(01-03-2021, 07:31 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]So do you realize the argument isn’t weather or not mass welfare payment should be made but how much should be paid, that is the problem. Conservatives have lost all footing to object to UBI now we lost and we lead the charge.
$600 per person is significant just wait until it’s $600 per person every month and your fooling yourself if you don’t think that’s where this leads.
I agree we shouldn’t be spending the pork money either but they doesn’t change the reality we’re setting the table for UBI
It's already $600 per week for people out of work. Some people deserve that for forcing their employers to close. The problem is its not prorated and has little to no requirements. NY is paying people ~$180 +$600 that don't qualify for unemployment and/or can't provide wage proof. That basically means if you are legally able to work and can fake some excuse for not working, you get free money.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(01-03-2021, 07:31 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]So do you realize the argument isn’t weather or not mass welfare payment should be made but how much should be paid, that is the problem. Conservatives have lost all footing to object to UBI now we lost and we lead the charge.
$600 per person is significant just wait until it’s $600 per person every month and your fooling yourself if you don’t think that’s where this leads.
I agree we shouldn’t be spending the pork money either but they doesn’t change the reality we’re setting the table for UBI
Oh please. $600 given twice over 7 months is not significant at ALL to the thousands upon thousands of Americas who were forcibly put out of work by the government's overreach. OTOH, I have no qualms about calling out the truly profligate and wasteful spending our government engages in every damn day.
(01-03-2021, 06:02 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]So you know things are getting dark when House Democrats House Republicans Trump and many of the Senators are all aligned to pay once again welfare payments to the public at large in the form of stimulus checks. These are not funds that require proof of hardship no request is to be made no qualifications other than income to be considered.
It's totally screwed up that:
* retired people get stimulus checks
* people on welfare get stimulus checks
* people that are gainfully employed get stimulus checks
The above people didn't experience financial hardships. Financial hardships should be resolved via unemployment reimbursements that coincide with each persons loss of income.
Small freaking businesses are getting crushed. These owners should be compensated equivalent to their losses that are based on comparative tax statements from 2019 vs 2020.
Such an easy solution ....
The stimulus should have been handled via unemployment and PPP. The checks to everyone based on income from a pre-pandemic tax return is an epic fail from our government. People should be outraged.
Edit: Wow, I didn't even see HURRICANEs post before writing this. Common ground. Damn. <gives self 12 lashes>
(01-04-2021, 02:31 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2021, 06:02 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]So you know things are getting dark when House Democrats House Republicans Trump and many of the Senators are all aligned to pay once again welfare payments to the public at large in the form of stimulus checks. These are not funds that require proof of hardship no request is to be made no qualifications other than income to be considered.
It's totally screwed up that:
* retired people get stimulus checks
* people on welfare get stimulus checks
* people that are gainfully employed get stimulus checks
The above people didn't experience financial hardships. Financial hardships should be resolved via unemployment reimbursements that coincide with each persons loss of income.
Small freaking businesses are getting crushed. These owners should be compensated equivalent to their losses that are based on comparative tax statements from 2019 vs 2020.
Such an easy solution ....
The problem with this approach is that you're relying on small business owners to pass that relief along to employees. Many would, I'm sure. But there are also many who would say, "I'll pass them on after covering the shop's expenses," and once they've taken care of back-due vendor payments, covered lost inventory, paid the rent and kept the lights on, well, many of them might find that there's not really anything left. And there are a large number, I'm sure, who would just go in from the start with the attitude that they are taking care of themselves and their own first, and will pass whatever's left on down the line.
I didn't experience a financial hardship, but if I do down the line, I've got $1,800 more in my savings account than I did a year ago to cover for it. Are most people using it responsibly? Judging by how many stores magically have a huge stock of TVs and laptops costing $599, probably not, but that's ultimately there problem. Either you provide direct relief or you don't. Reagan-era trickle down economics died with Reagan.
(01-04-2021, 02:41 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The stimulus should have been handled via unemployment and PPP. The checks to everyone based on income from a pre-pandemic tax return is an epic fail from our government. People should be outraged.
Edit: Wow, I didn't even see HURRICANEs post before writing this. Common ground. Damn. <gives self 12 lashes>
Will your butt ever be un-chafed over the fact that you make way too much to qualify for a stimulus check?
(01-04-2021, 02:31 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2021, 06:02 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]So you know things are getting dark when House Democrats House Republicans Trump and many of the Senators are all aligned to pay once again welfare payments to the public at large in the form of stimulus checks. These are not funds that require proof of hardship no request is to be made no qualifications other than income to be considered.
It's totally screwed up that:
* retired people get stimulus checks
* people on welfare get stimulus checks
* people that are gainfully employed get stimulus checks
The above people didn't experience financial hardships. Financial hardships should be resolved via unemployment reimbursements that coincide with each persons loss of income.
Small freaking businesses are getting crushed. These owners should be compensated equivalent to their losses that are based on comparative tax statements from 2019 vs 2020.
Such an easy solution ....
Is it in the best interest of the government for small businesses to succeed? Based on what we have seen, this is a valid question.
(01-04-2021, 02:41 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 02:31 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]It's totally screwed up that:
* retired people get stimulus checks
* people on welfare get stimulus checks
* people that are gainfully employed get stimulus checks
The above people didn't experience financial hardships. Financial hardships should be resolved via unemployment reimbursements that coincide with each persons loss of income.
Small freaking businesses are getting crushed. These owners should be compensated equivalent to their losses that are based on comparative tax statements from 2019 vs 2020.
Such an easy solution ....
The problem with this approach is that you're relying on small business owners to pass that relief along to employees. Many would, I'm sure. But there are also many who would say, "I'll pass them on after covering the shop's expenses," and once they've taken care of back-due vendor payments, covered lost inventory, paid the rent and kept the lights on, well, many of them might find that there's not really anything left. And there are a large number, I'm sure, who would just go in from the start with the attitude that they are taking care of themselves and their own first, and will pass whatever's left on down the line.
I didn't experience a financial hardship, but if I do down the line, I've got $1,800 more in my savings account than I did a year ago to cover for it. Are most people using it responsibly? Judging by how many stores magically have a huge stock of TVs and laptops costing $599, probably not, but that's ultimately there problem. Either you provide direct relief or you don't. Reagan-era trickle down economics died with Reagan.
(01-04-2021, 02:41 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The stimulus should have been handled via unemployment and PPP. The checks to everyone based on income from a pre-pandemic tax return is an epic fail from our government. People should be outraged.
Edit: Wow, I didn't even see HURRICANEs post before writing this. Common ground. Damn. <gives self 12 lashes>
Will your butt ever be un-chafed over the fact that you make way too much to qualify for a stimulus check?
You must have missed his statement "Financial hardships should be resolved via unemployment reimbursements that coincide with each persons loss of income"
I still think the simplest solution would be to place a hold on rent and mortgages, then have anyone that lost hours file for unemployment that coincides with loss of hours.
If you want to know who's making policy in this country, look at the businesses that didn't lose money. Banks and corporations did just fine.
(01-04-2021, 03:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I still think the simplest solution would be to place a hold on rent and mortgages, then have anyone that lost hours file for unemployment that coincides with loss of hours.
If you want to know who's making policy in this country, look at the businesses that didn't lose money. Banks and corporations did just fine.
What about the landlords or lenders who depend on that money? Not all mortgages are held by large banks.
(01-04-2021, 03:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I still think the simplest solution would be to place a hold on rent and mortgages, then have anyone that lost hours file for unemployment that coincides with loss of hours.
If you want to know who's making policy in this country, look at the businesses that didn't lose money. Banks and corporations did just fine.
I agree completely.
(01-04-2021, 04:04 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 03:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I still think the simplest solution would be to place a hold on rent and mortgages, then have anyone that lost hours file for unemployment that coincides with loss of hours.
If you want to know who's making policy in this country, look at the businesses that didn't lose money. Banks and corporations did just fine.
What about the landlords or lenders who depend on that money? Not all mortgages are held by large banks.
Landlords would also have gotten a pause on their loans.
If rent is the primary source of income, landlords can apply for unemployment like everyone else.
(01-04-2021, 03:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I still think the simplest solution would be to place a hold on rent and mortgages, then have anyone that lost hours file for unemployment that coincides with loss of hours.
If you want to know who's making policy in this country, look at the businesses that didn't lose money. Banks and corporations did just fine.
How do you efficiently (and fairly) determine who deserves a hold and who doesn't? That would be a nightmare to administer and a program the the government isn't remotely equipped to handle.
Banks won't really know the final effect until after the bankruptcies and foreclosures have cycled through, but for the most part, they'll emerge in good shape.
"Corporations" is a huge blanket that covers virtually every business category in the world, from Walmart to small independent merchants. Many have suffered drastic losses and some will never recover.
Placing a hold on rent and mortgages while people use their government issued money to enrich Walmart by purchasing a $600 65" TV is awesome.
I think the housing market is in for a nasty plummet the 2nd half of the year. Low income renters will struggle to find rentals because landlords will begin protecting themselves by collecting 6 months of rent in advance. This will all be happening at the same time eviction moratoriums are lifted and judges begin hearing cases again. Not to mention what banks do to the people who think their mortgage payments have been "put on hold". Buckle up...
(01-04-2021, 09:57 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Placing a hold on rent and mortgages while people use their government issued money to enrich Walmart by purchasing a $600 65" TV is awesome.
I think the housing market is in for a nasty plummet the 2nd half of the year. Low income renters will struggle to find rentals because landlords will begin protecting themselves by collecting 6 months of rent in advance. This will all be happening at the same time eviction moratoriums are lifted and judges begin hearing cases again. Not to mention what banks do to the people who think their mortgage payments have been "put on hold". Buckle up...
No. The idea is to put rent and loans "on hold"
instead of the stimulus payments. Finance and macroeconomics aren't my thing, but it seems like it would have been a better approach.
(01-04-2021, 10:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 09:57 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Placing a hold on rent and mortgages while people use their government issued money to enrich Walmart by purchasing a $600 65" TV is awesome.
I think the housing market is in for a nasty plummet the 2nd half of the year. Low income renters will struggle to find rentals because landlords will begin protecting themselves by collecting 6 months of rent in advance. This will all be happening at the same time eviction moratoriums are lifted and judges begin hearing cases again. Not to mention what banks do to the people who think their mortgage payments have been "put on hold". Buckle up...
No. The idea is to put rent and loans "on hold" instead of the stimulus payments. Finance and macroeconomics aren't my thing, but it seems like it would have been a better approach.
Property taxes and insurance aren't put on hold. In fact, they continue to increase. I am speaking from the experience of being a landlord, FYI.
Also, rent isn't put "on hold". Some landlords won't see a dime of back rent, not to mention the cost of an eviction $500-$700, not to mention the potential damage the evicted tenant will do to the property when they are finally removed.
(01-04-2021, 10:42 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 10:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No. The idea is to put rent and loans "on hold" instead of the stimulus payments. Finance and macroeconomics aren't my thing, but it seems like it would have been a better approach.
Property taxes and insurance aren't put on hold. In fact, they continue to increase. I am speaking from the experience of being a landlord, FYI.
Also, rent isn't put "on hold". Some landlords won't see a dime of back rent, not to mention the cost of an eviction $500-$700, not to mention the potential damage the evicted tenant will do to the property when they are finally removed.
Property taxes and insurance payments could have been put on hold by a different government.
Sounds like you have a tenant you would like to evict but cant. You have to look beyond your personal resentment about what actually happened before you can engage the hypothetical that Lucky and I are discussing.
(01-04-2021, 11:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 10:42 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Property taxes and insurance aren't put on hold. In fact, they continue to increase. I am speaking from the experience of being a landlord, FYI.
Also, rent isn't put "on hold". Some landlords won't see a dime of back rent, not to mention the cost of an eviction $500-$700, not to mention the potential damage the evicted tenant will do to the property when they are finally removed.
Property taxes and insurance payments could have been put on hold by a different government.
Sounds like you have a tenant you would like to evict but cant. You have to look beyond your personal resentment about what actually happened before you can engage the hypothetical that Lucky and I are discussing.
Not my specific situation. Just trying to provide a real world counter to the blanket term "freeze rent".
(01-04-2021, 09:57 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Placing a hold on rent and mortgages while people use their government issued money to enrich Walmart by purchasing a $600 65" TV is awesome.
I think the housing market is in for a nasty plummet the 2nd half of the year. Low income renters will struggle to find rentals because landlords will begin protecting themselves by collecting 6 months of rent in advance. This will all be happening at the same time eviction moratoriums are lifted and judges begin hearing cases again. Not to mention what banks do to the people who think their mortgage payments have been "put on hold". Buckle up...
I have a medical bill from major surgery and it was involuntarily "put on hold" for eight months as a 'Covid relief measure'. I say involuntary because I could and wanted to pay it the whole time but their system locked out that possibility entirely. Even the employees couldn't access it. They resumed payments and restructured it to a higher payment per month and shortened the payment period. There is a reason we're on a specific payment plan, jackholes!
Thankfully we can cover the bump in payment because it wasn't a
huge jump, but it's jacked up that this happened to folks who likely can't afford it. All you have to do is miss or under pay two payments and you automatically owe the full amount. It's jacked up we didn't have a choice in either decision. I feel for folks who are going to get screwed like this, not just for thousands of dollars like us, but tens of thousands of dollars on mortgages that have interest rates.
Screwby. The government has bent us over as a country and none of us even has a clue how bad we're really screwed yet, but its coming.
(01-05-2021, 01:28 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 09:57 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Placing a hold on rent and mortgages while people use their government issued money to enrich Walmart by purchasing a $600 65" TV is awesome.
I think the housing market is in for a nasty plummet the 2nd half of the year. Low income renters will struggle to find rentals because landlords will begin protecting themselves by collecting 6 months of rent in advance. This will all be happening at the same time eviction moratoriums are lifted and judges begin hearing cases again. Not to mention what banks do to the people who think their mortgage payments have been "put on hold". Buckle up...
I have a medical bill from major surgery and it was involuntarily "put on hold" for eight months as a 'Covid relief measure'. I say involuntary because I could and wanted to pay it the whole time but their system locked out that possibility entirely. Even the employees couldn't access it. They resumed payments and restructured it to a higher payment per month and shortened the payment period. There is a reason we're on a specific payment plan, jackholes!
Thankfully we can cover the bump in payment because it wasn't a huge jump, but it's jacked up that this happened to folks who likely can't afford it. All you have to do is miss or under pay two payments and you automatically owe the full amount. It's jacked up we didn't have a choice in either decision. I feel for folks who are going to get screwed like this, not just for thousands of dollars like us, but tens of thousands of dollars on mortgages that have interest rates.
Screwby. The government has bent us over as a country and none of us even has a clue how bad we're really screwed yet, but its coming.
Sorry to hear about your medical bill situation. And yes, people are in for a huge shock. Maybe some people will actually wake up, but I doubt it.
(01-04-2021, 11:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2021, 10:42 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Property taxes and insurance aren't put on hold. In fact, they continue to increase. I am speaking from the experience of being a landlord, FYI.
Also, rent isn't put "on hold". Some landlords won't see a dime of back rent, not to mention the cost of an eviction $500-$700, not to mention the potential damage the evicted tenant will do to the property when they are finally removed.
Property taxes and insurance payments could have been put on hold by a different government.
Sounds like you have a tenant you would like to evict but cant. You have to look beyond your personal resentment about what actually happened before you can engage the hypothetical that Lucky and I are discussing.
If you put property taxes on hold, local governments have to lay off police and firefighters. If you put insurance payments on hold, insurance companies cannot pay out insurance claims. Think it through.