I think you guys are missing the "government handout" part of the bill that says the 1200+500 per child is an "income tax credit/advance from your 2020 filings..... They're bribing you with YOUR money and it will be taken out of your potential refund or added to your tax liability for this year.....
This doesn't even affect me but everything I've read said this is non-taxable income and will not affect your 2020 taxes. Is that incorrect?
I just want some of that free government cheese, like we used to get. I'll bet the stockpile has really gone up since the schools are closed. Where's my cheese???
Wow, I certainly missed that part. I don't understand how that can be the case considering that the lowest income group getting these $1200 checks are those who made so little money they didn't even have to bother filing taxes. Many of these people won't have a tax liability or refund from which to repay the $1200. Where did you read that? I'm genuinely curious.
“SEC. 6428. 2020 RECOVERY REBATES FOR INDIVIDUALS. “(a) In General.—In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2020 an amount equal to the lesser of— “(1) net income tax liability, or “(2) $1,200 ($2,400 in the case of a joint return). taken from the bill as written. This in my opinion means that it is a "credit" and must be debited from somewhere?
Well you're reading it wrong. This is being issued as a tax credit for all Americans below certain income thresholds. Someone you've parroted this from has added the word "advance" which confuses things mightily. It will not reduce your refund, will not increase your tax liability, will not increase your income (for tax purposes) and will not be paid back. At least not directly. They'll get their money back eventually of course.
And lo, we have seent it: https://abcnews.go.com/politics/tru...fe-small-business-loan-amid/story?id=70119117
This is the someone I parroted it (copy/paste) from. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...8/text#toc-idC62A2A4676F44E44B6A0D677C490FD17 It is very possible im wrong. Im no law expert just an essential mechanic who is very skeptical when anyone "gives" me anything especially the FEDS.
How is that fraud? I don't doubt people will abuse the system, but that example doesn't raise any red flags.
Does the $500 per child check have income limits/phaseout as well? Guessing yes but with three kids I figured I'd ask
No money yet but since we had to send the IRS money last year and out 2019 stuff hasn't gone in yet we'll be on the paper check schedule. Our PPP loan did get sent on up the chain so we should be hearing from someone soon about closing on it. Been doing employer filed unemployment and we finally are getting paid something hopefully today after I screwed up the filing the first two weeks (as usual the government isn't exactly clear in their instructions and won't return calls or emails to sort it out). This thread was good for nuking more stupid. Just a word of warning, the dumber you are the longer the ban...
I guess not fraud but certainly really awful optics. He's the presidents economic advisor. I think his net worth is around $25M. Her net worth is $2M and she's a self employed artist with no other employees that somehow needed a loan that I bet will never get repayed. That just reeks of gaming the system.
FYI - If you aren't on the direct deposit list, they will soon(ish?) have an option to go in and add your info to get your money sooner than mailing a check. Someone at work was just talking about it.
I feel bad for the people who need the help most and are struggling to find information like this. I've been lucky that I'm still at work and my wife is working from home so we've seen no financial impact from this. We are very fortunate.
One possible reason for slower checks to those married filing jointly could be the lower likelyhood that both would be out of work.
"Self-employed" doesn't mean no employees. You implied that. If in fact she is the only employee, her PPP loan will be a whopping $20,833. I would have a bigger problem if the president's economic advisor passed on the opportunity to backstop the losses in his wife's business, because that would make him dogshit at the very thing he's supposed to be advising.