• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fourth Stimulus Check Update: Some Americans Will Be Eligible for $1,400 Payment in 2022

Flat tax rate, imo, would solve this. Everyone would pay their "fair share" based on income. No tax credit for anyone. Why should a couple who choose not to have children be penalized for that choice while those that do have children are rewarded?
Hear!Hear!
 
Just look how people are dropping out of the labor force....

That's a problem.
It is a problem. It is in no way because of a lousy $1,400.00. Do you think the people dropping out of the labor force are actually throwing themselves into homelessness? Of course they're not. They can afford not to work for a while. Which in the long run causes employers to raise wages.

$1400.00 doesn't cover 1 month of my mortgage, real estate tax and everyday bills. I won't be getting a check, but rest assured if I did, I would not quit working.
 
I used my stimulus to buy a car so I could get a better job.

These people who had kids in 2021 are just getting the payment that all the other families who already had kids before 2021 were getting. People who had babies during the pandemic are likely to have very pressing needs for it. I'm so glad I'm no longer in the party that wants to compel women to have children but doesn't care about the children's living conditions after they're born.
 
And that is not going to happen
I guess people are pretty weak minded in your world.

I don't want to kill anyone drunk driving, so I don't drive drunk.

I don't want to risk going to prison, or being shot, so I don't break the law and put myself in those situations.

I did not want to be responsible for a kid, so I waited till I found the right woman to have sex. I guess it did happen with me. I am sorry you are so weak minded.

2+2 still = 4.
 
I guess people are pretty weak minded in your world.

I don't want to kill anyone drunk driving, so I don't drive drunk.

I don't want to risk going to prison, or being shot, so I don't break the law and put myself in those situations.

I did not want to be responsible for a kid, so I waited till I found the right woman to have sex. I guess it did happen with me. I am sorry you are so weak minded.

2+2 still = 4.

People are weak minded, from the lazy, the poorly informed, the addicted, the impulsive

Pretending that people are not does not make for good policy
 
The 1400 is not a stand alone check, it’s yet another in a long line of checks and programs and mandates making it more profitable to stay home than to work.


I've received every one of them, including a PPP SBA Loan, a rather large one for my biz, and it didn't leave me with enough money to stop working.
 
Unemployment rate has always been a misleading number. It does not take into account anyone not looking for work.

As long as the methodology is the same, the actual number doesn't have to be perfect, but if the methodology used arriving at the number is consistent,
then we have comparative basis. A 4.2% rate means were in the normal zone. Anything below 4% is considered full employment. And no one drops out of the work force unless they have funds to live on, otherwise they become homeless. Of course, the retired and those on SSI and welfare are not included in the count, but the methodology has never included them and so it remains, the same, and so we can compare now to then.
 
As long as the methodology is the same, the actual number doesn't have to be perfect, but if the methodology used arriving at the number is consistent,
then we have comparative basis. A 4.2% rate means were in the normal zone. Anything below 4% is considered full employment. And no one drops out of the work force unless they have funds to live on, otherwise they become homeless. Of course, the retired and those on SSI and welfare are not included in the count, but the methodology has never included them and so it remains, the same, and so we can compare now to then.
The calculation does not take into account the number of people who are not looking for a job. If the number of people who are not looking for a job over time changes (which it does), the comparison is skewed. As the article points, it is also difficult to compare over time because of changes in the age makeup of the population.

 
The outrage is many (I'd dare say a majority) of Americans don't fully understand taxes in general, the different types of taxes and the scenarios where the different taxes are required to be paid.

We often hear about rich people, like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos paying no income taxes, and that we pay more income taxes then they do .. YES .. of course, because they aren't wage earners, and secure their finances through other investment vehicles.
AVvXsEjCTiOI7Oef4tnbyoyuPh3b9mlYp8AcRiT9pMI6nkqNgPk3Zn5IEmZVHt9CE9E0ITSYEuJJwBYWu0V6osAJpbTlhvhQfh0-rQfdTqrgDABajuqo7kEx9qio241UBkxEWxKIMpfqMXFjToSxneDb7RHeeneJGnDhlAgmtTJ_3ZsC0W0bpwU3qQ
 

I don't want as much money as Elon Musk .. or any other wealthy individual that made great financial and / or business decisions to become ultra successful. Do you have a problem with successful individuals @HangLow ?

Two groups of people will never be able to enjoy life .. those who are ultra poor or those who are ultra rich. Yet .. for some reason, making good financial decisions is considered evil.
 
I don't want as much money as Elon Musk .. or any other wealthy individual that made great financial and / or business decisions to become ultra successful. Do you have a problem with successful individuals @HangLow ?

Two groups of people will never be able to enjoy life .. those who are ultra poor or those who are ultra rich. Yet .. for some reason, making good financial decisions is considered evil.


The problem with income inequality is eventually the bottom comes for the top...
 
The problem with income inequality is eventually the bottom comes for the top...
I don't believe in income inequality .. I don't believe those who make good financial decisions are evil .. and the only reason those on the bottom would come to the top is .. they either made good financial decisions or the government ran out of other people's money.
 
I don't want as much money as Elon Musk .. or any other wealthy individual that made great financial and / or business decisions to become ultra successful. Do you have a problem with successful individuals @HangLow ?

Two groups of people will never be able to enjoy life .. those who are ultra poor or those who are ultra rich. Yet .. for some reason, making good financial decisions is considered evil.
On the day I was born...
My net worth exceeded 95 percent of all people on the planet...
-Peace
 
I don't believe in income inequality .. I don't believe those who make good financial decisions are evil .. and the only reason those on the bottom would come to the top is .. they either made good financial decisions or the government ran out of other people's money.
Unsubstantiated opinions are simply that. We already know inequality was institutional due to black codes.
 
Unsubstantiated opinions are simply that. We already know inequality was institutional due to black codes.
No we don't .. what well all know, and it's pretty basic, is .. when you manage your finances wisely, you save and build wealth -- regardless of what income bracket you represent; Otherwise, you have more month at the end of the money, and this applies to ALL wage brackets. Geez .. just look at individuals who have become millionaires from the lottery, and yet, within a short period of time have pissed their winnings away (due to poor financial management) and are required to work crappy jobs to support themselves and their family ... And this coming from individuals that were millionaires...
 
The calculation does not take into account the number of people who are not looking for a job. If the number of people who are not looking for a job over time changes (which it does), the comparison is skewed. As the article points, it is also difficult to compare over time because of changes in the age makeup of the population.


It doesn't change that much.

You don't stop looking for work if you have no money.

No one just magically drops out of the job market without a means to live, that's insane.

My own life experience, everyone I have known, defies that notion. The ONLY persons I know who were able to not work were:

1. Homeless
2. on a pension
3. SSI or welfare or Social Security
4. Had savings and investments.

No able bodied person I've known in my entire life 'dropped out of the work force".

who are these 'discouraged workers' ? I've never met one. Some might take a year, while on unemployment, but it runs out and the are forced to do something about it.

Oh, I did know one guy, he made a living hitch hiking, but that got old and he finally got a job. This kind of thing is rare, though.

So, we're taking young folks moving in with mom and dad, but rest assured, they will kick them out soon enough, most of them.
 
No one just magically drops out of the job market without a means to live, that's insane.
If that is the case then explain these numbers.
March 2020, Unemployment rate was 4.4, Labor Participation Rate was 62.6, Employment-Population Ratio was 59.9
November 2021, Unemployment rate was 4.2, Labor Participation Rate was 61.8, Employment-Population Ratio was 59.2

Labor Participation Rate are those 16 and over who are employed or actively looking
Employment-Population Ratio is a measure of the number of people employed against the total working-age population

The unemployment rate is down but at same time labor participation rate and employment population ratio are down. Where are those folks?
 
If that is the case then explain these numbers.
March 2020, Unemployment rate was 4.4, Labor Participation Rate was 62.6, Employment-Population Ratio was 59.9
November 2021, Unemployment rate was 4.2, Labor Participation Rate was 61.8, Employment-Population Ratio was 59.2

Labor Participation Rate are those 16 and over who are employed or actively looking
Employment-Population Ratio is a measure of the number of people employed against the total working-age population

The unemployment rate is down but at same time labor participation rate and employment population ratio are down. Where are those folks?


Teenagers living at home don't need to work and LOTS of older American's have retired...
 
Teenagers living at home don't need to work and LOTS of older American's have retired...
That may effect the Labor Participation Rate(LPR) but it does not effect the Employment-Population Ratio(EPR).
LPR does not count people not looking, ie teenagers living at home or retired folks.
EPR only looks at the working age population so retired folks would not be counted anyways.

The point being the % of folks unemployed went down. However, the % of the working age population that is working has also decreased. I know several have died during pandemic but not a high % of those were in the working age category.
 
No we don't .. what well all know, and it's pretty basic, is .. when you manage your finances wisely, you save and build wealth -- regardless of what income bracket you represent; Otherwise, you have more month at the end of the money, and this applies to ALL wage brackets. Geez .. just look at individuals who have become millionaires from the lottery, and yet, within a short period of time have pissed their winnings away (due to poor financial management) and are required to work crappy jobs to support themselves and their family ... And this coming from individuals that were millionaires...
Is that why corporate welfare pays multimillion-dollar bonuses?

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.
 
Back
Top Bottom