My federal aid is here!

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by masraum

Here's that's "unemployment". There's a limit (I think it's by state). It's usually for folks that get laid off, but it also works for folks that still have a job but have had their pay cut by a significant amount.

I'm not an expert, but I think that when you have a job, your employer pays "unemployment insurance" for you, and that's where this money comes from.

In the USA, every employer pays unemployment to the state with every paycheck. And the rates can vary a lot from one business to the next for the same job. So yea, unemployment checks are something paid for by the business that the employee works for.

[RNajarian]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

That is great. I have worked with a Filipina for the past twenty years, the best person on this or any other planet. As well, I have been to the Philippines many times.

She knows how much the Tribes mean to me, but I have started to help her charity in Macabebe.

That would make you both “Kapatids”


From Tagalog-Dictionary.com
Meaning of "kapatid"
kapatid • n. brother or sister, sibling (term of reference)

[gacook]

Originally Posted by tadd

I think it is $75k single or 150k married is the cap.

There's a little more to it than that.

If you make more than $75k but less than $100k, you will get "something." It's reduced $5 per $100 you're over the $75k mark. These numbers are doubled for couples.

[Mike Andrew]

Checked yesterday and mine has not arrived yet. Doesn't matter as Pelican and Cabela's already have it. It will end up with Visa. Trying to be a good citizen and stimulate things

[Chocaholic]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

How can you be SOL pulling down $198,001/yr?

Try having two kids in college...and actually paying for it. Crazy, I know.

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

Try having two kids in college...and actually paying for it. Crazy, I know.

I’m still not seeing it. If you’re bringing home $550/day-everyday-with two kids in college and you’re still struggling you might want to cut back on the booze, cars, homes, horses, hotels, planes or helicopters-choose any three.

SOL. Ha!

Not to toot my own horn in the poverty department but in my first year of college my parents made $8k for a family of 5 and nobody had to eat cat food. We did, however, spend a few days a month under the car in the gravel driveway making sure dad had a way to get back and forth to work. Honey, like from the bees, was a very rare luxury.

OK. I lied: toot toot!

[CurtEgerer]

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

I’m still not seeing it. If you’re bringing home $550/day-everyday-with two kids in college and you’re still struggling you might want to cut back on the booze, cars, homes, horses, hotels, planes or helicopters-choose any three.

SOL. Ha!


OK. I lied: toot toot!

I think you're missing the point. The discussion is about getting free **** from the gubmint.
Some people are getting it. Some people are not. It shouldn't matter how much someone makes, unless you are a socialist.
The people who are NOT getting it are getting their share of he debt instead. IOW, we have to sit and watch other people spend our money.
Yer welcome.

[Crowbob]

Ok Sammy.

You’re telling me some people are outraged because they’re not getting a check from the government that amounts to one month of their car payments but is the equivalent of 10% of a family of 4’s total income before they were deemed nonessential?

Thank you.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

Ok Sammy.

You’re telling me some people are outraged because they’re not getting a check from the government that amounts to one month of their car payments but is the equivalent of 10% of a family of 4’s total income before they were deemed nonessential?

Thank you.

Again, yer welcome.
And I don't speak for anyone else but yes, I am a bit outraged that SOME people are perfectly OK with gubmint sponsored wealth redistribution.
It doesn't bother me that I am not getting a check from the gubmint: it bothers me that others are, based on income.

Why should people be rewarded for living beyond their means or not saving?
Why should people be punished for being responsible?

They shouldn't.


BTW I don't have car payments.

[KFC911]

I didn't get squat either last time. "They're" gonna send me a bit of Sammy's $ this time around...

I'm gonna spend it too!

Thanks Sammy !

[sammyg2]

Yer welcome.
Maybe it'll be my turn next crisis if we don't wear out the printing presses by then.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

It doesn't bother me that I am not getting a check from the gubmint: it bothers me that others are, based on income.

Why should people be rewarded for living beyond their means or not saving?
Why should people be punished for being responsible?

Income and a propensity for savings are 2 entirely different things.

You could have a family of 4 making $50k per year that is uber frugal and saves every penny. They may only pay cash for everything (except their home, which they pay extra principal on).

You could have a guy/gal/ making $74k per year that has no savings, but lives in a cool place full of trendy furniture and clothes and has a really cool car that gets traded in every 3-4 years, and has a handful of maxed out credit cards.

Both of those scenarios would result in the same stimulus check. It's income based NOT how a person lives above or below their means or how good they are at saving for the future.

Just curious which issue you are most concerned about, income-based stimulus or spending habits.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by KC911

I didn't get squat either last time. "They're" gonna send me a bit of Sammy's $ this time around...

I'm gonna spend it too!

Thanks Sammy !

ROFLMAO!

Some day, we'll have to virtually have a beer! (I say virtually, since we're both introverted)

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by KC911

I didn't get squat either last time. "They're" gonna send me a bit of Sammy's $ this time around...

I'm gonna spend it too!

Thanks Sammy !

Don't forget Hugh!

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Yer welcome.
Maybe it'll be my turn next crisis if we don't wear out the printing presses by then.

‘Member when “the business of America is business”?
Now the business of America is printing money!💰
Yeehaaw! 😀

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by masraum

Income and a propensity for savings are 2 entirely different things.

You could have a guy/gal/family-of-4 making $50k per year that is uber frugal and saves every penny. They may only pay cash for everything (except their home, which they pay extra principal on).

You could have a guy/gal/family-of-4 making $149k per year that has no savings, but lives in a cool place full of trendy furniture and clothes and has a really cool car that gets traded in every 3-4 years, and has a handful of maxed out credit cards.

Both of those scenarios would result in the same stimulus check. It's income based NOT how a person lives above or below their means or how good they are at saving for the future.

Just curious which issue you are most concerned about, income-based stimulus or spending habits.

My understanding is that both of those scenarios would NOT result in the same stimulus check, the amount is a sliding scale based on income so a guy or gal making $149k would not get the same amount as a couple or family making $50k.
But I haven't done the math or dug into it that deeply.
(Ir)regardless:

Wealth redistribution by the gubmint is wrong. Both philosophically and in actual practice. It almost never solves the underlying problem it is intended for and usually exacerbates it.
IOW it's a temporary solution that creates a permanent problem.


No one should get a gubmint handout period, but especially just because because they are living paycheck to paycheck.
That creates a false security, a safety net that encourages poor decision-making.
It doesn't matter if they are spending too much or if they don't make enough to get by, to a certain extent those are the exact same thing.

There are some people in this country who are limited in their productivity due to diminished mental capacity or physical limitations. They aren't capable of earning good money through no fault of their own. And those people definitely should be helped, through PRIVATE charities.

For the rest of us:

When we were young we were told to study, pay attention, work hard, and get good grades so we could get a good job and live a comfortable life.
They said don't be lazy or drink or use drugs, don't lie or cheat or steal, make good responsible decisions.

Our parents told us that.
Our teachers told us that.
EVERYONE told us that.
They told us that so we wouldn't end up making minimum wage or close to it.

When we got out on our own, they told us to save some money for a rainy day.
Don't spend money you don't have.
Save up enough money to cover six months worth of expenses, BEFORE you buy that nice car, or get cable TV, or go out to dinner, or get that fast food, or go on that vacation, or get that I-phone or nice computer, etc etc etc.
Don't buy a house you can't afford, or maybe buy a smaller fixer-upper in a less desirable neighborhood. Don't over-extend.
It goes on and on. I also seem to recall them telling us to breed responsibly, don't have kids you can't afford.
But that's another rant.

Some people listened and got relatively decent-paying jobs and they did without those nice things for a while at least, in order to save money for that rainy day.
They did the right things and made the right decisions. They should be applauded.

Others did not and need a gubmint handout after missing one or two paychecks.
But it doesn't matter, they know they'll get bailed out no matter what so why work hard? Why do without, why sacrifice anything? The sun is out, let's play!!!!!!

Rewarding those who make the wrong decisions is counter-intuitive. It encourages more of the bad behavior, more of the irresponsibility, more of the questionable decision making.
It sends the wrong message and it sets the wrong example.
And it weakens our society.
It creates an new generation of bad decision-makers until half the ****ing country is living off the gubmint in one form or the other.

Which brings us to where we are today.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

My understanding is that both of those scenarios would NOT result in the same stimulus check, the amount is a sliding scale based on income so a guy or gal making $149k would not get the same amount as a couple or family making $50k.
But I haven't done the math or dug into it that deeply.

You're right. single person <75k no kids gets $1200. Couple <150k no kids get $2400 (1200/adult). If you add dependent kids to the mix, you get another 500 per kid. I left out the part that says 75
So single person making <75k that spends right up to their limit will get their max $1200. Family of 4 making <150k will get 3400.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by masraum

You're right. single person <75k no kids gets $1200. Couple <150k no kids get $2400 (1200/adult). If you add dependent kids to the mix, you get another 500 per kid. I left out the part that says 75
So single person making <75k that spends right up to their limit will get their max $1200. Family of 4 making <150k will get 3400.

Like i said I haven't dug deep, but that sounds right.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

No one should get a gubmint handout period, but especially just because because they are living paycheck to paycheck.

No one has said that the folks getting the check are living paycheck to paycheck. It's also not a part of the requirement for the stimulus.