Dingell 'very concerned' about lowering threshold for stimulus

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said on Sunday that she was "very concerned" about the income limit to receive a stimulus payment potentially being lowered.

Appearing on CNN's "Inside Politics," Dingell told host Abby Phillips that she agreed with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and his concerns regarding potential concessions in the coronavirus relief bill.

"I strongly oppose lowering income eligibility for direct payments from $75,000 to $50,000 for individuals and $150,000 to $100,000 for couples," Sanders tweeted last night. "In these difficult times, ALL working class people deserve the full $1,400. Last I heard, someone making $55,000 a year is not "rich."

"You know, he is right and I'm very concerned about - we don't know the details, again, people are still speculating," Dingell said.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dingell-very-concerned-about-lowering-threshold-for-stimulus/ar-BB1dtvqx?li=BBnb7Kz

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Isn't the cap already set at $50k, and time for amendments passed? Nt

[LisaL]

9. Where did that come from?

Haven't heard anything of the sort.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. They had the amendment marathon Thursday night, VP broke the tie at 530am.

[drray23]

13. no it is not.

the amendment did not set a number, just said that this should be considered so that upper income people do not get the check. It left the determination of what this means to the commitee.

[alphafemale]

2. I'm at roughly $30K and am almost at the point where I would forego it so others could get more.

But not quite there yet.

[quakerboy]

20. Id suggest that a lot of folks around that threshold

might be using theirs for direct and indirect good.

Its been a trend among many, at least in my circles. Donate the various stimulus payments to a good cause or a person who needs it more.

But even those who just spend the money on a fancy new fridge or a new bigscreen.. still serve to boost the economy. I dont know at what income level people move from likely to spend it to likely to save it.. But i dont see any problem in it going to people making a little bit more than average, not just those making a bit less than average.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Republicans are using this as a wedge issue

They'll blame us for red ink if the cutoff is too high, and they'll blame us for excluding higher earners if the cutoff is too low.

Can't win. But pick your point and realize it's a wealth transfer if higher income households get stim checks.

[Turin_C3PO]

5. I'm for the same threshold

that was used for the $600 which is $75,000.

[quakerboy]

22. Are we really wanting to be more stingy than the republicans?

The Trump stimulus phased out at 99k and the bipartisan one at 78k. And they will blame us for red ink regardless.

Given the income drop that many experienced, id guess a moderate number of folks will end up not getting stimulus that they may need now, because they file taxes later. Sure.. they will get it as a credit in 2022.. but thats a long wait if they needed it now.

[Mawspam2]

4. In 2019...

...I made $53k, which is what these payments are based on. Lost my job in Oct 2020 and haven't worked since. I'm not eligible for UI, so have had no income. Lowering the threshold to $50k now will be a real kick in the teeth to me.

Give the $1400 to everyone, even billionaires, then tax it back if you don't need it when filing 2020 returns.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

6. Chip-chip-chip. The QRepublicans are doing to the COVID bill

what they did to the financial stimulus and ACA under Obama. In both cases the Dems held the majorities in both houses and the presidency, but the QRepugs bitched and complained and watered down both bills until they were mere skeletons of their former selves. Then they voted against the bills.

We have the power to get the COVID bill through without the QRepugs without any changes. Let them squeal, "But what about unity?" Where was their concern for bipartisanship when Moscow Mitch wouldn't even allow hearings on Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS, or now, when the same man's appointment to AG is being blocked by the QRepugs?

Fuck 'em. When they had the majority they ruled like a one-party government. What goes around comes around. It's time for bold action -- better too much than too little.

[mr_lebowski]

17. This! (nt)

[DownriverDem]

7. Love my Rep

Debbie Dingell. She fights for us (12th District) every day.

[oasis]

8. More for all. except the greedy 1%.

Show me the money💵💰💵💰💵💰💵💰💵💰💵💰💵💰💵💰

[JI7]

11. She should talk to other Democrats. They are less likely to see Michigan

as that stereotype they have of wealthy coasts and will be less likely to hold back money from people there than those in NY and CA.

[eggplant]

12. I say, just give it to everybody and then repeal the tax cut.

[cstanleytech]

15. Repeal of that stupid tax cut should be part of a major infrastructure bill imo.

[quakerboy]

24. This.

I keep seeing people counter the R budget/reconciliation complaints by talking about the 2 trillion bill tax cut for the rich the republicans passed via reconciliation.

Why not just include a reversal of the most egregious portions of that in the budget to bring the cost of the stimulus way way down. Dare the republicans to vote against a stimulus that costs America virtually nothing.

[cstanleytech]

14. I dont oppose lowering the limit to that much to be honest because the money is really more to help

those that have actually been impacted the most by the pandemic most of whom are in the entertainment/retail areas and already earned well below those thresholds.
Now for real economic recovery I think we need a major infrastructure bill to repair things like our bridges, roads and dams not to mention our electric grid.
Spending on that would help our country the most in the long term.

[badboy67]

16. Go bold or go home. Stop letting the minority Party dictate our policy. GOP only cares about sowing

misery and sabotage as their scheme to get back into the Oval Office in 2024. Don't fall for the GOP's phony cries for "bi-partisanship."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. "... Last I heard, someone making $55,000 a year is not 'rich.'", ...

... maybe a bit misleading.

The $1400 won't drop to zero as soon as your income exceeds $50,000. Maybe it'll drop to $1350. It will be reduced as the income above $50,000 increases. At some point, it will become zero.

Still, if the $75,000 limit can pass, great.

[LisaL]

21. It will drop rapidly by $75,000.

So people who previously got full stimulus would get much less if they make $75,000.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

23. Now, THAT's a valid complaint.

It should ramp down to zero at 100K or so.

[quakerboy]

25. I think there are enough people who made 75k in 2019

but did not in 2020 to be worth considering. This would deny them a stimulus. They can make it up in february 2020 taxes.. but that wont help them now.

I will admit i dont know what the numbers are.. but I'd also guess within reasonable bounds, the lower the phaseout start and end the lower the amount of charitable giving that will result. Its not what our social safety net should be.. but its what we've got right now.

[ancianita]

19. This is noise machine politics. The tell: "very concerned."

I've said it a thousand times: don't believe the hype.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. The problem is the pandemic was in 2020 and using an income tax filing from 2019

is not going to cut it. And the job losses also include those who work in state/local governments who have had their budgets blown up and who have had to furlough and/or lay off workers -