It will go into bank to pay IRS next year. We always owe, so it will pay for that.

The date that IRS will first accept 1040s is January 27, 2021. While the idea of filing early is good it also means a month from now if you have all the information you can send in your 1040. Earliest to receive any stimulus payment based on that would be middle to late February.

moot point .... won't happen

Source of the 1/27 date please.

What I found said that the date hasn't been announced yet. 1/27 was the date last year and was a Monday, which makes more sense than the 1/27 date this year which is Wednesday.

I'm not sure how likely it is there will be a bill before Jan 20th so there's still time before payments would be disbursed. Which is a detour from what was being discussed. I doubt there is any interest in Congress to restrict payments to those who need them. I'd enjoy seeing factual information to assuage my cynicism about this.

Turbotax gets updated weekly and in the absence of more current information, they carryover information from the prior year as placeholders.

Whether signed or not signed, my opinion about Congressional motivation, how it is implemented and the deceitful communications this time and last time are unchanged.

For those of you that don't need that cash, I'd be more than happy to take that off your hands!

I agree that something needs to be changed with the implementation but probably not for the reasons that most would. Different areas of this country have different costs of living which should be used to adjust the amount.

I have been against a base income for people but if this drags on or becomes worse it may need to be looked at seriously beyond the current SSI and SSDI but for all ages. Then hear the squeals.

Wouldn't it go to only those who actually *need* it? Why would they send everyone a cheque if you don't need it and plan on either banking it or giving it away?

Why would they send everyone a cheque if you don't need it

If people who are not in a precarious financial situation (spending it only for the barest necessities) spend the money in stores and restaurants, then it goes into the local economy to keep people employed.

The federal government does not have current information to determine who needs it.

The states do, because unemployment benefits are in the jurisdiction of the states and the states know who got such benefits on a real time basis. But each has its own system.

Fairy tale time - a federal law COULD be enacted, providing benefits to unemployment and general aid (welfare) recipients, and giving the states guidelines on what they need to do and then also the money to do it with. That would never happen because the intent of federal Congress is that they be clearly identified as the source of the benefit. It would get lost with checks from states.

That's the hypocrisy of this and why so much money is wasted. More could be provided to people in need by restricting who gets anything at all. Another fairy tale, that isn't what Congress wants or how Congress wants it to happen.

Sushipup that’s the theory, but is there any evidence it worked the last time?

Maifleur - Good luck with adjustments for local cost of living. Maybe they can do that with income tax, too.

I gave the last one directly to my sister as she was laid off from her job of a couple of decades. She had just bought a house and supports her youngest who is in her late twenties (cerebral palsy). Daughter is soon to get SSI after a year of applying and jumping through hoops. If she can't get disability, no one should. Sister has since taken a part time job to full, gotten benefits, and promoted; a true go getter.

This time, I'll pay off debts. Recent car repairs (wear and tear on a somewhat older car), and a Christmas present or two.

If people who are not in a precarious financial situation (spending it only for the barest necessities) spend the money in stores and restaurants, then it goes into the local economy to keep people employed.

So all those above who are just going to toss it in the bank aren't helping the economy at all right now then. I honestly would give back the cheque to the government. And I just had my hours cut by 16 hours per pay period and will lose close to 8 grand a year. And I do need a new kitchen and new appliances would be icing on the cake but when people accept money who really don't *need* it (you already have savings... a good job you can work at 5 days a week, etc., ) why keep it? I do like that I see so many who would donate that money to various charities or family members who are suffering.

So all those above who are just going to toss it in the bank aren't helping the economy at all right now

Higher levels of savings enable banks to make more loans, helping business. Many businesses are shaky right now because of the pandemic, as they regain financial strength, they may be able to increase employment or increase hours that had to be cut, such as in your case.

I'll put part of it towards the last semester of tuition for my son's college education which is due in a couple weeks. I made a pretty large donation to Harvesters in November and will make a similar donation from the stimulus money as well. I chose Harvesters because my employer will make a 50% matching donation up to a limit as well. I don't have any family or friends that have lost their jobs due to covid or I would give it directly to them.

My employer just returned ~9 months of city earnings taxes that they continued to withhold since I started WFH. In Kansas City, Missouri, 1% of earnings is withheld if you live or work in the city proper. I imagine a lot of cities with similar earnings taxes will be feeling the pinch in their budgets until things get back to normal.

but when people accept money who really don't *need* it (you already have savings... a good job you can work at 5 days a week, etc., ) why keep it?

Because it‘s a gift and it would be rude not to accept it.

Seriously, if there were any intent to distribute it based on need, they’d at least make some minimal attempts to determine need. It’s not. I wouldn’t return it any more than I’d intentionally overpay taxes or refuse tax refunds. That’d just be silly.

I do think I’d make an attempt to use it in the spirit it’s intended by spending it locally, but that decision would be mine.

If you don't need the money, yes, it is best to spend it locally and keep businesses going. Buy yourself a nice gift? Get some take-out food?

^^^ buy yourself a fishing boat! Nothing like social distancing in the middle of a lake filled with tasty fish.

Adding insult to injury: The 'stimulus' money is tax free, but AFAIK, the bits added to state unemployment benefits are taxed.

A little OT: I hear that charities devoted to feeding people are doing OK. I'd like to find some helping individuals and families with shelter. Any ideas?

I would like to ask those who want to give it only to those who need it how they think that need will be decided. I am not being sarcastic but trying to understand their thinking.

First you’d have to define need. Are chronically poor people included or would we be limiting it to people financially impacted by the pandemic? I’d hope for the latter, because a household used to making $100K who can’t pay bills now should be accounted for.

One idea I‘ve had, forgive me if I’ve mentioned it before, is set it up by request/application. A list of criteria, if you can check off a box (or two or whatever) you’re eligible. Your request is an attestation to the accuracy of your answers, with significant penalties for lying. You’re taken at your word and check goes out immediately, but you’re subject to audit.

That wouldn’t prevent all fraud of course, but I recently justified an estimate that at least 2/3 of the money is being given to people not financially affected. This could cut into that significantly.

In Canada our Federal Government is only giving a monthly benefit (CERB) to business and workers affected by job loss or reduction in hours and to organizations that help low income people and seniors. Business owners can also apply for help with rent. Not sure what Ontario government has done to help but they just reduced our time of use electricity rates which is good. I think at the beginning of the pandemic at the beginning of the year I received a little extra one time payment on my Goods and Services rebate. I know costs have risen especially with groceries and surcharges passed on to customers because of extra pandemic costs for buying masks and cleaning supplies but I can't see the government giving a stimulus cheque to everyone.

Well, it's going to be $600, as I'm sure you all have heard, unless a second bill is passed to top that off. We have not discussed what we will do with it. I think that I would like to get it to someone who is facing eviction. We've got to keep people sheltered.

"First you’d have to define need."

Easy - Income under a certain amount. How about $40,000?

But, "need" doesn't need to be determined because there's no desire or intent in Congress for payments to be restricted to those who most require help.

cherryfizz, what you're describing, done in your part of Canada, sounds similar to what we call unemployment benefits. Unemployment does require qualifying to receive and typically go to those who have lost jobs or have no jobs. The amounts paid are not very high but are more than nothing. And, I believe, are time-limited in duration. My info is limited, it's not something I've ever needed.

I gave part of the previous stimulus check to the local food bank and have used some of it to shop at local businesses/restaurant takeout to keep businesses going. Housing is also an obvious concern as well. Still thinking about that last part.

Elmer, we also have Employment Insurance that eligible newly unemployed workers can collect but I think they could collect this CERB benefit without having to apply for EI. I just looked on the website and the benefit is now over so people were able to access their Employment Insurance . I thought the CERB was an ongoing benefit but I was wrong. Not sure if workers will be getting another benefit since our Province is on lockdown again. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/campaigns/covid-19-update/covid-19-benefits-credits-support-payments.html

Interesting cherryfizz, thanks. I looked it over.

So it's a federal benefit for people who need help, who must meet certain prerequisites establishing need, eh? What a concept! That's different from what's on tap here, it's not likely something that will be copied south of your border.

CERB is a separate federal program specifically set up for those becoming unemployed as the result of the pandemic. The qualifications are different than for regular unemployment insurance and it's payout is also different.

I think the program has transitioned to other newly developed programs to better respond to more specific situations. CERB was set up to respond to a crisis unemployment situation and was then redefined.

x-posted with elmer and cherryfizz

“Easy - Income under a certain amount. How about $40,000?”

Well then it’s got nothing to do with covid. Which I know is your argument all along. There‘s no shortage of people in need to be helping out at any given time, but I‘d like to help people financially struggling due to the pandemic, who would not fall under other entitlements.

Sorry Elmer, I edited my post to correct that I had posted that the benefit was still eligible which it is not.

"Well then it’s got nothing to do with covid."

Food, what if a business was closed in January because it was unsuccessful? Are any former employees still jobless less needy than others? They're not "obviously" jobless because of Covid. It becomes a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" question if you dig down too far, there's no way to know and no way to administer a program like that from the federal level in a country like the US with >300 million inhabitants. Other than by income level.

Are all seniors affected by Covid? Do they meet your criteria? Most who live on just Social Security are at the poverty level and get these one-off checks, which contradicts YOUR premise.

I agree that we could easily go down a rabbit hole if we want to. But I don’t think it would be impossible to contain it. Offhand, I’m thinking that anyone on extended unemployment would qualify. Maybe the business didn’t shut down due to covid but finding a job could certainly be more difficult due to covid.

A senior living on social security and perhaps some other forms of fixed income that’s been unaffected, no, I don’t think they should qualify for covid relief. (My parents fit under this category.) If you want to give away money to people just because they’re poor, go for it. But I‘m not convinced that in giving it to the poor AND giving it to those financially stressed due to covid, we have to give it to tens of millions who are neither poor nor financially stressed due to covid.

What it comes down to is if we’re ok with giving a bunch of money to a bunch of people for no particular reason, or if we’d prefer to target it a bit more discriminatingly. If there‘s a will there’s a way.

"What it comes down to is if we’re ok with giving a bunch of money to a bunch of people for no particular reason"

This is exactly what it is now and the last time it was the same. You can add additional words - giving it to a bunch of people who don't need it and not giving it to a bunch of people who do. Don't be a truth denier, this is what it is in black and white.

There's no need to beat a dead horse. The states know who the truly needy are, but Congress would never take advantage of that. Trying to get the information to flow upstream from the states to the federal government is probably an impossible task and I'd bet couldn't be done in 12 months because there's no manpower, no IT systems, no infrastructure and no agency with the capability to handle it.

It's a cash giveaway because they can. Most people are fooled and see the lipstick and not the pig.

Here's the story, short and sweet.

A Gallup poll finds that public approval of the US Congress is at 15%

How Low Can You Go? Wash Po article

FYI the House has passed the $2,000 bill. Now to see what happens. They did as they were asked but I suspect that it will not go any further.

Reason I'm banking mine is I want to buy a condo so I'm saving what I can.

Some will go toward my granddaughter's distant learning program and the rest invested in stocks.

If you received the $1200. pmt, does that mean you'll likely receive the $2000. pmt?

You should be eligible but there is nothing written in stone that anyone will receive that or any amount beyond the $600. Too much depends on the incoming Congress and who wins the Georgia election for Senate, What happens when the presidential elector votes are validated next week will also have an affect.

Yes, but it will be a $2800 payment if you already received the $1200.

Assuming 2 people :

$2000 x 2 = $4000.

$4000 - $1200 already received ( $600 x 2) = $2800

Also assuming the criteria used for the additional payment is the same as the initial payment criteria.

If you qualified for the $1200 payment last spring, yes, you'd qualify for the full amount, The qualifying income has not changed since then

I doubt the extra legislation, to increase the approved $600 to a full $2000, in the Senate now will actually pass, and after the first of the year, Congress officially dissolves and they must start all over again.

I am not certain that for some the qualifying income will not have changed. The earliest payments were based on both the 2018 and the 2019 income. What I am reading is that the current payment is based on the 2019 income. For many like myself who received the payment before I filed the 2019 taxes if you changed status, married to single, or back again between the years it may affect what you receive. For some people it was sent apparently based on receiving Social Security. Others on their income tax filing. I write that because the deposit I received came as a double payment for my deceased husband and myself. If it was only based on SS it should have came as two separate deposits.

I did recently refund my husband portion and believe I will need to do the same with this current deposit. It will be interesting to see how/if money that was sent to deceased individuals is recaptured if someone has not returned the money.

I'd be willing to bet that many people whose spouses died, such that they got 2X what they were entitled to, did not returned the extra money.

My mother-in-law, always several sandwiches short of a full picnic, did something generically similar but without monetary gain. Her husband (many years older than she) became unable to move around well in his declining years and so had a physician's note to qualify for a blue "hang on your rearview mirror" disabled parking card. Apparently it expired periodically and they sent annual replacements.

On one visit to see her, maybe a full 10 years after he died, there was a blue card on her kitchen table. I asked "What's this?" She replied "That's my special parking card". I said "How did you get that, you're strong and you walk fine". She said, "They've kept sending it after Robert died". I said "you're not entitled to have one". She said, "well maybe not but it's much more convenient to be able to park near store doors".

We sent it back for her and in doing so notified the DMV of the death of her husband (my father in law). It hadn't occurred to her to do that. She was happy to shamelessly use parking spots she didn't need and wasn't entitled to use, and didn't realize that doing so could make it difficult for someone who did need such parking.

I do not expect that many will return the money. There was one of the congressmen who recently stated there is no law requiring the return. I leave it up to others to do what they feel is right. I wanted to put that portion in my comment as a method for anyone who did have a change in filing status from 2018 to 2019 to recognize that was the reason they may or may not have received a difference.

Good for you. We'd be a much better country if more people had your integrity. I'm the same, I always try to be guided by doing what seems to be the right thing in the circumstances. Not necessarily right for me, but right as others would see it. I spent a career in profession where my actions and decisions were repeatedly subject to question and scrutiny and I needed to be able to always explain and defend my decisions. It didn't mean they were always right or expected to be, but rather, I had to show that alternatives were considered and some chosen and others disposed of for good reasons.

I can rationalize as good or not better than most people but no one in their right mind wants to be on any IRS naughty list. My parents were on the list because they and a neighbor bartered something and were caught. The penalties by the time they gave up were more than if they had just agreed to the original amount and paid interest an accruing penalties until it was paid.

The IRS is no different than the police department - they enforce rules, they mostly don't make them (other than procedural matters).

People who follow the rules (many of which are grey and open to informed interpretation, many of which aren't) have no reason to be concerned about dealing with IRS. Other than the fact that sometimes SOME (not all) IRS employees can have a bad attitude and may treat taxpayers disproportionally to what the situation may suggest. Cops do that too. It isn't right, it's the job and the people they deal with that does it.

People who don't follow the rules and/or try to get away with something will feel the wrath of the law and the people who enforce it once they're caught up with. And, in my view, such people fully deserve the mistreatment they get and more.