I will be helping out my children with this, but this is crazy --- workers and businesses who have been hurt by the commie virus should be helped, not us retired folks (who started our mandatory contributions to Soc Sec in 1959 and Medicare in 1965). BTW, when I have worked part-time in last 10 years while retired, my contributions to Soc Sec and Medicare do not increase my benefits.
Comments (19)
sorted by:
It has everything to do with Soc Sec -- I haven't missed any income!!! Why should I and all others on guaranteed government income get a "stimulus " payment ?
Recently approved stimulus check that's gone out. Nothing to do with SS.
read what OP is saying: “I haven’t missed any SS payments this year” = “My income has not been affected by lockdowns.”
Workers who have lost income because of lockdowns should be receiving checks. Not people whose income/employment have not been affected.
It has everything to do with Soc Sec -- I haven't missed any income!!! Why should I and all others on guaranteed government income get a "stimulus " payment ?
If you pay your taxes, you get one regardless of your SS income. Did you not get the previous $1200 stimulus months back?
Note the :(another)"
That is exactly my point -- people like me on guaranteed income from the government do not need "income replacement" support because of the CCP virus and shutdowns. The unnecessary payments to those on guaranteed fixed income only add to my grandchildren's tax burden.
Stimulus payments are tax exempt if I recall correctly.
True, but irrelevant to my main point.
"Stimulus payments" are unnecessary for those on guaranteed government income. The money should have gone directly to the unemployed and shuttered businesses because of lockdowns.
I can totally agree with that.
We agree!! Which is why I made my original post.
And best wishes for a Happy New Year!! (we will see on 1/6!!)
I'd a lot rather have you deciding how that $600 can best be applied, than the federal and state government bureaucracies. You'll help your children. Other people will make a point of spending at struggling local small businesses. Others will help a neighbor. Others will help a customer who desperately needs a service to keep earning their meager income (computer repair, vehicle repair, etc) and just doesn't have any money to pay for it. Others will donate to a local food bank. I really don't care if a bunch of "rich" people get it -- they'll just spend it, and that will help businesses.
"Targeted" spending always ends up with a bundle of money spent on the bureaucratic processes needed to administer it, and then most of the money ends up going to wealthy people and their businesses who are best equipped to exploit all the loopholes so they qualify.
If your children are hurting because of lockdowns, I would hope you would help them out.
I don't really understand the point of your comment.
"I'd a lot rather have you deciding how that $600 can best be applied,"
I did.
Meaning you, as opposed to the federal or state government. Do you disagree? You decided your children needed it more than you do, so that's how you're going to use it. Are you suggesting that the government bureaucracies are more likely to have made that correct call, than you? Look where they allocated most of the money in that bill!
To repeat my main point, and now time for chores:
"workers and businesses who have been hurt by the commie virus should be helped, not us retired folks " ... on already guaranteed income.
And my main point: The government has a demonstrated inability to accurately identify people who have been hurt by the commie virus, and a demonstrated inability to control administrative costs associated with any of its programs that are purportedly aimed at specific people who are in need of and deserving of help. Therefore, every dollar that they put in the pocket of someone like you, is much more likely to end up being spent to help someone who genuinely needs and deserves help, than if the same dollar was applied to some government program in which the government would try to determine who does and doesn't need/deserve help and try to direct funds to those people.
The beauty of this "same check to everyone" deal is that the government has no opportunity to bundle all the money into some corruption-riddled program. If the government had kept that $600, on the grounds that "you don't need it", your children who do need it would never have seen a dime of it. I'm glad your children will get it.
Side note...glad to see older pedes online and still fighting the good fight. Thank you.
My name checks out. Walked neighborhoods in Santa Monica for Barry. Also wore an "I Like Ike" button to junior high in 1956.
And was almost assaulted by a skinny punk thug with a baseball bat while distributing Trump yard signs in Feb 2016. (He turned tail when I stood up and stared him down as he was crossing the street directly towards me [6 ft, 235]).