The Vent and Rant Thread

[badgoodDeb]

It's most definitely a one-off payment.

[HLS]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

I'm in no hurry to get it - it will go straight back to IRS when I file my 2019 taxes...

Funny I owe state taxes $1,100 lol Waiting to get notice to set up pay plan.

[cc_in_oh]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Boomerang money.

Curious: is the $1,200 a one off payment, or salary replacement. I ask because we have both, a $500 one off to seniors etc, and a $500/week wage subsidy per employee to employers who are negatively impacted by covid19.

The latter, known as Jobkeeper, is riddled with loopholes. Furloughed part-time casuals who previously earned $200 a week, now get $500 a week for watching Netflix, political parties can claim it for their employees. Yet I know a young woman who can't get it because she hasn't lived here for more than 10 years, and she hasn't worked for her current employer (audiologist clinic) for 12 months or more.

BR

Similar situation here - people risking their health for their usual $10/hr less taxes while others are getting an extra $15/hr for staying home on unemployment. Most seniors get the one-time $1200 even though there's no disruption of their social security, Medicare or other pension benefits. I'd much rather see the money go to the people taking the real risks...

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

...Most seniors get the one-time $1200 even though there's no disruption of their social security, Medicare or other pension benefits. I'd much rather see the money go to the people taking the real risks...

Of course, one could also argue that as they are the vast majority of those dying then they perhaps have no need for the money, but that would seem to be even more churlish.

But putting that aside, as approx. 80% of the USA deaths are in the 65+ age group (CDC data for last week) one could argue that it is that group who are taking the majority of the risk and so, using your risk facing argument, deserve the stimulus payment more than anyone else.

In my own country, as of today, 100% of all deaths have been in age group age over 60 years, 90% of the deaths have been over the age of 70 years.

EDIT: Just checked our near neighbor's latest figures, for Australia approx. 96% of all deaths have been in age group 60+ years, and approx. 90% in 70+ years age group.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

Similar situation here - people risking their health for their usual $10/hr less taxes while others are getting an extra $15/hr for staying home on unemployment. Most seniors get the one-time $1200 even though there's no disruption of their social security, Medicare or other pension benefits. I'd much rather see the money go to the people taking the real risks...

I gave my $500 to the young woman I mentioned.

BR

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Of course, one could also argue that as they are the vast majority of those dying then they perhaps have no need for the money, but that would seem to be even more churlish.

But putting that aside, as approx. 80% of the USA deaths are in the 65+ age group (CDC data for last week) one could argue that it is that group who are taking the majority of the risk and so, using your risk facing argument, deserve the stimulus payment more than anyone else.

In my own country, as of today, 100% of all deaths have been in age group age over 60 years, 90% of the deaths have been over the age of 70 years.

EDIT: Just checked our near neighbor's latest figures, for Australia approx. 96% of all deaths have been in age group 60+ years, and approx. 90% in 70+ years age group.

One could argue that perhaps they need it for cremation costs.

Hitch

[cc_in_oh]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Of course, one could also argue that as they are the vast majority of those dying then they perhaps have no need for the money, but that would seem to be even more churlish.

But putting that aside, as approx. 80% of the USA deaths are in the 65+ age group (CDC data for last week) one could argue that it is that group who are taking the majority of the risk and so, using your risk facing argument, deserve the stimulus payment more than anyone else.

In my own country, as of today, 100% of all deaths have been in age group age over 60 years, 90% of the deaths have been over the age of 70 years.

EDIT: Just checked our near neighbor's latest figures, for Australia approx. 96% of all deaths have been in age group 60+ years, and approx. 90% in 70+ years age group.

That argument could be made but you're actually the first person I've heard make it. My point was that the stated purpose was to relieve the economic hit but it was politically impractical to give it only to those who actually suffered the hit.

But the real unfairness IMO is giving an unemployed $10/hr worker an extra $600/wk while a supermarket employee e.g. is expected to continue risking his health for his usual $10/hr. Health and safety workers are better paid, but they too IMO deserved some of that money to compensate for the extra risk their jobs now entail...

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

That argument could be made but you're actually the first person I've heard make it. My point was that the stated purpose was to relieve the economic hit but it was politically impractical to give it only to those who actually suffered the hit.

But the real unfairness IMO is giving an unemployed $10/hr worker an extra $600/wk while a supermarket employee e.g. is expected to continue risking his health for his usual $10/hr. Health and safety workers are better paid, but they too IMO deserved some of that money to compensate for the extra risk their jobs now entail...

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

[cc_in_oh]

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...

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

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...

Well, I'm not privy to all their personal biz. One of my people who works for me part-time, floating, is getting quite a lot MORE than her former pay, (for her other gig, that is) because they allowed independent contractors to receive it, so her rent, etc. is secure.

Another has a spouse that for whatever reason--perhaps he was being paid sub rosa--that's not earning, so...y'know, I pitched in. I ask questions, but I'm not Torquemada. {shrug}.

Hitch

[cc_in_oh]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, I'm not privy to all their personal biz. One of my people who works for me part-time, floating, is getting quite a lot MORE than her former pay, (for her other gig, that is) because they allowed independent contractors to receive it, so her rent, etc. is secure.

Another has a spouse that for whatever reason--perhaps he was being paid sub rosa--that's not earning, so...y'know, I pitched in. I ask questions, but I'm not Torquemada. {shrug}.

Hitch

Not questioning or doubting, just curious because it seems like an extra $600/wk would cover most people pretty comfortably, especially if they're saving on work expenses, child care, payroll taxes etc.

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

But the real unfairness IMO is giving an unemployed $10/hr worker an extra $600/wk while a supermarket employee e.g. is expected to continue risking his health for his usual $10/hr. Health and safety workers are better paid, but they too IMO deserved some of that money to compensate for the extra risk their jobs now entail...

Agreed. It also seems unfair that, now that some businesses are re-opening, workers who've been called back to work are no longer eligible for unemployment pay. But (a) their old job paid them less than this temporary boost to unemployment benefits and (b) their revamped job probably will have a lot less customers, so they'll get less tips and make even less than they used to make.

[cc_in_oh]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

Agreed. It also seems unfair that, now that some businesses are re-opening, workers who've been called back to work are no longer eligible for unemployment pay. But (a) their old job paid them less than this temporary boost to unemployment benefits and (b) their revamped job probably will have a lot less customers, so they'll get less tips and make even less than they used to make.

That's a tough call. But it basically puts them in the same position as, say, supermarket workers who've been expected to continue working vs. collecting the supersized unemployment checks. It just seems like there should be a better way to even out the impact on peoples' lives...

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

Not questioning or doubting, just curious because it seems like an extra $600/wk would cover most people pretty comfortably, especially if they're saving on work expenses, child care, payroll taxes etc.

You'd think! :-)

Hitch

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by cc_in_oh

Not questioning or doubting, just curious because it seems like an extra $600/wk would cover most people pretty comfortably, especially if they're saving on work expenses, child care, payroll taxes etc.

It depends on the cost of living. If someone lives in an area with a high cost of living and expensive housing (New York City, San Francisco, etc.) that money might not go very far.

Of course it would be complicated for the government to set up a program to pay different amounts to people living in different cities so that's unlikely to happen.



Hitch, you are a kind and generous person to help out the people in your life this way.