Senate and WH Agree on Terms of Stimulus Package

[The Sultan]

You do not. But I think your parents would be eligible for the $500 bump per dependent.

This NBC News Q&A was really helpful overall. It addressed the dependent question specifically. - https://www.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-checks-direct-deposits-coming-105454070.html

Ok so if I have a college student then nothing. He is a dependent but over the age of 17.

[pbiflyer]

Now that so many more are eligible for unemployment benefits, it's gonna be interesting to see how various states' systems can handle the crush. I'm guessing there will be a bazillion problems, especially at first.

Texas's crashed Tuesday. Luckily brilliant folks  from their software company fixed it in short order.

[skianth16]

Ok so if I have a college student then nothing. He is a dependent but over the age of 17.

My understanding is that if you claim your college student as a dependent, then you get the extra bump as a parent, but your child will not be eligible for the $1,200 individual payment.

[forgetful]

As someone who is a principal in a small/mid sized business that was hit EXTREMELY hard by the trade war and also had a number of people, including myself, who took substantial pay cuts in late 2019 to keep people employed and the lights on, we've had our global business screech to a halt, many customers flat out tell us they can't/won't pay until after lockdowns, and have no meaningful revenue come in while we're shut down. I'm skeptical of how much we are truly going to be "assisted" and to add insult to injury, I and multiple others did "too well" in 2018 to meet the threshold for stimulus despite coming under in 2019 for various reasons. Corporate taxes hadn't been finished so I and others couldn't file personal yet.

Some are being punished because they couldn't file taxes yet, others are being punished because they did file in a timely manner. That aspect of this seems quite poorly planned and could have been fixed by allowing people to get whatever the higher amount would be based on 2018/2019 taxes. And if you would have been better off with 2019 taxes, and couldn't or didn't file yet, you would get the difference added to your refund.

But those in Washington don't really think.

[Jockey]

Some are being punished because they couldn't file taxes yet, others are being punished because they did file in a timely manner. That aspect of this seems quite poorly planned and could have been fixed by allowing people to get whatever the higher amount would be based on 2018/2019 taxes. And if you would have been better off with 2019 taxes, and couldn't or didn't file yet, you would get the difference added to your refund.

But those in Washington don't really think.

For once I will stand up for Washington. As hastily as they had to do this, there were no perfect answers and some people will get hurt more than others.

But, I really feel for people like Wags. He owns a business that could go under due to the virus and not enough was done for small businesses.

He is a very articulate poster, and God knows we are in short supply of those here. It's easy for me to ramble on about my feelings and my disgust at how we have been lied to, but this is about survival for guys like Wags and others. I do not take his thoughts lightly.

[Hards Alumni]

The original plan proposed by Rubio, which was expected to remain unmodified in the final draft, would be retroactive to March 1, to help bring workers who may have been laid off back onto payrolls.   Here are the key provisions:

-Loans would be immediately available through existing Small Business Administration-certified lenders, including banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions, and SBA would be required to streamline the process to bring additional lenders into the program.

-The Secretary of Treasury would be authorized to expedite the addition of new lenders and make further enhancements to expedite delivery of capital to small employers.

-The size of the loans would be tied to an applicant's average monthly payroll; mortgage, rent, and utility payments; and other debt obligations over the previous year. The maximum loan amount would be $10 million.

-Conditional upon business retaining their employees and payroll levels during the covered period (March 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020), the portion of the loan used to cover payroll and payments on pre-existing debt would be forgiven. Further, employers with tipped employees would receive forgiveness for additional wages paid to such employees during the covered time.

I don't know for sure that none of these provisions was changed in the final draft, but this will be huge for many small businesses.

Getting back to this, so this is retroactive to 3/1?  This is going to be a really hard pill to swallow for anyone that had to tell their employees to claim unemployment starting last week.  I'd wager that almost no small businesses can afford to pay their employees to stay home for weeks at a time.  How does this help small businesses that were forced to make decisions based on the information at the time?  Better yet, how does it help the employees that could be getting full time pay when this kicks in but now can't because their bills come due whether or not the government thinks they can pass this bill?  Someone help me out here, am I misunderstanding?

[jesmu84]

Seems like Canada had their crap together when it came to navigating this situation

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.

"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."

[Hards Alumni]

Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.

"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."

Good.

[#UnleashSean]

Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.

"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."

Good. Now I hope the airlines get tons of restrictions with theirs.

[🏀]

Not sure if this was already posted, but no bail out money for the cruise lines.

"The major cruise ship lines are shut out of the $2T coronavirus stimulus package headed for a vote today in the U.S. House, despite President Trump's desire to help them. The package limits aid to U.S.-incorporated companies with a majority of workers based in the U.S., two criteria that effectively exclude Carnival (NYSE:CCL), Norwegian (NYSE:NCLH) and Royal Caribbean (NYSE:RCL). "There's a risk that cruise ships are laid up for an extended period of time," said Wedbush analyst James Hardiman. "They'll continue to burn cash without any revenue coming in the door."

Can't make a Tomlette without breaking a few Gregs

[skianth16]

The explanation below goes through some of the key provisions for companies receiving funding from the stimulus. I haven't seen anything unique to airlines yet.

"Companies accepting loans may not repurchase outstanding stock or pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid; must maintain employment levels they had March 24, 2020, "to the extent practicable" through Sept. 30, and not cut jobs by over 10 percent from that level; or give raises to executives earning over $425,000 annually until loan repaid."

I think this is pretty fair, personally. The employment levels piece seems kind of gray, so I'll be interested to learn a little more about who decides what is practicable or not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/26/stimulus-package-here-highlights/2918723001/

[Hards Alumni]

Can't make a Tomlette without breaking a few Gregs

[JWags85]

For once I will stand up for Washington. As hastily as they had to do this, there were no perfect answers and some people will get hurt more than others.

But, I really feel for people like Wags. He owns a business that could go under due to the virus and not enough was done for small businesses.

He is a very articulate poster, and God knows we are in short supply of those here. It's easy for me to ramble on about my feelings and my disgust at how we have been lied to, but this is about survival for guys like Wags and others. I do not take his thoughts lightly.

Appreciate the words.  Its been tough and anxiety filled to say the least.  Gotta try to tune out some of the noise and hope for the best unfortunately.  Had a productive CC with our banker yesterday, and pending details of the stimulus, we're working on contingencies.   Survive and advance.

[MU82]

The explanation below goes through some of the key provisions for companies receiving funding from the stimulus. I haven't seen anything unique to airlines yet.

"Companies accepting loans may not repurchase outstanding stock or pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid; must maintain employment levels they had March 24, 2020, "to the extent practicable" through Sept. 30, and not cut jobs by over 10 percent from that level; or give raises to executives earning over $425,000 annually until loan repaid."

I think this is pretty fair, personally. The employment levels piece seems kind of gray, so I'll be interested to learn a little more about who decides what is practicable or not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/03/26/stimulus-package-here-highlights/2918723001/

The only thing that disappoints me is that companies accepting loans may not pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid.

Unlike stock buybacks, dividends matter to millions of smaller retail investors. Many seniors live on dividends and Social Security; many have built their entire investing strategy around dividends. This could hurt some of them a lot.

I kind of see why a company that accepts loans shouldn't be allowed to increase dividends, and maybe even shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends. But I absolutely do not see why they should have to wait a year after repaying loans to reinstate dividends. Once they repay their obligation, they should be allowed to pay dividends again.

Disclosure: Dividends aren't the end-all and be-all for me, but they are a pretty big part of my investing strategy because over time companies that grow dividends have outperformed non-dividend payers.

I invest almost exclusively in large, blue-chip, dividend-growing companies, but this shouldn't affect me because few (if any) of the companies I own will need to accept bailout money. Also, I also don't need to live off my dividends yet. I am concerned about those who do, however.

[Hards Alumni]

Another question.  Assume I have 30 employees normally, and only 5 are currently working... so when I file for the loan to pay my workers, what incentive do my 5 current workers have to continue to work?  Would they be able to earn normal wages above and beyond what their payroll normally would be?  I guess I could tell those folks that we have work so they have to work for their money... but how is that fair?  They're working for full pay, while some get to stay home?  I suppose a rotation could work, but some people have kids at home and can't find daycare, and some are old and at risk.

Maybe I'm just a bit overwhelmed here and I haven't read enough about this yet.

[The Sultan]

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/27/donald-trump-throw-kentucky-rep-thomas-massie-out-gop/2924610001/


What an a$$hole.  Apparently is rejecting to having a voice vote on the meausre, so now Reps have to return to Washington to have a role call.

Deservedly getting it from both sides including the President.

[#UnleashSean]

Another question.  Assume I have 30 employees normally, and only 5 are currently working... so when I file for the loan to pay my workers, what incentive do my 5 current workers have to continue to work?  Would they be able to earn normal wages above and beyond what their payroll normally would be?  I guess I could tell those folks that we have work so they have to work for their money... but how is that fair?  They're working for full pay, while some get to stay home?  I suppose a rotation could work, but some people have kids at home and can't find daycare, and some are old and at risk.

Maybe I'm just a bit overhelmed here and I haven't read enough about this yet.

This is something I'm also confused about.

My girlfriend works at a daycare. They sent out that they would have limited hours and children etc.

So you had 2 options. They would pay the normal wage for the ones who were at home. While the ones who continued to work got a 4 dollar an hour raise. Which my girlfriend was ecstatic about.

But I thought that basically sounded like working for 4 dollars an hour instead.

[warriorchick]

This is something I'm also confused about.

My girlfriend works at a daycare. They sent out that they would have limited hours and children etc.

So you had 2 options. They would pay the normal wage for the ones who were at home. While the ones who continued to work got a 4 dollar an hour raise. Which my girlfriend was ecstatic about.

But I thought that basically sounded like working for 4 dollars an hour instead.

I would literally pay someone 4 dollars an hour to be able to work  in my regular office.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The only thing that disappoints me is that companies accepting loans may not pay dividends until one year after borrowing is repaid.

Unlike stock buybacks, dividends matter to millions of smaller retail investors. Many seniors live on dividends and Social Security; many have built their entire investing strategy around dividends. This could hurt some of them a lot.

I kind of see why a company that accepts loans shouldn't be allowed to increase dividends, and maybe even shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends. But I absolutely do not see why they should have to wait a year after repaying loans to reinstate dividends. Once they repay their obligation, they should be allowed to pay dividends again.

Strongly agree with this

[MUBurrow]

It is non political to state that Thomas Massie should be catapulted into the fucking sun, right?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

It is non political to state that Thomas Massie should be catapulted into the unnatural carnal knowledgeing sun, right?

Finally something everyone can agree on!

[warriorchick]

It is non political to state that Thomas Massie should be catapulted into the unnatural carnal knowledgeing sun, right?

I can promise you that the GOP is already on the phone with candidates to run against him in the next primary.  Too bad it's too late for 2020.

[The Sultan]

Strongly agree with this

I actually disagree.  The owners of the company should not be getting income from the company when it is using a federal loan to keep its operations gooing.  I would agree that once the loan is paid in full, a dividend could start immediately.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I actually disagree.  The owners of the company should not be getting income from the company when it is using a federal loan to keep its operations gooing.  I would agree that once the loan is paid in full, a dividend could start immediately.

That is what 82 said (OK, he was undecided on continuing to pay current dividends) that I agreed with.

"I kind of see why a company that accepts loans shouldn't be allowed to increase dividends, and maybe even shouldn't be allowed to pay dividends. But I absolutely do not see why they should have to wait a year after repaying loans to reinstate dividends. Once they repay their obligation, they should be allowed to pay dividends again."