Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Recommended Posts

For the first two checks I got mine in the mail. It only took two months to reach me. I never get a tax refund, so the IRS did not have my account information. What I read was the third stimulus would be sent like the first two. Well, to my surprise, I just checked and it says this:

Payment Status

We scheduled your payment to be deposited on March 24, 2021 to the bank account below.

Bank Account Number: ************3346

If you don't see your payment credited to your account, check with your bank to verify they received it. We will mail you a letter with additional information on this payment.

 

That is the account that my Social Security is deposited to. Two federal agencies have done the impossible, they shared data.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first, we went to the very easy to use and well publicized IRS site and put in the bank info.  Haven't had to do anything since.

I doubt there's been any changes to the system.  Anyway, glad you got it and hope you enjoy your 9 percent.  :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

I doubt there's been any changes to the system.  Anyway, glad you got it and hope you enjoy your 9 percent.  :D 

It was magic, MC. What 9 percent?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AngusMactavish said:

It was magic, MC. What 9 percent?

 

That's how much of the debt piled on actually went for stimulus checks in this latest round.  As I recall, the total debt per household added for all the stimulus packages, not just the latest, is somewhere north of $69K.  My checks didn't add up to this, how about yours?   

And before we start with the usual tiresome "it's politics" accusations from the usual suspects, please note all this debt was piled on in a most bipartisan manner.   Past or present, party label of any kind, they are all responsible for this. :D 

No magic, just computers talking to each other.  This was the system with the first of these bounties of printed money and nothing has changed.  It was very easy then to confirm your payment would be sent to a bank account and if not specified, one could enter that information there.   It was well publicized.  The same system has been used throughout.  

All of this easy to look up but if you want links, PM me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

All of this easy to look up..

Sorry, my computer has a BS filter and only looks left.

 

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

That's how much of the debt piled on actually went for stimulus checks in this latest round.  As I recall, the total debt per household added for all the stimulus packages, not just the latest, is somewhere north of $69K.  My checks didn't add up to this, how about yours?   

And before we start with the usual tiresome "it's politics" accusations from the usual suspects, please note all this debt was piled on in a most bipartisan manner.   Past or present, party label of any kind, they are all responsible for this. :D

It is unfair to make a statement about 69K and make it sound like a negative. If you do, you must include every cent spent on governance since the founding. Further, I don't see the connection between 69K and what you think your check should be.

Further, this was not applied in a bipartisan manner. How can you even suggest that? Not a single Republican voted for it. You know htis.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mainecoons    Over HALF of this package goes to individuals. For rent, food, insurance, extra unemployment benefits.  You know, for the people who really need it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/10/how-big-is-biden-stimulus/

Quote

Over half the money — 54 percent — in the bill goes toward households. In addition to the popular $1,400 checks, there is also funding for extra unemployment insurance through Labor Day, expanded tax credits, and various programs to make rent, food and health insurance more affordable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A verified number can't be "unfair" LOL.  That is the amount of debt per household added just by stimulus packages from the beginning.  

Both parties have been voting to pile this debt on.  The last round is only one third of the total piled on.  They would have happily voted for it had their man been in the White House.  Don't be naive, all this amazing and unpayable debt has been piled on in a most bipartisan manner beginning, really, some 20 years ago.

Now please do not make this discussion partisan.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

A verified number can't be "unfair" LOL.  That is the amount of debt per household added just by stimulus packages from the beginning.  

Both parties have been voting to pile this debt on.  The last round is only one third of the total piled on.  They would have happily voted for it had their man been in the White House.  Don't be naive, all this amazing and unpayable debt has been piled on in a most bipartisan manner beginning, really, some 20 years ago.

Now please do not make this discussion partisan.

 

I don't have to. You already did. And your comment about the number not being "unfair" has nothing to do with the point. And thanks for making it personal. Naive indeed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AndyPanda said:

I don't have to. You already did. And your comment about the number not being "unfair" has nothing to do with the point. And thanks for making it personal. Naive indeed.

 

2 hours ago, AndyPanda said:

Further, this was not applied in a bipartisan manner. How can you even suggest that? Not a single Republican voted for it. You know htis.

Hmm, who is it that introduced partisan politics to this discussion?    :D 

To start with, the $69,0oo figure is for ALL stimulus packages as I clearly stated in my post.  Not the entire U.S. national debt.  Did you miss that?

And I really can't have a meaningful discussion with anyone who thinks having $69,000 in debt added to a household's legal obligation as citizens of a country in just the last several years, let alone how much they've piled up in the last 20, is anything remotely resembling positive. 

Fortunately I expect to die before the piper has to be paid.  So I suppose that could be viewed as both positive and negative, LOL.

Naive is as naive posts.  Anyone who thinks all this debt is the responsibility of any one group or party in D.C. is naive or incredibly out of the loop, sorry.  That's just not the way it happened.  They are all in it together and we let them do it.  And that ain't politics, that's history.

Nothing personal.  :D 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

54% .....repeat, 54% went to households.  Mostly to the UNemployed, low-wage workers, low-income families with young children.  THAT's who needed the $$$, and that's who got it.  It will lift families out of poverty.  THAT is a GOOD THING.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/10/how-big-is-biden-stimulus/

Quote

 

Over half the money — 54 percent — in the bill goes toward households. In addition to the popular $1,400 checks, there is also funding for extra unemployment insurance through Labor Day, expanded tax credits, and various programs to make rent, food and health insurance more affordable.

Economists say low- and moderate-income Americans will benefit the most from this aid, especially individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples earning $150,000 or less. The number of Americans living in poverty is predicted to drop in 2021 by as much as a third because of this legislation.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mainecoons said:

 

Hmm, who is it that introduced partisan politics to this discussion?    :D 

YOU DID smiley face.

To start with, the $69,0oo figure is for ALL stimulus packages as I clearly stated in my post.  Not the entire U.S. national debt.  Did you miss that?

NO I DID NOT. INSTEAD YOU TRIED TO OBFUSCATE THE ISSUE.

And I really can't have a meaningful discussion with anyone who thinks having $69,000 in debt added to a household's legal obligation as citizens of a country in just the last several years, let alone how much they've piled up in the last 20, is anything remotely resembling positive. 

ANE I CAN'T HAVE A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION WITH SOMEONE WHO PUTS WORDS IN MY MOUTH, AS IN THAT STATEMENT

Fortunately I expect to die before the piper has to be paid.  So I suppose that could be viewed as both positive and negative, LOL.

Naive is as naive posts.  Anyone who thinks all this debt is the responsibility of any one group or party in D.C. is naive or incredibly out of the loop, sorry.  That's just not the way it happened.  They are all in it together and we let them do it.  And that ain't politics, that's history.

AGAIN, PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH TO SOMEHOW JUSTIFY YOUR ARGUMENT. AND AGAIN CALLING ME NAMES. IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO MAKE SUCH CALLS.

Nothing personal.  :D 

YOU MADE IT PERSONAL, SMILEY FACE. ALL I DID WAS RESPOND, PLEASANTLY AND POLITELY. BUT YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE IT ALONE. JUST ACCEPT DEFEAT AND MOVE ALONG. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

SEE MY COMMENTS IN UPPER CASE IN THE QUOTE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP was talking about MAILED checks - which took months for an assortment of reasons including someone's name 'signed' on the check. This time the MAILED checks are going out much sooner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MtnMama said:

The OP was talking about MAILED checks - which took months for an assortment of reasons including someone's name 'signed' on the check. This time the MAILED checks are going out much sooner.

But it's not fair to isolate the help that went to households via the check.  This plan will improve the lives of many, via its tax credits, funding of health care for the poor, extension of unemployment benefits.  You have to look at the entire scope and plan....not just one check.  

The previous plans did very little to help poor working (or laid off) families.   It is estimated this program will raise one-third of children out of poverty.  

This is a better thought out approach than just sending a check signed in magic marker.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MtnMama said:

The OP was talking about MAILED checks - which took months for an assortment of reasons including someone's name 'signed' on the check. This time the MAILED checks are going out much sooner.

Huh? I posted that I am getting my money by direct deposit. My account information was not known by the IRS because I never gave it to them and they mailed it to my Social Security home of record. The miracle is that the IRS got the deposit information from Social Security.

If anyone thinks that computers can easily share information when not originally programmed to do so doesn't know that the IRS and the Soc. Security systems were developed independently and use different programming languages. They could only communicate after an exhaustive effort. I do not slight that the previous administration didn't get them "talking" because of the time and effort that requires. I say that the accomplishment was miraculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without taking ANY side....the previous Admin IRS folks DID work with the SS folks to get some direct deposits done. Since we are talking about "data" being shared, the fact that the two systems use disparate languages is not germain.  HOWEVER the effort it took within the timeframe given back then is nothing less than miraculous IMO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...