• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Stock Market Crash

RJKarl said:
It would still create a lot work for people asking why money or credits have been taken from them.

If you don't think people would be calling in by the millions, you've never dealt with the public for any sized events.
Click to expand...

People who make $150k a year don't call the IRS over $1,200, they have an accountant explain it to them. I think you'll find people will treat you better if you listen to what everyone says and occasionally realize when you're being ridiculous. Just stop making silly argument and being unwilling to ever just either drop it or admit you might not be correct.
 
RJKarl said:
It would still create a lot work for people asking why money or credits have been taken from them.

If you don't think people would be calling in by the millions, you've never dealt with the public for any sized events.
Click to expand...

I genuinely believe that the risk of that happening is very low. It would be very, very hard to miss on the tax return and when it’s named “Coronavirus tax credit phaseout” everyone in the country will remember how they received a check back then and orange fat pussy wheezed that it would phase out for folks > $x
 
I love Katie so much. I hope she takes Feinstein's spot sooner or later.
 
palmab03 said:
People who make $150k a year don't call the IRS over $1,200, they have an accountant explain it to them. I think you'll find people will treat you better if you listen to what everyone says and occasionally realize when you're being ridiculous. Just stop making silly argument and being unwilling to ever just either drop it or admit you might not be correct.
Click to expand...

I did listen. I didn't agree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Do you agree that people who need money more would spend the money and thus create more jobs than people who would save it?
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
I did listen. I didn't agree. Am I not allowed to disagree?

Do you agree that people who need money more would spend the money and thus create more jobs than people who would save it?
Click to expand...

Do you find it strange that 50 people all agree and you are the only one who doesn't agree? That's usually a sign you might not be correct.

To your second point, sure, but no one is arguing that. All anyone is arguing is this: It is easiest for the government to give the money to everyone, and then take it back from the rich when they file their tax return. This is the only thing anyone here is arguing.
 
And I think it's easier to set a criteria before you send the money out and tell the public rather than having to chase it down later. If you do it first, you don't have to worry about any extra effort.

You don't think any rich people will challenge it coming off their tax return? Some will invariably listen to their accountants. But some won't.

Why can't we have a civil disagreement on something that is basically unprovable?

BTW, I've had that many and more against me here only to be proven right.
 
RJKarl said:
And I think it's easier to set a criteria before you send the money out and tell the public rather than having to chase it down later. If you do it first, you don't have to worry about any extra effort.

You don't think any rich people will challenge it coming off their tax return? Some will invariably listen to their accountants. But some won't.

Why can't we have a civil disagreement on something that is basically unprovable?

BTW, I've had that many and more against me here only to be proven right.
Click to expand...

RJ - How do you think people fill out their tax return? With an Abacus and a Quill Pen? There's no such thing as challenging it. People aren't going to "not listen to their accountants." A computer calculates it for you and you pay what the computer tells you. If you don't, the IRS then sends you a notice and puts a tax lien on you to get it. No rich person is going to overwrite what Turbotax or what their tax preparers software does to avoid $1,000. No one wants a tax lien on their credit report for $1,000.

You seemingly have no concept of how computer programs work that fill out tax returns. 89% of tax returns are e-filed. You can't change the formulas in them. Most the rest that are mailed are still filled out by a computer program, that you can't change the formula on, they just print and mail them in.
 
Last edited:
You can override it but nobody's going to for the most part. I'm a tax accountant and I fill out individual returns even though I do mostly corporate. This is a dumb point.
 
palmab03 said:
RJ - How do you think people fill out their tax return? With an Abacus and a Quill Pen? There's no such thing as challenging it. People aren't going to "not listen to their accountants." A computer calculates it for you and you pay what the computer tells you. If you don't, the IRS then sends you a notice and puts a tax lien on you to get it. No rich person is going to overwrite what Turbotax or what their tax preparers software does to avoid $1,000. No one wants a tax lien on their credit report for $1,000.

You seemingly have no concept of how computer programs work that fill out tax returns. 89% of tax returns are e-filed. You can't change the formulas in them. Most the rest that are mailed are still filled out by a computer program, that you can't change the formula on, they just print and mail them in.
Click to expand...

I understand your theory. I think it's the wrong way to get the most out of this.

Here's a legit concept.

Tilt showed a chart regarding giving away the money. It had projections for single people, couples and families as well as distribution by income.

If it's so much easier to just give out $X and not worry about who gets what and getting monies back from millions of over payments, why hasn't Congress put the bill together and gotten the most positive and politically expedient part of the process done already?

If they pass that every single gets $X, every couple $Y and every family $Z on a date certain in the immediate future a ton of pressure would be off them. They would buy themselves some goodwill and time to get the rest of the package done properly.

At this point people are craving any good news. They are hoping to see any light at the end of the tunnel. Plus, there is growing animus with the government.

Members of Congress understand this. The public understands.

But you'd rather say- "Payments from this chart will show how much you get, BUT some of you may have to send some of it back. It will be easy. The IRS will just take what they say you owe and you will have no say."

In a time of crisis, how do you think the public would react? Do you think the people at the top would spend the money? If they don't spend the money, there is no purpose in giving to them.
 
Last edited:
I’d rather just not get it than have to repay.



However, if it’d really cause a significant delay in sending out the money then I don’t care. Priority should be to get relief to those in need.
 
ConnorEl said:
I’d rather just not get it than have to repay.



However, if it’d really cause a significant delay in sending out the money then I don’t care. Priority should be to get relief to those in need.
Click to expand...

SHHHH....you'll be labeled and idiot and worse for being logical.
 
I did. And in fact, immediately setting criteria will get those in need money faster. If you input, everyone who is single and make X, couples Y and families Z. The computers and spit out those checks and wire those funds very quickly and efficiently.

The purpose of sending the checks is to stimulate the economy. Sending money to people who will save it is ridiculous and the total antithesis of the concept.

Further, if there is an amount of money the government is willing to spend, giving more to those with less is more productive and moral.
 
To clarify. I posted that chart to illustrate how dumb it was to do it that way. Give every cash. Give it to them now. Means testing will make it slower, and inevitably people will be missed. They will need more. A lot more. And those programs, like beefing up unemployment insurance and helping businesses, will be better targeted and will take time. But people need money yesterday it’s not tos tiny late the economy. It’s to help people survive.
 
How do you set the criteria RJ? What would be the fairest way? Income right? How do you measure income? The only way to know is based on 2019 tax filings. Many of which aren’t even filed yet. So you then go through the process of determining everyone’s eligibility based on their tax filings, whenever those are available. Seems like that will take a while right? Probably longer than some folks are able to wait.

On top of that, past income is not the best way to determine CURRENT need. That person in sales who had a good 2019? That married family who owns that hot new restaurant that killed it in 2019? Their income has vanished right? They have an immediate need but based on stale income data they may not be eligible. How do you factor that in RJ?

You need data on current income. That is nonexistent at the moment and won’t be known for a while. How else do you set your criteria to determine need up front?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top