Lots your job due to COVID? Time to buy dirt bikes!

[ThreeWheeler]

Up here in the great white north our government is sending out $2000/month to anyone who answers a few simple questions and pinky swears they lost their job due to COVID. I think this is a good program, but the trade off for getting lots of money to lots of people quickly is there will be some cheating and a lot of bad decisions. Ideally everyone would be prepared with an emergency fund and yada yada yada but the reality is a lot of people would be lining up for food banks by now without this program.

People doing silly things is expected, but I'm still amazed when someone no only does a silly thing but is then willing to tell the whole world about it when the media comes knocking. Skip to the section titled 'Dirt Bikes' if you want to scratch your head... fortunately there are also examples of people being much more reasonable with their COVID cheques. (Bonus picture of kid with dirt bike and 2 (2!!!) trucks in the driveway behind them.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/stories-of-cerb-canadians-share-how-they-re-using-the-emergency-benefit-1.4931779

P.S. the $2000/month is taxable income. So next year the government is going to be asking for a slice of that money back. I fully expect a series of sob stories in the media with people just like those in this article saying they had no idea they would owe taxes and how can the government do this to them during difficult economic times!

[Just Joe]

Dirt bikes sounds about right. Or big wheels for your SUV or some other shiny thing.

Some folks will struggle forever.

[AMandM]

I dunno, seems logical to me. You lose your job, the government replaces your lost income, you spend as you would have if you'd been working....

[talltexan]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

[Stimpy]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Your almost right, we Americans wouldn't just get the dirt bikes, we'd get high end dirt bikes, 2 large trailers to haul them and a brand new 100k truck to drag them around.....  And moan about how high medical co-pays are!

[Maenad]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Your almost right, we Americans wouldn't just get the dirt bikes, we'd get high end dirt bikes, 2 large trailers to haul them and a brand new 100k truck to drag them around.....  And moan about how high medical co-pays are!

And then declare bankruptcy from medical costs.

[bigblock440]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

[By the River]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

I don't know who wouldn't qualify for the supplement.  My son in college plus his three roommates (all single/no kids who were working part-time and now live in different states) are each getting the $600 additional per week.  I know 3 of them will be taking pay cuts in June to begin working different internships/jobs. 

[BDWW]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

Looks like most are probably making more unemployed then they were employed...

I know there was an anonymous post on one of our community pages about a business that was starting back up, and how could the poster not return to work. Thankfully most respondents pointed out that was illegal and fraudulent.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-staggering-number-of-laid-off-workers-are-receiving-more-money-from-unemployment-benefits-than-when-they-were-employed-2020-05-26

[talltexan]

Indeed the immediate cash flow might be greater, but that expansion of benefits is set to expire just five weeks from now.

[bigblock440]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

Are you sure that's not the state benefits?  I haven't seen anywhere that anything other than if you're eligible for UC or not is taken into consideration.  If you're eligible, you get $600, if not, you get $0.  It's worked that way in every instance I know of, can you post a link that would explain otherwise?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

Are you sure that's not the state benefits?  I haven't seen anywhere that anything other than if you're eligible for UC or not is taken into consideration.  If you're eligible, you get $600, if not, you get $0.  It's worked that way in every instance I know of, can you post a link that would explain otherwise?

I'm talking about the number I personally saw on my daughter's state claim page. It was $128 dollars per week. I believe it was based on several factors including how much she worked last year and in the months preceding her decision to stop working during the pandemic. She's got very little work ethic to begin with and I was surprised she was approved for benefits at all.

[MoseyingAlong]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

Are you sure that's not the state benefits?  I haven't seen anywhere that anything other than if you're eligible for UC or not is taken into consideration.  If you're eligible, you get $600, if not, you get $0.  It's worked that way in every instance I know of, can you post a link that would explain otherwise?

I'm talking about the number I personally saw on my daughter's state claim page. It was $128 dollars per week. I believe it was based on several factors including how much she worked last year and in the months preceding her decision to stop working during the pandemic. She's got very little work ethic to begin with and I was surprised she was approved for benefits at all.

The $600 federal supplement is in addition to any state amount so your daughter would be getting $728 per week. The trick is that you have to receive at least $1 in state benefits to receive the $600. This has nothing to do with marital status or dependents.

In Arizona, the max benefit is $240 for the state. So if your hours are cut but not eliminated due to the pandemic, and you make $300, you wipe out the state benefit and thus miss the federal supplement do. So the messed up situation is
A. work and earn $300, pay payroll taxes and deductions and that's your take home verus
B. don't work, receive $840 with no payroll taxes or other deductions.

I completely understand why some people are avoiding work as much as they can. It's not a trivial difference. This seems like another well-intentioned program but not well thought out.

[chicagomeg]

Here's an explanation of why Congress settled on this seemingly illogical $600/week supplemental benefit:

https://www.askamanager.org/2020/05/how-do-i-respond-to-colleagues-who-are-jealous-of-my-furlough.html

"While we’re on the topic, it’s worth explaining where this $600/week federal supplement to unemployment benefits came from. Normally unemployment only pays a portion of your previous income, but the original goal of the pandemic assistance was to pay people 100% of their previous salary (to counter the massive economic impact of so many people losing their income at once). But most states’ unemployment systems run on computer code that’s decades out of date, and there was no way to quickly program in the kind of flexible calculations needed to do that (especially at a time when many state systems were already crashing under the weight of so many claims). So they settled on this $600 supplement because it was the average; for some people it will add up to more than they were earning and for some people it will be less, but there was no way to program a customized payment for each person."

I feel for business owners who are struggling to get people to come back to work, but this basically amounts to the government being trapped in a corner by decades of not investing in infrastructure.

[bigblock440]

Must be nice to have a government you can trust to make you whole when you experience economic distress and a good health care system.

Americans wouldn't buy the dirtbikes because we'd need that cash for our medical co-pays.

Do people not realize that Americans are getting an additional $2400/month in unemployment from the feds?

Some Americans, not all. If you're single with no kids, with a lower income to begin with, the unemployment checks can be as low as $150 per week.

Are you sure that's not the state benefits?  I haven't seen anywhere that anything other than if you're eligible for UC or not is taken into consideration.  If you're eligible, you get $600, if not, you get $0.  It's worked that way in every instance I know of, can you post a link that would explain otherwise?

I'm talking about the number I personally saw on my daughter's state claim page. It was $128 dollars per week. I believe it was based on several factors including how much she worked last year and in the months preceding her decision to stop working during the pandemic. She's got very little work ethic to begin with and I was surprised she was approved for benefits at all.

So that was state benefits, the $600 from the feds would have been received a week after that, in addition to the state payments if eligible for them.

[JetBlast]

What I imagine Canadian Mustachians did when they found out their tax dollars were buying dirt bikes. F***ing embarrassing!!!



 

[JAYSLOL]

This makes total sense, dirt bikes are the perfect corona-zombie pandemic apocalypse survival vehicle to rule the wasteland.  The Canadians are gonna take over when this is all done.

[talltexan]

 The Canadians are gonna take over when this is all done.

We Texans have been preparing for the inevitable confrontation for years. Tell Alberta they can bring it whenever they think they're ready!!

[GuitarStv]

It's kinda hard not to feel a little bit bitter . . . given that I'm working at home four days and required to come into my office once a week, averaging 60 hr/wk, have had my pay cut by my employer while having my responsibilities increase, and am trying to home school and entertain our 6 year old son.  While others are partying with free money and an extended three month vacation.

 The Canadians are gonna take over when this is all done.

We Texans have been preparing for the inevitable confrontation for years. Tell Alberta they can bring it whenever they think they're ready!!

Alberta would faint if Texas even noticed them.  They've been trying so hard to be a Canadian Texas for so long . . .

[PDXTabs]

OMG. These kids have a mom that works at a cookie factory. When their mom loses her job the government gives her a raise and she uses the money to buy her kids dirt bikes. Luckiest kids on the planet. I was lucky to get fed.

[NVDee]

If you have an old bicycle in the basement, now is the time to sell it.   They go like hot cakes.

[SwordGuy]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

[bigblock440]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

So In your opinion, the base minimum wage should be $60k/year? 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

Using a conservative 1.25x multiplier to factor in taxes and benefits paid by the employer, and assuming the lowest possible 10% income tax bracket with no state or municipal tax, a person taking home $600 per week would be grossing $660 per week. It will cost the employer $825 per week after taxes and benefits. Accordingly, if that individual isn't generating at least $825 per week in value for the employer ($20.63 per hour), that employer is losing money by having him or her around.

Too many employees in these supposedly minimum-wage jobs simply aren't generating value for the employer or the customer. If they're too busy having personal conversations, playing on their phones, and shrieking with laughter instead of waiting on the customer, if they persistently get your order wrong because they can't operate the equipment, if your purchases arrive broken (or fail to arrive at all) because the delivery or website update personnel just couldn't be bothered to do their jobs right, or if you leave in disgust because the place is filthy and you can't get service in the first place, the employer loses money.

[PDXTabs]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

So In your opinion, the base minimum wage should be $60k/year?

In OR max unemployment is $648 + $600 per week. That's $1,248 per week. Now, I'm fine with that, but saying that making less than $1,248 per week is exploitative seems a stretch, especially on this forum.

[Bloop Bloop]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

Using a conservative 1.25x multiplier to factor in taxes and benefits paid by the employer, and assuming the lowest possible 10% income tax bracket with no state or municipal tax, a person taking home $600 per week would be grossing $660 per week. It will cost the employer $825 per week after taxes and benefits. Accordingly, if that individual isn't generating at least $825 per week in value for the employer ($20.63 per hour), that employer is losing money by having him or her around.

Too many employees in these supposedly minimum-wage jobs simply aren't generating value for the employer or the customer. If they're too busy having personal conversations, playing on their phones, and shrieking with laughter instead of waiting on the customer, if they persistently get your order wrong because they can't operate the equipment, if your purchases arrive broken (or fail to arrive at all) because the delivery or website update personnel just couldn't be bothered to do their jobs right, or if you leave in disgust because the place is filthy and you can't get service in the first place, the employer loses money.

I agree with this. There are a LOT of people whose work ethic and skillset are not worth, say, $20/hour. Heck, once you get to the real margins (like say the bottom 3% or 5% of the population) you start to get to the point where their worth to the organisation becomes nil, or even negative. That's what welfare is, after all - you're paying people to not work.

[Goldielocks]

FWIW, my son fell on the "lucky" side of the $2000 benefit as he has almost no expenses living at home in his final year of High School.

 He was in school at the start of Covid and only working 2 days a week.   Only in the summer months would he have earned $2000 or a bit more.   He does have an employer letter saying terminated due to Covid as of March 20th, so no funny business about claiming a "grey" area.

He is using his "bonus" CERB to pay for going to school in the fall. Originally he was going to work for a "gap" year first, build up money, maybe buy a car, but when he was called up of the waitlist, he had the $$ and was able to say "yes" to this year.

[talltexan]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

Using a conservative 1.25x multiplier to factor in taxes and benefits paid by the employer, and assuming the lowest possible 10% income tax bracket with no state or municipal tax, a person taking home $600 per week would be grossing $660 per week. It will cost the employer $825 per week after taxes and benefits. Accordingly, if that individual isn't generating at least $825 per week in value for the employer ($20.63 per hour), that employer is losing money by having him or her around.

Too many employees in these supposedly minimum-wage jobs simply aren't generating value for the employer or the customer. If they're too busy having personal conversations, playing on their phones, and shrieking with laughter instead of waiting on the customer, if they persistently get your order wrong because they can't operate the equipment, if your purchases arrive broken (or fail to arrive at all) because the delivery or website update personnel just couldn't be bothered to do their jobs right, or if you leave in disgust because the place is filthy and you can't get service in the first place, the employer loses money.

I agree with this. There are a LOT of people whose work ethic and skillset are not worth, say, $20/hour. Heck, once you get to the real margins (like say the bottom 3% or 5% of the population) you start to get to the point where their worth to the organisation becomes nil, or even negative. That's what welfare is, after all - you're paying people to not work.

We're discussing unemployment benefits, not welfare.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

If someone is making more income by receiving $600/week in extra fed unemployment benefits than they were earning working full time, they were being exploited at their job.    We should not allow companies to pay wages that produce "working poor".   We should require decent wages.

Using a conservative 1.25x multiplier to factor in taxes and benefits paid by the employer, and assuming the lowest possible 10% income tax bracket with no state or municipal tax, a person taking home $600 per week would be grossing $660 per week. It will cost the employer $825 per week after taxes and benefits. Accordingly, if that individual isn't generating at least $825 per week in value for the employer ($20.63 per hour), that employer is losing money by having him or her around.

Too many employees in these supposedly minimum-wage jobs simply aren't generating value for the employer or the customer. If they're too busy having personal conversations, playing on their phones, and shrieking with laughter instead of waiting on the customer, if they persistently get your order wrong because they can't operate the equipment, if your purchases arrive broken (or fail to arrive at all) because the delivery or website update personnel just couldn't be bothered to do their jobs right, or if you leave in disgust because the place is filthy and you can't get service in the first place, the employer loses money.

I agree with this. There are a LOT of people whose work ethic and skillset are not worth, say, $20/hour. Heck, once you get to the real margins (like say the bottom 3% or 5% of the population) you start to get to the point where their worth to the organisation becomes nil, or even negative. That's what welfare is, after all - you're paying people to not work.

We're discussing unemployment benefits, not welfare.

I've always considered unemployment benefits to be part of a social safety net, in the same category as disaster aid or health care subsidies for the elderly and disabled. These are all welfare programs. Unless there's a narrower definition of the word "welfare"? We might have different definitions of the word.

[PDXTabs]

I've always considered unemployment benefits to be part of a social safety net, in the same category as disaster aid or health care subsidies for the elderly and disabled. These are all welfare programs. Unless there's a narrower definition of the word "welfare"? We might have different definitions of the word.

Is Social Security a welfare program? Both Social Security and Unemployment Insurance are paid for by your labour.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I've always considered unemployment benefits to be part of a social safety net, in the same category as disaster aid or health care subsidies for the elderly and disabled. These are all welfare programs. Unless there's a narrower definition of the word "welfare"? We might have different definitions of the word.

Is Social Security a welfare program? Both Social Security and Unemployment Insurance are paid for by your labour.

Yes, they are, along with WIC, food stamps, and the subsidized school lunch program. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make: there shouldn't be any more stigma assoviated with unemployment assistance than with any other taxpayer funded assistance.

[Goldielocks]

Ah! Here is where it gets interesting.
In Canada, CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and EI are funded by a tax on employee labour. Employer + Employee funded.  They are not considered to be social welfare systems, but pay-in systems.  Ok, mandatory but funds are (should be) stand alone for only that purpose.  There is some politic-ing around how EI is paid out, as it is different by region, but generally it is pay-in, earn your credits, pay out insurance if needed.  (yes, i am ignoring a few facts here about what really happens)

US social security is funded by general revenues and not really a pay in system, i think.

Canadian "Welfare" programs include provincial assistance (traditional welfare), federal low income support for families, old age security, disability assistance (a part of the provincial assistance) and a variety of tax benefits and back to work programs for disability or very low income.

The CERB payment of $2000/mo is true "welfare" except for those that qualify under traditional EI benefits.

[talltexan]

I've always considered unemployment benefits to be part of a social safety net, in the same category as disaster aid or health care subsidies for the elderly and disabled. These are all welfare programs. Unless there's a narrower definition of the word "welfare"? We might have different definitions of the word.

Is Social Security a welfare program? Both Social Security and Unemployment Insurance are paid for by your labour.

Yes, they are, along with WIC, food stamps, and the subsidized school lunch program. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make: there shouldn't be any more stigma assoviated with unemployment assistance than with any other taxpayer funded assistance.

EITC requires that you have a job that produces income. Social security and unemployment both have the ex ante requirement of having been employed.

Very often we hear people talking about "welfare" as something that's exploited by people who choose not to work. It does indeed sound like you're with me in wanting to challenge that implicit narrative.

[bluebelle]

The Canadian government is wimpy and probably won't do it, but I hope they go hard at the folks who applied and collected who obviously weren't eligible.   I've heard through the grapevine (erd-4th hand) about a few people who collected knowing damn well they weren't eligible.

And yes, there will lots of people crying poor and foul when the taxman comes knocking next April.....the truly low income will just not get a refund, those who were making a living wage before Covid and got back to work by Sept (so at least 7 months of usual wage), may be in for a tax shock and owe.

As a fairly high income earner who is not impacted, I know that the tax burden will be on my back.....after all I'm "lucky" to have a job.....

[talltexan]

Wait until you hear how lenient the US government is in dealing with wealthy Americans who commit fraud.

[bluebelle]

Wait until you hear how lenient the US government is in dealing with wealthy Americans who commit fraud.

oh - if you've money here, they're pretty lenient here too....just look at our crime minister, he says 'sorry' and is somehow off the hook

[PDXTabs]

Yes, they are, along with WIC, food stamps, and the subsidized school lunch program. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make: there shouldn't be any more stigma assoviated with unemployment assistance than with any other taxpayer funded assistance.

You can think that but I strongly disagree. In particular WIC, food stamps, and the subsidized school lunch program (I've been on all of them and I strongly support their expansion) are based on need. Social Security and UI are based on how much you paid into the system. If they were welfare programs would they be turning away people in need while paying out benefits to people that don't need them?

EDITed to add:

welfare: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

[PDXTabs]

US social security is funded by general revenues and not really a pay in system, i think.

US Social Security and Medicare are paid out of specific payroll taxes (FICA) and into a separate trust fund, not general funds.

[Michael in ABQ]

US social security is funded by general revenues and not really a pay in system, i think.

US Social Security and Medicare are paid out of specific payroll taxes (FICA) and into a separate trust fund, not general funds.

Are they really though? FICA taxes have collected more than is paid out by Social Security for years. That money was used to pay for other things from the general fund (i.e. the rest of the federal government). In return the Social Security Administration got a pile of IOUs. There is not some account with hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars saved up. There's a bunch of debt that will have to be paid for with future revenue (taxes).

[YttriumNitrate]

Are they really though? FICA taxes have collected more than is paid out by Social Security for years. That money was used to pay for other things from the general fund (i.e. the rest of the federal government). In return the Social Security Administration got a pile of IOUs.

To be fair, it's not a pile, just a three ring binder full of IOUs safely kept in a filing cabinet.
https://www.dispatch.com/article/20100314/NEWS/303149860

I'm surprised someone hasn't stolen the 3-ring binder in an attempt to set the world record for largest theft ever.

[PDXTabs]

Are they really though? FICA taxes have collected more than is paid out by Social Security for years. That money was used to pay for other things from the general fund (i.e. the rest of the federal government). In return the Social Security Administration got a pile of IOUs. There is not some account with hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars saved up. There's a bunch of debt that will have to be paid for with future revenue (taxes).

There is an account with a bunch of US Treasury Bonds. So technically not cash, but it is absolutely a separate account which is filled with what most people on this forum would consider one of the safest investments on the planet.

ETA: Now, could the US government default on those bonds? Absolutely. Just like all the rest of the debt.