I Asked ChatGPT if I’m Too ‘High-Income’ for Trump’s Tariff Stimulus
Written by
Laura Beck
Edited by
Brendan McGinley
Commitment to Our Readers
GOBankingRates' editorial team is committed to bringing you unbiased reviews and information. We use data-driven methodologies to evaluate financial products and services - our reviews and ratings are not influenced by advertisers. You can read more about our editorial guidelines and our products and services review methodology.
20 Years
Helping You Live Richer
Reviewed
by Experts
Trusted by
Millions of Readers
My household brings in roughly $100,000 annually between two earners. When I heard about Trump’s proposed $2,000-per-person tariff dividend excluding “high-income” families, I wondered if we’d qualify or get cut off. So I asked ChatGPT to break down where we’d likely land.
The AI came back with an answer that was simultaneously reassuring and frustrating: we’re right on the borderline, and nobody actually knows yet because the plan isn’t finalized.
What Trump Actually Proposed
ChatGPT explained that Trump floated a $2,000 “tariff dividend” per person funded by revenue collected through tariffs. The proposal specifically excludes high-income people, but that’s where clarity ends.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested the cutoff might be around $100,000 for families. That puts my household right at the edge of whatever line they’re drawing.
The problem is this remains a proposal, not law. ChatGPT emphasized repeatedly that “key details remain unclear.” No finalized legislation exists defining exact income thresholds, payment amounts or distribution timelines.
The Hawley Bill Alternative
ChatGPT also mentioned related legislation that might shape the final policy. Sen. Josh Hawley introduced the American Worker Rebate Act offering at least $600 per adult from tariff profits.
That bill uses different income cutoffs; it phases out for joint filers with adjusted gross income above $150,000. Under those numbers, my household would clearly qualify with $50,000 of cushion room.
But the Hawley bill isn’t Trump’s $2,000 proposal. The AI pointed out these are separate legislative efforts that might influence each other or might not. One could pass, the other could pass, both could pass in some merged form or neither could become law.
Where My Household Actually Stands
ChatGPT’s assessment for my specific situation was cautiously optimistic. “You are not necessarily ‘too high income’ yet. There’s a decent chance you could qualify if the $100K-family cutoff holds,” the AI explained.
If Bessent’s $100,000 family threshold is accurate, we’re right at the line. That means we could qualify, get a partial payment if there’s a phase-out range or get excluded entirely depending on how they define “family income.”
Is that $100,000 in total household income? Adjusted gross income? Modified adjusted gross income? Does it matter if we file jointly or separately? ChatGPT noted none of these technical details exist yet because the policy remains conceptual.
The AI was blunt about the uncertainty: “Because nothing is certain, you shouldn’t count on this money as guaranteed.”
What ChatGPT Recommended
The AI’s advice was practical: watch for updates but don’t plan around this money.
“It’s wise to watch for updates (legislation, Treasury announcements) and maybe do some planning, but don’t rely on the $2,000 per person ‘tariff dividend’ for your financial or budgeting projections until it’s more official,” ChatGPT said.
That makes sense. Building a budget around hypothetical payments creates problems when the payments never arrive or arrive at different amounts than expected. Better to treat potential stimulus as bonus money that shows up or doesn’t rather than essential income we’re counting on.
The Bigger Question Nobody’s Asking
What struck me about ChatGPT’s response was what it didn’t say. The AI focused entirely on eligibility mechanics without questioning whether tariff revenue would actually generate enough money to fund these payments.
Tariffs are taxes on imported goods. If tariffs raise prices, consumers pay more. The government collects that revenue, then redistributes some back as stimulus checks. But if tariffs successfully reduce imports (their stated policy goal), revenue drops. You can’t fund ongoing payments from shrinking revenue sources.
ChatGPT didn’t volunteer this analysis, which makes sense; I asked about eligibility, not economic feasibility. But it’s worth thinking about whether these payments are sustainable long-term or just one-time distributions that might not repeat.
What I’m Actually Doing
Based on ChatGPT’s breakdown, I’m not changing any financial plans. We’re continuing to max retirement contributions, maintain our emergency fund and handle expenses as if no stimulus exists.
If checks arrive, great! We’ll likely invest the money or accelerate debt payoff. If we’re just over the income threshold and don’t qualify, also fine. Our household budget doesn’t depend on hypothetical government payments with undefined eligibility rules.
ChatGPT’s answer confirmed what I suspected: nobody really knows who qualifies yet because the policy isn’t real yet. We’re somewhere on the borderline between eligible and excluded, and the only honest answer is to wait for actual legislation before making assumptions.
More From GOBankingRates
