are paying interest to <postal service? Social security? Pick your poison> for what we rape from their pockets.

This would be a great lesson for <insert political party> who believes free college, healthcare, etc is... Willy Wonka Crayola scribbled IOU notes.

 

[bushman13]

Worth a listen, it really outlines how congress will throw out any procedural requirements when the money is on the table. It's sickening.
He asserts that the 2 trillion is actually 6 trillion when it's all added up? He then divides that number by 100 million families.

$60k... Be it an R or D, a politician he is.

2t / 128m = $16k. Maybe we are paying interest to <postal service? Social security? Pick your poison> for what we rape from their pockets.

This would be a great lesson for <insert political party> who believes free college, healthcare, etc is... Willy Wonka Crayola scribbled IOU notes.

 

[Tradewind]

Ford is fixed. Had the dealership pay for it. It was their mess up.

I hold corporations accountable. I'm basically the Liz Warren of Helena.

Now ther is a visual to try and wrap your mind's eye around.........eeeeewwwwwww

 

[Schaaf]

The heroic Thomas Massie? lol

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Worth a listen, it really outlines how congress will throw out any procedural requirements when the money is on the table. It's sickening.
He asserts that the 2 trillion is actually 6 trillion when it's all added up? He then divides that number by 100 million families.

And now we know what it would be like if Dwight was elected.

 

[bushman13]

Phyicsally, yes. But I think he is more of Jim. Jim would care about throwing America into ruin and fleecing the public everytime a virus pops up, more than Dwight would. Dwight has that Beet Farm money to fall back on.

And now we know what it would be like if Dwight was elected.

 

[SAJ-99]

Jim would care about throwing America into ruin and fleecing the public everytime a virus pops up, more than Dwight would. Dwight has that Beet Farm money to fall back on.

There will be more stimulus. A lot more. And regardless of political views, we will justify it as necessary. As we have been trained to. Unfortunately, your implied decision - fight the virus or put America into ruin - is a false choice. The destination is set, the path is all you have control of.

 

[BigHornRam]

Proposed rollback of onerous part of Trumps "tax cuts for the rich"

Pelosi Floats New Stimulus Plan: Rolling Back SALT Cap (Published 2020)

A proposal to retroactively lift a limit on state and local tax deductions would largely funnel money to relatively high earners in high-tax states.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Proposed rollback of onerous part of Trumps "tax cuts for the rich"

Pelosi Floats New Stimulus Plan: Rolling Back SALT Cap (Published 2020)

A proposal to retroactively lift a limit on state and local tax deductions would largely funnel money to relatively high earners in high-tax states.

www.nytimes.com

I have to say if this whole virus thing is a Dem ploy to get everything they ever wanted....
Well played Nancy, well played.

(Jokes kids, don't derail this thing)

 

[bushman13]

Dude, that is some cryptic sh!t. I think I agree, not sure though. I do believe the population gets the leaders they deserve. So yes, the destination is set.
I do not believe the narrative that to fight the virus you have to shut down and wreck the economy, so I'm not sure I agree with the implied decision part, but I might be misunderstanding.

There will be more stimulus. A lot more. And regardless of political views, we will justify it as necessary. As we have been trained to. Unfortunately, your implied decision - fight the virus or put America into ruin - is a false choice. The destination is set, the path is all you have control of.

 

[bushman13]

It's hogs to trough at this point, both sides. Any gains realized under Trump are now being redistributed.

I have to say if this whole virus thing is a Dem ploy to get everything they ever wanted....
Well played Nancy, well played.

(Jokes kids, don't derail this thing)

 

[Gr8bawana]

Dude, that is some cryptic sh!t. I think I agree, not sure though. I do believe the population gets the leaders they deserve. So yes, the destination is set.
I do not believe the narrative that to fight the virus you have to shut down and wreck the economy, so I'm not sure I agree with the implied decision part, but I might be misunderstanding.

So what is the alternative? Should we all listen to glen beck and have everyone over 50 go out and get to work regardless of whether they might catch the virus, get sick and die for the good of the economy?

 

[bushman13]

A dynamic approach. Provide testing and travel recommendations for high risks groups. Provide specific guidelines for health care facilities. Let the severity of the outbreak determine our actions and not the media.

Maybe inject some honesty and responsibility into our words and narratives. Calling this a Pandemic is blatantly false. Maybe start calling out our media for pushing said narratives?

Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment, Pandemic...When do we kick these propagandist to the curb?

So what is the alternative? Should we all listen to glen beck and have everyone over 50 go out and get to work regardless of whether they might catch the virus, get sick and die for the good of the economy?

 

[TN2shot07]

A dynamic approach. Provide testing and travel recommendations for high risks groups. Provide specific guidelines for health care facilities. Let the severity of the outbreak determine our actions and not the media.

Maybe inject some honesty and responsibility into our words and narratives. Calling this a Pandemic is blatantly false. Maybe start calling out our media for pushing said narratives?

Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeachment, Impeachment, Impeachment, Pandemic...When do we kick these propagandist to the curb?

Well said, but that makes entirely too much sense to happen! You know how much Americans like the news! If we kick them to the curb we may have to accept blame when things don’t go our way...