The limit was based on AGI for the first two rounds. Are you saying it should be MAGI instead of AGI, or it should be MAGI or AGI instead of “total income” (unadjusted)? Me confused.
Also I think the “M” in “MAGI” isn’t standard, as various tax items use their own formulas to “modify” AGI.
It’s hard for me to believe that stimulus payments would be based on up to AGI $150k.
But in that very same message you said …
Never mind. It was meant as a joke, but I obviously worded it in a way that didn’t make sense to you.
But I still have a problem calling anyone making 150k/year “rich”. Is that going to be the cut off for the new “millionaire” tax?
I was just reading that no, $150k is a break because Biden really wanted $80k-$160k.
I may be outside of todays reasoning wave but this stimulus deal is outlandish. 
You have a fixed income with no required input. A fixed income is the best possible kind of income (not warranting subsidies like property tax freezes or no federal taxes. Younger people with unstable incomes and larger required commitments are where these should be targeted…).
The intentionally chosen and federally orchestrated out-of-control pandemic has destroyed many people’s livelihoods. A few $k is not anywhere enough relief for those impacted. Stimulus for those who have not been impacted or who have profited is just nonsense. The cost is huge to send out the stimulus to “everyone” vs a more targeted and larger relief to those who actually have been impacted.
Please don’t think I have no Property tax or IRS taxes. I live in CA & have whooping taxes…
True, younger folks have “a hard row to tow”. I have a couple children.
By using AGI you can still make deductible HSA, IRA or 401k contributions and put money in tax exempt bonds and not have it count as income.
I dont have a problem with it. The fact they’ve chosen to “cash out” their wealth in real time rather than save it, doesnt yield any sympathy from me when they suddenly have to cut back on the lifesyle they’ve become accustomed to.
Fun fact - I do not have $150k earned income over my entire life, total… 
That IS a fun fact. How did you pull that off?
I wish I could say it was my foresight to bet $500 on bitcoin 10 years ago. Alas, most of my luck has been avoiding downside risks, not maximizing upside. Having a handful of American Express cards over the years didnt hurt, either… 
My fun fact is skewed a bit by having a wholly owned C-corp that paid no salary for a few years. In the end it didnt contribute much to the net worth - if the gains had been paid as wages, it wouldve been far below minimum wage - but there is a ton of uncompensated labor in that “less than $150k lifetime”.
My strategy too. Which meant we invested in the safe liquid accounts=interest income. Should have picked capital gains and deferrals, esp. last few years. Would love the ability to control the "when " of the income
Unfortunately as a W-2 employees most can’t do what you and I believe Bezos do with their earned income. and that’s my point about using $80K AGI as the cutoff point. In some parts of the country that would barely cover rent, with a large family. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/03/fewer-americans-could-receive-those-1400-stimulus-checks-heres-why.html
But that’s still a choice; in order to be stuck with such high rent, you first had to chose to live in that area. And the biggest reason they are ‘forced’ to struggle with those living expenses is because they simply dont want to move to somewhere cheaper. Regardless of why that is, and how valid the reasoning may or may not be, it’s still a choice.
In a lot of the country, $80k will buy a decent house, a majority of large families live entirely off much less than $80k/year, and the mere prospect of a $80k annual salary is considered “hitting the big time”. In my neck of the woods, it’s considered laughable to feel sorry for someone being unable to pay their $5k/month rent. Not because we’re heartless, but because we understand there are countless options to chose between paying $5k and being homeless. I have little respect for someone who’s desperately clinging to something they clearly cannot afford while expecting others to make up the difference.
fair enough I agree with the house point and I’ve used it as a proponent of high property vs income taxes in some states like TX.
You can chose to live in small house, in a nice area vs shouldn’t chose low income + less gaming like you can with income ( Deferred, cap. gains, deductions etc). I guess that’s my complaint as W2 employee I’d much rather have assets/property tax be a metric of richness, but that will never happen
Seems crazy you can go from getting well over $6000 check ( single with 3 kids ) to $0 in only $5000 difference in income ( $75k vs. 80k. ). If they want $80 to be the cutoff why not start reducing at $60k. Gonna be a lot of pissed people on the wrong side of the cliff.
Head of household limit is higher than the single limit. Last I saw it was $112,500.
I think the point is that the phaseout window is way too narrow for all three kinds of filers. You “lose” a lot by earning just a little, especially so for households with more children.
Aren’t you required to take a reasonable salary from a C-corp you own and run?
But that’s going to happen at some level regardless, someone will always be just on the other side of the cliff. All a wider phaseout window would do is subject more people to the same phenomenon. I dont see how it would make someone who’s still getting nothing feel any better about it.
S-Corps require a salary breakout. There is something about personal services corps, which I was not so I never bothered to learn.
I do. It’s not necessarily logical, it’s emotional.
A family of four with $150K AGI are going to get an extra $5600 tax-free. If that same family made $160K, not only would they pay more income tax on the extra $10K, they also wouldn’t get the $5600. That’s HUGE. And, unlike most other things that get phased out, is hugely unfair.