Trump Admin Stimulus Pkg

[glenn57]

so I read this blurb about the stimulis check. pretty bland if ya ask me. it, from what I read, a $1200 check will be sent to people makes 75 grand or less and be reduced for incomes higher.

now what's not clear is that to each individual in the house??? mine would be somewhat reduced, but my wife is only getting ssd and don't even get close to the 75 g!!!!!!! or is this per household based on the gross filing a married joint return>>>>>>

I want 2!!!!!!!!!!

[merc]

Four repubs are now demanding a change to the way the unemployment is written. So it may not go through yet.

[mike89]

so does everyone get a check or are there going to be folks who won't get one??  like folks that are retired??? 

[glenn57]

Four repubs are now demanding a change to the way the unemployment is written. So it may not go through yet.

well feel the bern…..is bucky too!!!!!!!!!!

friggin politicians!!!!!!!!!

[Rebel SS]

And no Glenn, you CAN'T include yer dogs as dependants!   

[LPS]

so does everyone get a check or are there going to be folks who won't get one??  like folks that are retired???

From what I have read is that all adults with an income get it.  If you are already on welfare and have no income or just plain don't have income you get nothing.  They raised the upper end too.  Now you get $2400 per couple if you earn under $150,000.  It was at $99,000.  Singles get $1,200.  Us retirees get it I think.  I sure hope so.  Will go a long ways towards getting my vote.   

[roony]

so does everyone get a check or are there going to be folks who won't get one??  like folks that are retired???

I heard they will start sending checks the beginning of the alphabet.
Art

[merc]

I was on a conference call with US Rep Tom Emmer and from what he said it doesn't sound like retired people get any money. Not positive but that is what he implied.

[LPS]

Only the Anderson's will be ahead of me...      Was that way all through school too. 

[Dotch]

Yeah, $2.00 per bushel.  Sorry for the typo. 

Lots more detail in the document attached above.

And that link to the albert lee paper just offers to let me subscribe...  naga da as dana carvey said...

What you posted basically is a crop budget worksheet, something guys who go to their bankers/lenders for operating loans do routinely every year. Loan officers require it in most cases. I have guys in my office every year wanting info on what to stick in those slots agronomically. IA St. has no exclusive on that. You can make the numbers come out any way you want by varying yield and price. 

Or as I used to tell my girlfirends, keep yer panties on:



Capitol Comments by Peggy Bennett


Peggy Bennett

 

Imagine working on your taxes and coming upon the surprise discovery that you owe the IRS $100,000. Immediately.

Though it may sound far-fetched, it is reality.

Last fall, a Wells farmer received a $100,000 tax bill that he had no idea was coming. Not having tens of thousands of dollars sitting around, he was forced to mortgage his house to pay for it. Unless the issue that caused this immense tax bill is fixed, he will go out of business next year.

I have heard from other area farmers and business owners with similar horror stories, as have other lawmakers around the state.

So what is causing these unbelievable tax bills? A failure of the Minnesota Legislature to fully conform with the federal tax code. Specifically, Section 179, which deals with accelerated depreciation.

Last session, Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a plan that directed the Department of Revenue to review Section 179 claims, adjust for new expensing limits and review any gains or losses from the equipment they traded in.

This meant a farmer or business owner who traded in farm equipment or other machinery in 2018, and realized a financial gain on that equipment, was subject to paying income taxes on that gain immediately. Whereas on the federal level, that tax increase was negated by higher upfront expensing limits. The tax bill signed by Gov. Walz only allowed the higher expensing limits over a six-year period, resulting in a tax increase in year one for farmers with only a promise it would be negated over six years.

While it may sound confusing, it’s definitely not a laughing matter for farmers and other small business owners — such as dry cleaners or dental offices — that find themselves in this impossible situation.

This session I am co-authoring legislation that would fully fund conformity to Section 179 in order to help those who have traded equipment and had that trade value counted as income. The legislation would also cancel any penalties and interest issued by the Department of Revenue on any unpaid debts that had been created due to this ordeal.

In talking with those who are dealing with these enormous tax bills, these people are going to be forced to leave a profession they love unless the Legislature acts. With a $1.5 billion budget surplus, we have funds available to make things right and easily fix this Section 179 mistake that was approved by House Democrats and signed into law last year.

State Rep. Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, represents Minnesota House District 27A, which includes almost all of Freeborn County, along with parts of Faribault, Mower, Steele and Dodge counties. She can be reached by phone at 651-296-8216 or by email at rep. peggy.bennett@house.mn.

[LPS]

I was on a conference call with US Rep Tom Emmer and from what he said it doesn't sound like retired people get any money. Not positive but that is what he implied.

So our income is filed jointly.  My wife still works full time.  I have a at home Mfg. business.  Of course pension and SS.  So how will that work out? 

[merc]

Working people get it according to what he said.

[roony]

Or as I used to tell my girlfirends, keep yer panties on:

You know, I use to tell her the same thing!

[Rebel SS]

Really? I usually asked them to take 'em off! 

[delcecchi]

Yeah, $2.00 per bushel.  Sorry for the typo. 

Lots more detail in the document attached above.

And that link to the albert lee paper just offers to let me subscribe...  naga da as dana carvey said...

What you posted basically is a crop budget worksheet, something guys who go to their bankers/lenders for operating loans do routinely every year. Loan officers require it in most cases. I have guys in my office every year wanting info on what to stick in those slots agronomically. IA St. has no exclusive on that. You can make the numbers come out any way you want by varying yield and price. 

Or as I used to tell my girlfirends, keep yer panties on:



Capitol Comments by Peggy Bennett


Peggy Bennett

 

Imagine working on your taxes and coming upon the surprise discovery that you owe the IRS $100,000. Immediately.

Though it may sound far-fetched, it is reality.

Last fall, a Wells farmer received a $100,000 tax bill that he had no idea was coming. Not having tens of thousands of dollars sitting around, he was forced to mortgage his house to pay for it. Unless the issue that caused this immense tax bill is fixed, he will go out of business next year.

I have heard from other area farmers and business owners with similar horror stories, as have other lawmakers around the state.

So what is causing these unbelievable tax bills? A failure of the Minnesota Legislature to fully conform with the federal tax code. Specifically, Section 179, which deals with accelerated depreciation.

Last session, Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a plan that directed the Department of Revenue to review Section 179 claims, adjust for new expensing limits and review any gains or losses from the equipment they traded in.

This meant a farmer or business owner who traded in farm equipment or other machinery in 2018, and realized a financial gain on that equipment, was subject to paying income taxes on that gain immediately. Whereas on the federal level, that tax increase was negated by higher upfront expensing limits. The tax bill signed by Gov. Walz only allowed the higher expensing limits over a six-year period, resulting in a tax increase in year one for farmers with only a promise it would be negated over six years.

While it may sound confusing, it’s definitely not a laughing matter for farmers and other small business owners — such as dry cleaners or dental offices — that find themselves in this impossible situation.

This session I am co-authoring legislation that would fully fund conformity to Section 179 in order to help those who have traded equipment and had that trade value counted as income. The legislation would also cancel any penalties and interest issued by the Department of Revenue on any unpaid debts that had been created due to this ordeal.

In talking with those who are dealing with these enormous tax bills, these people are going to be forced to leave a profession they love unless the Legislature acts. With a $1.5 billion budget surplus, we have funds available to make things right and easily fix this Section 179 mistake that was approved by House Democrats and signed into law last year.

State Rep. Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, represents Minnesota House District 27A, which includes almost all of Freeborn County, along with parts of Faribault, Mower, Steele and Dodge counties. She can be reached by phone at 651-296-8216 or by email at rep. peggy.bennett@house.mn.

So, if  you own the land, what is the break even price of corn, in terms of cash flow? 

[LPS]

so I read this blurb about the stimulis check. pretty bland if ya ask me. it, from what I read, a $1200 check will be sent to people makes 75 grand or less and be reduced for incomes higher.

now what's not clear is that to each individual in the house??? mine would be somewhat reduced, but my wife is only getting ssd and don't even get close to the 75 g!!!!!!! or is this per household based on the gross filing a married joint return>>>>>>

I want 2!!!!!!!!!!

From what I just read it is your income on your tax returns.  SS does count as income from what I just read.  Not sure if pensions do yet. 

[Rebel SS]

When they get to my check, they'll prolly pull it out, laugh, wipe their butts with it and say, "There's yer TP!" Har-de har-har....

[delcecchi]

so I read this blurb about the stimulis check. pretty bland if ya ask me. it, from what I read, a $1200 check will be sent to people makes 75 grand or less and be reduced for incomes higher.

now what's not clear is that to each individual in the house??? mine would be somewhat reduced, but my wife is only getting ssd and don't even get close to the 75 g!!!!!!! or is this per household based on the gross filing a married joint return>>>>>>

I want 2!!!!!!!!!!

Private pensions are income to the feds...  And social security is too, depending on how much other income you have.   

From what I just read it is your income on your tax returns.  SS does count as income from what I just read.  Not sure if pensions do yet.

[Rebel SS]

They're gonna pay YOU in rice. 

[Jerkbiat]

Hope this helps explain who is going to get the money.

Who is eligible?

The bill makes clear that everyone is eligible except for nonresident aliens and those who can be used as the basis for deductions for another person.

"Seniors, veterans, the unemployed and low-income Americans would be eligible too," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said Wednesday.

The bill text indicates those who receive social security can collect checks: For those not required to file 2018 or 2019 tax returns because of social security benefits, tax returns aren’t required to claim the money -- the government can use information from a Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, or Form RRB-1099, Social Security Equivalent Benefit Statement.

With that in mind, here is how much people can expect to get.

People filing individually

People who file their taxes as individuals are eligible for payments up to $1,200, but that decreases for people who earn an adjusted gross income of more than $75,000 a year. The bill says that the payment is reduced by five percent of every dollar above that mark, or $50 for every $1,000 above $75,000.

What that ultimately means is that for people who make more than $75,000 the payment is less the higher their earnings are, with it being reduced to zero for those who make $99,000 or more.

People filing jointly

Couples who file a joint tax return are eligible for a payment of up to $2,400, plus and additional $500 per child. However, that amount decreases for couples whose adjusted gross income is more than $150,000 in a year at the same rate of 5 percent of every dollar above that mark.

This translates to less money the more people make, with it being reduced to zero for joint filers without children who earn $198,000 or more.

People filing as heads of households

People who file as heads of households are eligible for payments of up to $1,200, but that amount is increased by $500 per child. That amount is reduced for people who earn an adjusted gross income of more than $112,000 a year. The extent to which it is decreased, of course, depends on how many children they have, as illustrated by the chart above.

The following chart, courtesy of the Tax Foundation, illustrates how it all works.

Image courtesy of the Tax Foundation
Image courtesy of the Tax Foundation
Income is based on people's tax filings for 2019, but if they have not filed for that year, then their filing for 2018 applies.

"f the individual has not filed a tax return for such individual's first taxable year beginning in 2018," the bill says, the information should be used for 2019 provided in their SSA-1099 or RRB-1099 Social Security Benefit Statements.


When and how are payments made?

Payments, according to the bill, will be made “as rapidly as possible” and no later than Dec. 31, 2020. They will be made via direct deposit to an account that the person has authorized for tax refunds or federal payments on or after Jan. 1, 2018.

Notice will be sent to the person’s last known address within 15 days of payment informing them of the method and amount of payment. A phone number will also be provided so people can call the IRS in the event they did not receive it.

[Rebel SS]

Thanks JB. 


Just a snippet from this mornings news....


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/coronavirus-checks-direct-deposits-are-coming-here-s-everything-you-n1168936

[mike89]

yup thanks Jb!!

[deadeye]

Dotch,
The story about owing $100,000 in taxes left out one BIG fact.  Back in 2018 when the equipment was purchased, the buyer used section 179 to deduct the equipment cost thus reducing his tax bill by $100,000. Now, because he decided to sell the equipment and not use it in production (the reason he could deduct it in the first place) he should be required to repay the windfall that was accepted in 2018.  So, in effect the person should have the $100,000 in the bank to pay back the windfall.

[Dotch]

Yeah, $2.00 per bushel.  Sorry for the typo. 

Lots more detail in the document attached above.

And that link to the albert lee paper just offers to let me subscribe...  naga da as dana carvey said...

What you posted basically is a crop budget worksheet, something guys who go to their bankers/lenders for operating loans do routinely every year. Loan officers require it in most cases. I have guys in my office every year wanting info on what to stick in those slots agronomically. IA St. has no exclusive on that. You can make the numbers come out any way you want by varying yield and price. 

Or as I used to tell my girlfirends, keep yer panties on:



Capitol Comments by Peggy Bennett


Peggy Bennett

 

Imagine working on your taxes and coming upon the surprise discovery that you owe the IRS $100,000. Immediately.

Though it may sound far-fetched, it is reality.

Last fall, a Wells farmer received a $100,000 tax bill that he had no idea was coming. Not having tens of thousands of dollars sitting around, he was forced to mortgage his house to pay for it. Unless the issue that caused this immense tax bill is fixed, he will go out of business next year.

I have heard from other area farmers and business owners with similar horror stories, as have other lawmakers around the state.

So what is causing these unbelievable tax bills? A failure of the Minnesota Legislature to fully conform with the federal tax code. Specifically, Section 179, which deals with accelerated depreciation.

Last session, Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a plan that directed the Department of Revenue to review Section 179 claims, adjust for new expensing limits and review any gains or losses from the equipment they traded in.

This meant a farmer or business owner who traded in farm equipment or other machinery in 2018, and realized a financial gain on that equipment, was subject to paying income taxes on that gain immediately. Whereas on the federal level, that tax increase was negated by higher upfront expensing limits. The tax bill signed by Gov. Walz only allowed the higher expensing limits over a six-year period, resulting in a tax increase in year one for farmers with only a promise it would be negated over six years.

While it may sound confusing, it’s definitely not a laughing matter for farmers and other small business owners — such as dry cleaners or dental offices — that find themselves in this impossible situation.

This session I am co-authoring legislation that would fully fund conformity to Section 179 in order to help those who have traded equipment and had that trade value counted as income. The legislation would also cancel any penalties and interest issued by the Department of Revenue on any unpaid debts that had been created due to this ordeal.

In talking with those who are dealing with these enormous tax bills, these people are going to be forced to leave a profession they love unless the Legislature acts. With a $1.5 billion budget surplus, we have funds available to make things right and easily fix this Section 179 mistake that was approved by House Democrats and signed into law last year.

State Rep. Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, represents Minnesota House District 27A, which includes almost all of Freeborn County, along with parts of Faribault, Mower, Steele and Dodge counties. She can be reached by phone at 651-296-8216 or by email at rep. peggy.bennett@house.mn.

So, if  you own the land, what is the break even price of corn, in terms of cash flow?

Here. It isn't as simple as one specific number. Too many variables and every operation is different. Knock yerself out. I have toilet paper to hoard.

  https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/decisionaidsall.html 

[Leech~~]

Although this thread has been very Stimulating! 
Could we please just use the money to stop people from Dying instead!   

[Dotch]

Dotch,
The story about owing $100,000 in taxes left out one BIG fact.  Back in 2018 when the equipment was purchased, the buyer used section 179 to deduct the equipment cost thus reducing his tax bill by $100,000. Now, because he decided to sell the equipment and not use it in production (the reason he could deduct it in the first place) he should be required to repay the windfall that was accepted in 2018.  So, in effect the person should have the $100,000 in the bank to pay back the windfall.

Did you not read this part?

This meant a farmer or business owner who traded in farm equipment or other machinery in 2018, and realized a financial gain on that equipment, was subject to paying income taxes on that gain immediately. Whereas on the federal level, that tax increase was negated by higher upfront expensing limits. The tax bill signed by Gov. Walz only allowed the higher expensing limits over a six-year period, resulting in a tax increase in year one for farmers with only a promise it would be negated over six years.

[glenn57]

JB, yea that is how I read and understood it, after I read it the second and third time!!!!!!!!

[delcecchi]

Dotch,
The story about owing $100,000 in taxes left out one BIG fact.  Back in 2018 when the equipment was purchased, the buyer used section 179 to deduct the equipment cost thus reducing his tax bill by $100,000. Now, because he decided to sell the equipment and not use it in production (the reason he could deduct it in the first place) he should be required to repay the windfall that was accepted in 2018.  So, in effect the person should have the $100,000 in the bank to pay back the windfall.

Did you not read this part?

This meant a farmer or business owner who traded in farm equipment or other machinery in 2018, and realized a financial gain on that equipment, was subject to paying income taxes on that gain immediately. Whereas on the federal level, that tax increase was negated by higher upfront expensing limits. The tax bill signed by Gov. Walz only allowed the higher expensing limits over a six-year period, resulting in a tax increase in year one for farmers with only a promise it would be negated over six years.

And my friend that had a short sale on her house had to pay taxes on the "gain" associated with the amount of forgiven debt, since she tried to hang on too long and the special provision expired.   The IRS is still after the money after like a decade.   She is/was still working in her 70s

[LPS]

Dotch,
The story about owing $100,000 in taxes left out one BIG fact.  Back in 2018 when the equipment was purchased, the buyer used section 179 to deduct the equipment cost thus reducing his tax bill by $100,000. Now, because he decided to sell the equipment and not use it in production (the reason he could deduct it in the first place) he should be required to repay the windfall that was accepted in 2018.  So, in effect the person should have the $100,000 in the bank to pay back the windfall.

Did you not read this part?

This meant a farmer or business owner who traded in farm equipment or other machinery in 2018, and realized a financial gain on that equipment, was subject to paying income taxes on that gain immediately. Whereas on the federal level, that tax increase was negated by higher upfront expensing limits. The tax bill signed by Gov. Walz only allowed the higher expensing limits over a six-year period, resulting in a tax increase in year one for farmers with only a promise it would be negated over six years.

And my friend that had a short sale on her house had to pay taxes on the "gain" associated with the amount of forgiven debt, since she tried to hang on too long and the special provision expired.   The IRS is still after the money after like a decade.   She is/was still working in her 70s

Never thought about that happening.  Surprise surprise. 

[Rebel SS]

I thought the stimulus thing was a done deal...? Now saw Pelosi on the news, said it needs some tweaking, and hope to have it done by NEXT TUESDAY.....
Some guy I didn't recognize said this is insane; the people need the money NOW....so, what's goin' on?