Red Mosquito

knee tunes wrote:

B wrote:You don't think the bank teller might question the "deceased" printed after her name?

Not if you signed it that way

With tens of millions of Americans out of work, the Democrats’ bill would also send another round of direct checks to Americans. This time, it would deliver $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for married couples and $1,200 for each dependent, up to a maximum of three.

wease wrote:Well, here in my town, some restaurants are just going ahead and filling it to the brim. The ideal way would be more turns. Get people in and back out quicker so you can get new asses in the seats to do it all over again.

elliseamos wrote:

wease wrote:Well, here in my town, some restaurants are just going ahead and filling it to the brim. The ideal way would be more turns. Get people in and back out quicker so you can get new asses in the seats to do it all over again.

Reducing the menu & maybe upping (the already steep) drink mark-up would also make sense.

verb_to_trust wrote:I eat frozen pizzas

Speaking on the Senate floor on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) railed against House Democrats’ bill for expanding stimulus payments to individuals with a taxpayer identification number, not just a Social Security number. That would allow unauthorized immigrants to qualify for the payments.

“Another round of checks for illegal immigrants. Can you believe it?” McConnell said. “We forgot to have the Treasury Department send money to people here illegally. My goodness, what an oversight. Thank goodness Democrats are on the case.”

The House Democratic proposal would provide $1,200 for all individuals — including children — capping the payments at $6,000 per household. The initial round of payments authorized in the Cares Act in late March provided only $500 for children. Like the stimulus checks sent out under the Cares Act, the payments included in House Democrats’ bill would begin to phase out for people with incomes of $75,000 and above.

There are no active bipartisan negotiations underway on the next coronavirus relief bill. McConnell and other Republicans say they want to pause and allow the approximately $3 trillion in spending already approved to make its way into the economy before agreeing to anything more.

As it headed toward bankruptcy, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. took advantage of a little-noticed provision in the stimulus bill Congress passed in March to get a $9.7 million tax refund. Then, it asked a bankruptcy judge to authorize the same amount as bonuses to nine executives.

More than $1.9 billion in CARES Act tax benefits are being claimed by at least 37 oil companies, service firms and contractors, according to a Bloomberg News review of recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Occidental Petroleum, which enlisted its employees to ask Congress to “provide liquidity to the energy industry,” said it now anticipates a cash refund of about $195 million as a result of the carryback provision and a separate change in the stimulus bill that allows the immediate refund of unused alternative minimum tax credits.

National Oilwell Varco Inc., a manufacturer of oil and gas equipment, expects a $123 million refund by carrying back its 2019 losses and applying them to its 2014 tax filing.

San Antonio-based refiner Valero Energy Corp. recognized an extra $110 million by carrying back losses to 2015 -- when the corporate tax rate was 35% instead of the current 21%.

Congressional tax analysts initially estimated that the expanded loss carryback provision would cost $25 billion over 10 years -- just when used by corporations. Now, some are questioning whether the final pricetag could be much higher, and Democrats are seeking to limit the value of the tax break after raising concerns it overwhelmingly helps corporations and the wealthy.

In a new stimulus bill advanced Tuesday, House Democrats proposed scaling back the provision so companies could only apply losses back to 2018. Their plan also would prevent companies with “excessive” executive compensation or stock buybacks from claiming the tax break -- a change that would be retroactive back to March.

B wrote:So, if Trump's executive order is for everyone to get $400/month, but the state's have to pay $100, why not give everyone $1000/month, but the state's have to pay $700?

doug rr wrote:

B wrote:So, if Trump's executive order is for everyone to get $400/month, but the state's have to pay $100, why not give everyone $1000/month, but the state's have to pay $700?

would you buy a microwave with that extra money?