Obama’s Second Stimulus Credit Equal to $13 More a Week

It’s not quite official, but it’s close. The highly sought after (and highly Googled) portion of the economic stimulus plan, the second stimulus check (or credit, this time), is almost official. Will it be another one-time $600 check like President Bush gave? No. Will it be a $10,000 check as some have suggested in past comments on this blog? No.

It will *likely* be $13 more, per week in your paycheck. If approved in its current form, the economic stimulus plan will give a tax credit to every worker of $400, split up and credited, over the balance of one year, via your paycheck. Which, according to the AP, works out to $13 per week. The math seems off to me, but oh well.

Jim Abrams of the AP did a Q&A on the stimulus and here’s what he had to say…

Q: What are some of the tax breaks in the bill?

A: It includes Obama’s signature “Making Work Pay” tax credit for 95 percent of workers, though negotiators agreed to trim the credit to $400 a yearinstead of $500 — or $800 for married couples, cut from Obama’s original proposal of $1,000. It would begin showing up in most workers’ paychecks in June as an extra $13 a week in take-home pay, falling to about $8 a week next January.

So what do you think? Is $13 more dollars a week going to make people go out and stimulate this economy by buying more? That is, after all the intent of the plan.

I think I’d rather see them put that money to better use. Although, I suspect for some, the extra $50 a month could make the difference. What do you think?

Share Button



Last Edited: February 11, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
About Philip Taylor

Philip Taylor, aka "PT", is a husband and father of two. He created PT Money back in 2007 to share his thoughts on money and to meet others passionate about managing their finances. All the content on this blog is original, and created or edited by PT. Read more about Philip Taylor, and be sure to connect with him on Twitter, Facebook, or view the Philip Taylor+ Google profile.

16 comments
Jason
Jason

$13 a week is ok, but what happens when you get used to that $13 a week, then its dropped down to $8 a week then its down to zero. Most people don't plan for that. If that $13 a week makes them and they budgeted around it, when its gone they will be suffering.

bkb
bkb

Hey People! NEWSFLASH----They are not changing the tax RATES!!!! You will OWE the 13/week you receive (26/couple) at the end of the tax year. This means next April 15th whatever your tax bill is, you'll need to adds an additional $650/single or $1300/couple to your bill. They are only changing your effective WITHHOLDINGS. YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY BACK THE "LOAN"> Got it???

PT
PT

@b - Short answer: No.

The extra money you are receiving is due to a tax credit that is being paid out to you by deducting less taxes from your paycheck. No pay back is necessary.

b
b

perhaps this is a stupid question, but since we are receiving this money via a paycheck, are we going to be taxed on it at the end of the year?

2foolish4u
2foolish4u

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!! only a idiot would give out $13.00 a check, it's worse then a slap in the face!!!

StLSteve
StLSteve

One major problem I see is that there are a ton of Americans out there who do not get a regular paycheck. What about sub contractors and business owners? Small businesses provide the mojority of jobs in this country and we get slapped in the face. We already work far more hours than employees, take all the risk of the business, and typically get paid next to nothing.

It's real simple in my mind, support the employers, and the employees will benefit.

Alana
Alana

Obama can take my $13 and shove it up Nancy Pelosils ars!

J
J

Sounds like either the wife and I get a small raise (which may be unlikely from my company this year), or the USGov is subsidizing most of my phone/satellite TV bill. Guess it's a matter of perspective.

jc
jc

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????? This is the biggest slap in the face joke I've seen in a long time. What a complete scam this whole stimulus plan is. I cant even tell you how badly I feel that our entire congress needs retooling. I swear to GOD that I could go down the street and come to the first person I see and he or she could come up with MANY, MANY better ways to spend 800 billion. HOLY CRAP, I've lost all faith in what I had left in our government. It is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. BUT HEY, at least I've got $13 a week to fall back on! I may be able to get a pizza, oh wait, a pizza is $16. Never mind. GOD HELP US ALL!!!

Kacie
Kacie

Hmm, I'm not too sure about this working.

My husband (and sole breadwinner) gets paid monthly, so his paycheck will be noticeably higher.

I can't promise we'll spend it. In fact, I think we probably won't. We'll probably throw the money at our car loan.

Ron@TheWisdomJournal
Ron@TheWisdomJournal

Get ready for more disappointments. This is typical when you put someone in charge that has less experience than the governor of Alaska...

PT
PT

Good points everyone. We're a one paycheck family so I didn't think about doubling the $50. $100 more is $100 more. Not bad. I'd take it. Would pay most of my utilities.

Jeff@StretchyDollar
Jeff@StretchyDollar

I can totally see where the above comments are coming from and I agree with them, but in our family's current financial situation that $100 (from my wife and I) is going to be a huge help. Not to say that I don't think there's a better way to do it and I AM frustrated with the complete lack of financial responsibility of the people who print and hand out the money, but I guess it's a bittersweet cut? Who knows?

Travis @ CMM
Travis @ CMM

That works out to about an extra $100 a month between my wife and I working. I mean it will help us a little, but what about when you get laid off. You'll end up getting nothing. My dad has been out of work for about 5 months now, he gets to draw $250 or so a week. Which is just enough to pay his Cobra insurance. Who can live like that? Luckily my mom's job is holding steady, so they're surviving. But I can only imagine what others are going through.

Miranda
Miranda

It's meant as a sop: "Look, we haven't forgotten you in the midst of throwing trillions of dollars at banks that made terrible and irresponsible decisions."

Besides, it's small enough that people might spend it -- they are more likely to spend such a small amount than they are to save it or use it to pay down debt -- two things our government doesn't want us to do.

john
john

What I would like to see is an analysis if it makes financial sense from the government standpoint to offer mortgage payments to be made using pretax dollars, like we can currently do with healthcare and childcare expenses. Obviously for the consumer it would be a great deal but I don't know how it would impact tax income.

Has anyone seen such an analysis done?