Senate, White House agree $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus ($1200 checks & 4 months of expanded unemployment benefits) Update3: Signed into law!

KHarvey16

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,988
I work for a company, but am not hourly, I am paid per job (usually 4 jobs/customers per day) so my pay fluciates. My paycheck has been around 30% lower every week for the past several weeks and no sign of stopping. I live/work in Virginia, is this grounds for partial unemployment? If I am granted partial unemployment, would that mean I get $600 from Federal+whatever the state would pay? or did this bill not include partial unemployment?
If you're eligible for unemployment in Virginia you'd be able to collect the $600. You'd have to check with the state to be sure, but I think they usually determine underemployment by comparing what you're being paid to what your benefit amount would be if you were collecting.
 

Phonzo

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,938
What happens to folks that had to accept a pay decrease?

My sis got hers decreased by 5%, not a huge deal but when it comes at a time when she should be getting a raise its something
 

Beanman25

Member
Oct 25, 2017
397
Filed today, online. W help of this thread. Despite low income I am getting 254 bucks back. So if I get the stimulus too, great.

Ty to those who helped me 💪
 

kIdMuScLe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
822
Question my wife works at the same school district as me in la county and she is a 3.5hr part time Food service worker but normally works 7hrs per day. So anyhoo our school district is paying us during the shutdown but only at our contracted hours so basically for her she would only get paid 3.5hr per day. Can she file for unemployment or no?

p.s. lastly my wife wants to file for unemployment about a restaurant job she lost last summer but I told her is too late for that am I right or wrong?? Thanks and sorry if this is a difficult question to answer 😬
 

Subutai

Member
Oct 25, 2017
564
When I file a 2018 1040 for the $1200, do I have to file state taxes as well? Income was 0 in 2018 to be clear.
 

Zok310

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,114
Wow, so unemployment is the place to be right now you get the most out of this.
For example i earn about $680/week before tax at my “essential” job.

When i was collecting unemployment i would get the max in NY at $504 per week.
Add to that $504 the $600 per week and thats $1104 per week. Add to that their $1200 one time check and in a month(4 weeks) they will take home $5050 after NY takes their 12.5% tax for unemployment...... not sure if $1200 one time payment will be taxed.
Compare that to my monthly take home of $2240 after taking away 18% tax according to my paystub.
I know not all will be getting the max unemployment but that $600/week be nice lil bump in my case, shit im better off getting laid off under this stimulus.
 

Castamere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,441
"How will it get repaid?"

What's fucked about this is the money given to the people will almost 100% all flow back into the government one way or another. It's the money given to companies that will be hoarded and hidden. Ideally the money would slowly get eaten back into taxes as it flowed upwards, but at a certain point it flatlines. He's calling a rolecall over a bullet in their foot that their political stances shot.
 

SeanR1221

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,310
Really sorry if this has been answered already....

My wife and I haven't filed 2019 yet. In 2018 we'd qualify for the full 2400. In 2019 it will be some, but not all of the 2400. If we get this check and then file 2019, will it deduct some of the 2400 automatically? Basically I'm asking is it worth waiting to file...
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,192
Really sorry if this has been answered already....

My wife and I haven't filed 2019 yet. In 2018 we'd qualify for the full 2400. In 2019 it will be some, but not all of the 2400. If we get this check and then file 2019, will it deduct some of the 2400 automatically? Basically I'm asking is it worth waiting to file...
Don’t quote me, but it ultimately will be based on your 2020 income. So if you get paid the higher amount, but your 2020 income puts you in a higher bracket, they are taking the difference back. So really, I don’t think it matters from what I’m reading in your scenario unless you just want money now to potentially pay back later.
 

Hero_of_the_Day

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,390
Wow, so unemployment is the place to be right now you get the most out of this.
For example i earn about $680/week before tax at my “essential” job.

When i was collecting unemployment i would get the max in NY at $504 per week.
Add to that $504 the $600 per week and thats $1104 per week. Add to that their $1200 one time check and in a month(4 weeks) they will take home $5050 after NY takes their 12.5% tax for unemployment...... not sure if $1200 one time payment will be taxed.
Compare that to my monthly take home of $2240 after taking away 18% tax according to my paystub.
I know not all will be getting the max unemployment but that $600/week be nice lil bump in my case, shit im better off getting laid off under this stimulus.
I really wish people would stop saying this. It is literally the attitude Republicans were afraid of when they tried to amend it to make it worse. Luckily that failed. But, if this attitude remains pervasive among the public, it guarantees they are going to put their foot down and the next bill will not take care of people as much.
 

Castamere

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,441
Where did you see this?
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, warned on Wednesday that she might do so. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, has also hinted that he might try to slow the bill’s passage, stoking anger among fellow lawmakers.
The times reported it. I'm wondering if she has a reason. The comment seems very "both sides'y". Was just curious.

 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
9,095
I really wish people would stop saying this. It is literally the attitude Republicans were afraid of when they tried to amend it to make it worse. Luckily that failed. But, if this attitude remains pervasive among the public, it guarantees they are going to put their foot down and the next bill will not take care of people as much.
It's true, though, it's been said by more than one person affected and not capping it means that for some especially on the lower end, unemployment plus $600 is going to be more than what they make by working (which doesn't take into account benefits but probably is more of a statement on how crappy benefits are for some). If they had the time I would prefer they cap it at 100% of someone's projected income, but I fully understand they want to get this out asap (so i still don't understand why means test it, but ok)
 

Octodad

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,547
It's true, though, it's been said by more than one person affected and not capping it means that for some especially on the lower end, unemployment plus $600 is going to be more than what they make by working (which doesn't take into account benefits but probably is more of a statement on how crappy benefits are for some). If they had the time I would prefer they cap it at 100% of someone's projected income, but I fully understand they want to get this out asap (so i still don't understand why means test it, but ok)
My feeling is that the people doing the math and gaining from this, can have it. Personally, many of them will lose out long term and suffer more damage that this helps. If they get more pay for 4 months, fine. This is going to have ripple effects for at least a year and I’m glad it helps them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
664
The times reported it. I'm wondering if she has a reason. The comment seems very "both sides'y". Was just curious.

Gotta sign up to see the article, but I'll go out on a limb and say that it's just a both sides thing. We know Massie is forcing a roll call, and they probably took an AOC comment out of context to avoid calling out just a Republican. We'll see.
 

BassForever

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,033
CT
It's true, though, it's been said by more than one person affected and not capping it means that for some especially on the lower end, unemployment plus $600 is going to be more than what they make by working (which doesn't take into account benefits but probably is more of a statement on how crappy benefits are for some). If they had the time I would prefer they cap it at 100% of someone's projected income, but I fully understand they want to get this out asap (so i still don't understand why means test it, but ok)
There are also people who make between 40-75k (or 80-150k married) who have not had their employment impacted at all, are able to telecommute, and are essentially getting $1,200 for free when they don’t need it. There are also people who’ve made way more then those numbers, are losing hours but aren’t unemployed, and $1,200 doesn’t even come close to offsetting their losses.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect
 

Yaboosh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,751
I really wish people would stop saying this. It is literally the attitude Republicans were afraid of when they tried to amend it to make it worse. Luckily that failed. But, if this attitude remains pervasive among the public, it guarantees they are going to put their foot down and the next bill will not take care of people as much.
Except it is true. I would be better off being laid off. It will probably happen within a month anyway. I'm losing money but not being laid off AND being unnecessarily exposed to more people. While working. For less money than being at home away from people.
 

Octodad

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,547
Except it is true. I would be better off being laid off. It will probably happen within a month anyway. I'm losing money but not being laid off.
I think that’s a bad way to look at it. You aren’t losing money. These benefits are there for all of 2020 if you get laid off due to this. You want to be employed for as long as possible to extend this past this disaster.
 

Zok310

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,114
I really wish people would stop saying this. It is literally the attitude Republicans were afraid of when they tried to amend it to make it worse. Luckily that failed. But, if this attitude remains pervasive among the public, it guarantees they are going to put their foot down and the next bill will not take care of people as much.
Stop, why?
The argument can also be used to get people working and earning less than people on ui a lot more money in the next phase of stimulus.
 

Durden

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,924
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but has this been signed in yet? I need to know when I can file for unemployment as soon as possible. Can’t really look through the thread right now.
 

Hero_of_the_Day

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,390
It's true, though, it's been said by more than one person affected and not capping it means that for some especially on the lower end, unemployment plus $600 is going to be more than what they make by working (which doesn't take into account benefits but probably is more of a statement on how crappy benefits are for some). If they had the time I would prefer they cap it at 100% of someone's projected income, but I fully understand they want to get this out asap (so i still don't understand why means test it, but ok)
Except it is true. I would be better off being laid off. It will probably happen within a month anyway. I'm losing money but not being laid off.
Yes, for some it's true. But, who gives a fuck if people who have never had much money to begin with get a tiny bit more for four months. Personally, I'd much rather know I have a job in the future. And that is of course discounting the fact that many will lose their works health insurance, in a time that, even more than usual, could lead to disastrous consequences.

Every person out there saying shit like "I wish it was me without a job..." are guaranteeing the next bill is worse. And that is fucked up.

The argument can also be used to get people working and earning less than people on ui a lot more money in the next phase of stimulus.
That's not going to happen. Republicans already tried to amend this to make it worse. THAT is what is going to happen. They aren't going to just start giving people still with jobs more money. The attitude is literally going to make life worse for those without a job.
 

Razgriz417

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,104
Except it is true. I would be better off being laid off. It will probably happen within a month anyway. I'm losing money but not being laid off AND being unnecessarily exposed to more people. While working. For less money than being at home away from people.
do you get insurance through your employer? That is also a factor as I don't think this bill covers cost of covid treatment either
 

djplaeskool

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,956
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but has this been signed in yet? I need to know when I can file for unemployment as soon as possible. Can’t really look through the thread right now.
I wouldn't wait to file unemployment. States are getting buried by the massive increase in requests.

Also, no, it has not yet been signed.
 

Yaboosh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,751
do you get insurance through your employer? That is also a factor as I don't think this bill covers cost of covid treatment either

No i get it through my wife's job.

I'm not complaining about good benefits to those who are being furloughed/laid off. I'm just saying it feels real bad to have to keep working and getting exposed to others for way less money than those at home are getting.
 

djplaeskool

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,956
But I’m a rideshare driver. Don’t I have to wait until this fully goes through before I qualify?
Ahh, damn.
You have to check with your state. Some states have already started to take on non-traditional UI claims.
Sucks that this is such a minefield that millions are having to navigate right now.
 

Hero_of_the_Day

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,390
Many people would probably be better as hospital write-offs than using their shitty insurance, TBH.
In a country where the number one cause of bankruptcies is medical bills, I'm going to guess that isn't entirely true.

No i get it through my wife's job.

I'm not complaining about good benefits to those who are being furloughed/laid off. I'm just saying it feels real bad to have to keep working and getting exposed to others for way less money than those at home are getting.
I totally get this. As someone who is laid off, this was the number one thing I was telling my wife yesterday. At least I am way safer, especially when the dipshits at my work kept coming into work sick.

But, again, realize that while you are trying to voice how you wish things were better for you (or others like you), the actual result will be to make things worse for others.
 

SeanR1221

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,310
Don’t quote me, but it ultimately will be based on your 2020 income. So if you get paid the higher amount, but your 2020 income puts you in a higher bracket, they are taking the difference back. So really, I don’t think it matters from what I’m reading in your scenario unless you just want money now to potentially pay back later.
Gotcha...and we'll make significantly more in 2020 with my wife's new job. I'll just file this weekend then.
 
Oct 25, 2017
664
Stop, why?
The argument can also be used to get people working and earning less than people on ui a lot more money in the next phase of stimulus.
Then quit. If you're employer is that shitty, just go on unemployment. Personally, knowing that I still have a job is worth more than an extra $600 a week. This is showing who's worth working for, and and who isn't.
 

Zok310

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,114
No i get it through my wife's job.

I'm not complaining about good benefits to those who are being furloughed/laid off. I'm just saying it feels real bad to have to keep working and getting exposed to others for way less money than those at home are getting.
Same boat, more at risk, doing essential work with no insurance, and only 3 sick days and no vaca days until my January 2021 anniversary.
 

OnionPowder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,500
Orlando, FL
I really wish people would stop saying this. It is literally the attitude Republicans were afraid of when they tried to amend it to make it worse. Luckily that failed. But, if this attitude remains pervasive among the public, it guarantees they are going to put their foot down and the next bill will not take care of people as much.
We just need to take this energy and show how underpaid the "unskilled" labor is.