Coronavirus Stimulus Aid Package

[yelped]

What happens when all those who raked in tens of thousands of dollars last year from Unemployment try to renew their Jersey Care and have to send it tax returns that are way over the limit, even after the $10,200 reduction?

Will they get kicked off Jersey Care? Or will they be able to prove that their current income (in the future) is below the limit?

Not nogaya for me, just wondering overall.

They don't ask for tax returns. They ask for paystubs. Besides, they are not kicking anyone off now until Covid 19 is over.

[YitzyS]

They don't ask for tax returns. They ask for paystubs. Besides, they are not kicking anyone off now until Covid 19 is over.

Was asking about year 2039 or whenever its over.

I remember being asked for tax returns, but perhaps things changed.

[AsherO]

-100,000
I personally know people that were making pretty decent parnassah (180-300k) pre covid and they either lost their job or their business went down the drain, and now all their income is unemployment, stimulus and PPP/EIDL. They are really struggling.

These are people who never collected and won't collect kimcha dpishca money. These socialist handouts give to the lower classes (and lower middle class), but the people who were well off and took a tumble due to COVID might have lost 20-40% of their cushy 300-400k income and are (relatively) hurting.

[aygart]

These are people who never collected and won't collect kimcha dpishca money. These socialist handouts give to the lower classes (and lower middle class), but the people who were well off and took a tumble due to COVID might have lost 20-40% of their cushy 300-400k income and are (relatively) hurting.

If they are hurting from legitimate sensible standards based on realistic sustainable income then they are just as eligible.

[simple26]

When is @Dan ddms post coming?

[Lurker]

the people who were well off and took a tumble due to COVID might have lost 20-40% of their cushy 300-400k income and are (relatively) hurting.

There are many, many people who were making 100k-300k who have lost a lot more than 20-40%. Off the bat, I know of a bunch of businesses related to live entertainment and travel industries who have been completely shut down.

[AsherO]

There are many, many people who were making 100k-300k who have lost a lot more than 20-40%. Off the bat, I know of a bunch of businesses related to live entertainment and travel industries who have been completely shut down.

I picked the 20-40% because it would preclude them from collecting on many of the non-business handouts. I’m sure you’re right and there are many whose income has fallen more than 40% like you said.

[carrentals]

I'm looking for the text of the amendment. So far I was only able to find the one that was introduced before Manchin threw a fit.

In the original amendment it wasn't going to be income at all- not just non-taxable income (so instead of being a $10,200 UI deduction, it wasn't going to count towards AGI at all). The final amendment is different because it has a $150k cap- not sure what else was changed. If anyone has the text, kindly post.

Thanks for the reply. I tried looking around but can’t find the actual text of the bill.

[TBD]

I'm looking for the text of the amendment. So far I was only able to find the one that was introduced before Manchin threw a fit.

In the original amendment it wasn't going to be income at all- not just non-taxable income (so instead of being a $10,200 UI deduction, it wasn't going to count towards AGI at all). The final amendment is different because it has a $150k cap- not sure what else was changed. If anyone has the text, kindly post.

This?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1319/BILLS-117hr1319eh.pdf

[carrentals]

This?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1319/BILLS-117hr1319eh.pdf

That is the original Bill. We are now discussing the amendment which should be here but seems to be missing
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/117th-congress/senate-amendment/1398?s=1&r=1

[TBD]

That is the original Bill. We are now discussing the amendment which should be here but seems to be missing
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/117th-congress/senate-amendment/1398?s=1&r=1

Maybe it was based on this which was introduced in Sep 2020?

[aygart]

I don’t know or care. That’s for people to decide for themselves. Do we not trust people to handle their own finances?
Did you see the second part of my post? It’s scary how with no downside some would still prefer people not have their lives improved for the sake of “cApiTAlism”.

Ask those managing tzedakos about this exact situation. It is very easy while the cash is there to raise your standards to unsustainable levels. It happens all the time. Just look at how many people spend their entire tax refund on items they do not consider to be necessities as soon as they know how much it is. If people would put their tax refunds away for chasuna/retirement/rainy day/etc. then we they would be a lot more financially sound than spending it on a shaitel/car/vacation/etc. and we wouldn't have so many people DEEP in credit card debt. I have been working for the last 3-4 years to get a local hachnossas kallah fund off the ground. One of the biggest issues were people who can barely put food on the table yet need to make a shabbos sheva brachos that is costing them thousands of dollars more to serve on china with a higher end caterer.

The no downside is at best speculative and there is also the slippery slope involved.

[zh cohen]

It’s scary how with no downside some would still prefer people not have their lives improved for the sake of “cApiTAlism”.

Those who support capitalism do so because they (or those who shaped their views) believe it is better for people. Your insinuation that they care more about their political views than they care about people is probably a violation of rule #3

[S209]

Ask those managing tzedakos about this exact situation. It is very easy while the cash is there to raise your standards to unsustainable levels. It happens all the time. Just look at how many people spend their entire tax refund on items they do not consider to be necessities as soon as they know how much it is. If people would put their tax refunds away for chasuna/retirement/rainy day/etc. then we they would be a lot more financially sound than spending it on a shaitel/car/vacation/etc. and we wouldn't have so many people DEEP in credit card debt. I have been working for the last 3-4 years to get a local hachnossas kallah fund off the ground. One of the biggest issues were people who can barely put food on the table yet need to make a shabbos sheva brachos that is costing them thousands of dollars more to serve on china with a higher end caterer.

But don’t invoke capitalism as the reason not to give people money to handle themselves, you’re advocating for a nanny state to give less money to people because it’s best for them.

The no downside is at best speculative and there is also the slippery slope involved.

I don’t think there is no downside, but in my post I wrote *if it doesn’t do any damage*.

[S209]

Those who support capitalism do so because they (or those who shaped their views) believe it is better for people. Your insinuation that they care more about their political views than they care about people is probably a violation of rule #3

Your misreading of my post is probably not a violation of any rule, but is still disturbing.

If* it doesn’t damage the economy or the country, why not? It’s always better for more people to have more money than less.


*I think it will.

Did you see the second part of my post? It’s scary how with no downside some would still prefer people not have their lives improved for the sake of “cApiTAlism”.

And back to discussing ideas, not people: If one feels other people should have less money *with the caveat that there would be no downside to them having more* then those are scary people.

[aygart]

But don’t invoke capitalism as the reason not to give people money to handle themselves, you’re advocating for a nanny state to give less money to people because it’s best for them.
I don’t think there is no downside, but in my post I wrote *if it doesn’t do any damage*.

No I am advocating for the state not to take away money from myself and others who are privileged enough to pay taxes to give out to people. I am also concerned that people will end up much worse off than they started over the long term. I have been involved enough with tzedakos and chesed organizations to have seen this play out WAY too many times. I made no mention of capitalism.

It is not so simple to raise tzedaka money for such a situation.

but

If they are hurting from legitimate sensible standards based on realistic sustainable income then they are just as eligible.

[S209]

No I am advocating for the state not to take away money from myself and others who are privileged enough to pay taxes to give out to people. I am also concerned that people will end up much worse off than they started over the long term. I have been involved enough with tzedakos and chesed organizations to have seen this play out WAY too many times. I made no mention of capitalism.

but

I agree with you that governments should not be redistributing wealth willy-nilly to those less fortunate at the expense of higher earners.

Here is the point I was making: the mere fact that some will end up with more money is in and of itself an inherently good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t think it’s our job to manage people’s finances for them, or feel resentful that others can share in good fortune and wealth.

It is only the way they are getting it is that I have an issue with- by taking money from the system with potential to severely impact the economy and our future, as well as at the cost of others.

[zh cohen]

I agree with you that governments should not be redistributing wealth willy-nilly to those less fortunate at the expense of higher earners.

Here is the point I was making: the mere fact that some will end up with more money is in and of itself an inherently good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t think it’s our job to manage people’s finances for them, or feel resentful that others can share in good fortune and wealth.

It is only the way they are getting it is that I have an issue with- by taking money from the system with potential to severely impact the economy and our future, as well as at the cost of others.

And you responded to the criticism of the way they are getting the money (socialism) with an insinuation that he wants to keep people poor.

Also, you only excluded one type of drawback (economic), not any of the other ways in which taking money from some people to give to others might be harmful.

[aygart]

I agree with you that governments should not be redistributing wealth willy-nilly to those less fortunate at the expense of higher earners.

Here is the point I was making: the mere fact that some will end up with more money is in and of itself an inherently good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t think it’s our job to manage people’s finances for them, or feel resentful that others can share in good fortune and wealth.

It is only the way they are getting it is that I have an issue with- by taking money from the system with potential to severely impact the economy and our future, as well as at the cost of others.

If you give to them or it is your responsibility. Someone who never experienced managing an amount of money that you give them and suddenly stop can lead to disastrous results.

[S209]

And you responded to the criticism of the way they are getting the money (socialism) with an insinuation that he wants to keep people poor.

I responded to this post

It’s scary how with a few handouts so many in this country are embracing socialism.

But please, tell me how about I escalated this to personal attacks.

Also, you only excluded one type of drawback (economic), not any of the other ways in which taking money from some people to give to others might be harmful.

Are you intentionally lying? I said nothing about taking money from others. Please reread my original post before continuing to completely misrepresent what I said.

I also said if it doesn’t damage the economy or the country. My intent was clear: there is nothing inherently bad about people having more money.