Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Of course it's unfair.
But if you start thinking about the logistics involved, in trying to ensure that only the people in real danger or in the way of real harm got the dough, you can easily see that the time factor would kill it. I'm quite certain it was discussed and looked at, but people needed money for food and rent immediately, not in 2-3 months. Imagine how long they'd have waited, by the time they could fill out forms, have their income or savings verified, etc.
I've been lucky--able to keep my small biz open, keep paying my folks and all that. But I have two employees with laid-off/fired/whatever spouses/SOs and they're hurting. I've advanced monies (that realistically, I know I will never get back, let's not kid ourselves) several times, just in what, 4-6 weeks now, to help them from being evicted, or not being able to feed their kids. For people who live check-to-check, or near-as, especially with small children...they're hurting.
I can see why the US administration didn't want to hold up the payments for verification of this and that. I mean, hell, that's one of the major issues that plagued the Obamacare website, originally, and did so for how long? Over a year?
Yeah...I'm pretty sure that for triage purposes, now was more important than who worked where. It would indeed be nice if those risking their lives received more and all that, but in life, that doesn't always happen either, does it? I mean, in normal times, in everyday paychecks.
Hitch
|
As mentioned in this MSN story, some antiquated state unemployment systems couldn't handle anything but a one-size-fits-all lump sum.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/care...cre?li=BBnb7Kz
But I'm curious - are the unemployed spouses you mentioned not receiving that unemployment benefit? Or suffering despite receiving it? According to the story, average benefit should work out to about $978/wk...