# BOOM! $200/week PUA to be put on the table. Deal or No Deal?



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

The Washington Post has the "scoop" from two little birdies that the soon-to-be-released Stimulus Package will contain provisions for a second stimulus check for $1200 with the same income limits as last time.

In addition, there will be an extension of the PUA money for the amount of $200/week until states can figure out a way to cap benefits at 70% of salaries.

Many Republicans will vote no on this, so without Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi's support, it won't make it through congress.

So, Deal or No Deal?

Poll will remain open until August 8th, when the Senate leaves on Summer vacation. You may change your vote any time before then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/07/27/senate-stimulus-coronavirus/


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

It seems like a reasonable compromise although I think $300 would be a little better.


----------



## Uberguyken (May 10, 2020)

I'll take whatever they give... But sure don't see $200 as reasonable. Half or $300 would be a number that makes sense...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

First I object the 'other' poll hasn't been certified and the winning votes (from day one I might add) have received no prize/points.

On this: hahahahahaha. Dems never agree to this and they have the numbers in the House.

As to me if it does pass; I'm fine with $200. I do like $300 better since GOP should never get their first wish.


----------



## ariel5466 (May 16, 2019)

The whole point of the $600 PUA was to keep people at home so they didn't spread COVID. And $200/week is not going to be enough to keep people home. There are also millions of people in the service industry being left high and dry.

It's not enough. But it's better than nothing.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

SHalester said:


> First I object the 'other' pole hasn't been certified and the winning votes (from day one I might add) have received no prize/points.


Alright, fine. If you insist. Here ya go...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

yeah, that figures: no monetary value. Gee, thanks.


----------



## SinTaxERROR (Jul 23, 2019)

Percentage based will never work for those on PUA. It will require another complete overhaul of outdated programming... it would take months to execute as each and every person will have to send in wages that will have to be verified one by one... there are still people waiting for unemployment payments now... from March.

Over complicating this is done to frustrate on purpose. It will not stop the economic devastation that will occur when millions are evicted from their homes...


----------



## nj9000 (Jun 6, 2019)

I think the Republicans are bartering. They're just starting low so when Dems finally compromise the final number will be lower. If they start @ $300 they'd be in a weaker position. $200 will still leave most Americans with a lot of financial problems and I think they know that.

The 70% thing, not sure how that can be implemented. They want to give states 2 months, with a possible extension of another 2 months to work through it. I'm guessing that they just need a system where they can input a wage number for each applicant and it spits out a certain amount of benefits. With Uber/Lyft you'd just give them your earnings summary and/or 1099-K. If it comes to that I hope they base it off this year before the virus hit. It should be whatever people were making just before the virus.


----------



## Uberguyken (May 10, 2020)

nj9000 said:


> I think the Republicans are bartering. They're just starting low so when Dems finally compromise the final number will be lower. If they start @ $300 they'd be in a weaker position. $200 will still leave most Americans with a lot of financial problems and I think they know that.
> 
> The 70% thing, not sure how that can be implemented. They want to give states 2 months, with a possible extension of another 2 months to work through it. I'm guessing that they just need a system where they can input a wage number for each applicant and it spits out a certain amount of benefits. With Uber/Lyft you'd just give them your earnings summary and/or 1099-K. If it comes to that I hope they base it off this year before the virus hit. It should be whatever people were making just before the virus.


You'd just.... Yeah right it took me 4 times submitting it and 3 months before they accepted and adjusted.... Just submit your 1099k .... Haha Been there done that.. it's not that simple...


----------



## ColdRider (Oct 19, 2015)

lol $200


----------



## UbaBrah (Oct 25, 2019)

These are such piddly amounts I don't know why anyone even cares. Honestly even at 600 p/w I wouldn't stay home, although I have worked all through the pandemic anyway.

I did enjoy getting the $1200 stimulus as a one-time bonus, and a second is supposedly on the cards. If I get that one too, I will definitely start a FREE CHEESE thread of my own (note the mandatory capital letters). Hell if I know what I'd put in it though.

Edit: my 1000th post! Gosh. I would like to thank God, my mom, Dara, the community, etc.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> The Washington Post has the "scoop" from two little birdies that the soon-to-be-released Stimulus Package will contain provisions for a second stimulus check for $1200 with the same income limits as last time.
> 
> In addition, there will be an extension of the PUA money for the amount of $200/week until states can figure out a way to cap benefits at 70% of salaries.
> 
> ...





nj9000 said:


> I think the Republicans are bartering. They're just starting low so when Dems finally compromise the final number will be lower. If they start @ $300 they'd be in a weaker position. $200 will still leave most Americans with a lot of financial problems.


Ill take the 70%.
Ide be getting a raise up to 
$1500ish a week...


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> Ide be getting a raise up to


no doubt there is a max. But kinda pointless to dance over. Dems won't accept it and it won't pass the House as-is.


----------



## KDH (Apr 17, 2020)

Uberguyken said:


> You'd just.... Yeah right it took me 4 times submitting it and 3 months before they accepted and adjusted.... Just submit your 1099k .... Haha Been there done that.. it's not that simple...





25rides7daysaweek said:


> Ill take the 70%.
> Ide be getting a raise up to
> $1500ish a week...


The 70% wage replacement idea will never work as it's too complicated. Most states couldn't even figure out the original flat rate and people are still waiting on March payments.If states need 2 to 4 months to implement a program, it's too complicated.


----------



## kbrown (Dec 3, 2015)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> The Washington Post has the "scoop" from two little birdies that the soon-to-be-released Stimulus Package will contain provisions for a second stimulus check for $1200 with the same income limits as last time.
> 
> In addition, there will be an extension of the PUA money for the amount of $200/week until states can figure out a way to cap benefits at 70% of salaries.
> 
> ...


It's not like the Republican package is going to be automatically accepted, lol. Plus, it's an election year. Many of these red states have a good amount of people on unemployment as well. And the Democrats have presented their package looking for the $600 payments to be extended to the end of the year. I think there will be a compromise of the federal supplement that may split the difference... maybe an extra $350- 400 per week. The second $1200 stimulus check will definitely pass, because both sides are advocating for it.

I would love for them to let me take unemployment at 70% of my salary. I'm just squeaking by on $2400/month. My income would go up over a thousand dollars. Bring it!


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

Oh, by the way. Just in case any of you were wondering whose pocket Mitch McConnell is in, here's an EXACT quote from an 18 page letter sent to him by the Chamber of Commerce a week ago.

(page 6)
"_For states unable to initially adjust their computer systems to calculate a replacement rate, provide a flat amount equal to half the maximum benefit (e.g.,$200)per week for up to three months to provide time for computer system upgrades;and phase down the additional benefit based on a state's unemployment..._"

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/200716_phase4package_coronavirus_congress.pdf


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

Love the money, but the riots will never end with checks flowing freely.
Money should go to the undocumented who missed the last payment


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Wait so they're adjusting our PUA on top of taking away our 600? 
Do we even know if we are going to be included in this whole new plan? Are they going to keep the unemployment for the self-employed?


ariel5466 said:


> The whole point of the $600 PUA was to keep people at home so they didn't spread COVID. And $200/week is not going to be enough to keep people home. There are also millions of people in the service industry being left high and dry.
> 
> It's not enough. But it's better than nothing.


That was not why they created it. although people have been using that as the reason. It was just simply created to provide unemployment benefits to those who typically aren't able to receive benefits . that is it.

















nj9000 said:


> If it comes to that I hope they base it off this year before the virus hit. It should be whatever people were making just before the virus.


I'm sure they'll use last year's taxes like they did for this one.


----------



## ColdRider (Oct 19, 2015)

Daisey77 said:


> Wait so they're adjusting our PUA on top of taking away our 600?


Don't think of it as them taking away _*your*_ $600.

Think of it as temporary assistance coming to a end.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

ColdRider said:


> Don't think of it as them taking away _*your*_ $600.
> 
> Think of it as temporary assistance coming to a end.


I agree. We were very very fortunate to be able to get the unemployment we did. However, I'm still curious if they're adjusting our Pua on top of the $600 coming to an end


----------



## mch (Nov 22, 2018)

ColdRider said:


> Don't think of it as them taking away _*your*_ $600.
> 
> Think of it as temporary assistance coming to a end.


You're just mad because you played yourself by not cashing in&#128514; You shoulda gone out there and earned some shoe $$$.

Raise it to $1200!!!


----------



## ariel5466 (May 16, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> That was not why they created it. although people have been using that as the reason. It was just simply created to provide unemployment benefits to those who typically aren't able to receive benefits . that is it.


They didn't extend unemployment and create PUA out of no where for no reason. It was to prop up the economy during SAH orders and to make sure people stayed home and didn't keep spreading COVID.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

ariel5466 said:


> They didn't extend unemployment and create PUA out of no where for no reason. It was to prop up the economy during SAH orders and to make sure people stayed home and didn't keep spreading COVID.


No they didn't extend unemployment benefits and create Pua for no reason. Pua was created so that people who do not normally qualify for benefits would be able to get benefits after the country started ordering everything to close. They Didn't create it to get them to stay home. They were already staying home there was no place to go LOL


----------



## ariel5466 (May 16, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> No they didn't extend unemployment benefits and create Pua for no reason. Pua was created so that people who do not normally qualify for benefits would be able to get benefits after the country started ordering everything to close. They Didn't create it to get them to stay home. They were already staying home there was no place to go LOL


And why did everything close up? To keep people at home. It's all tied in together.


----------



## Andrew Philip (Jul 20, 2017)

I would be fine with 300 but 200 is really on the lower end now. This is where the Democrats will heavily negotiate with the Republicans. I do think the Republicans would be able to agree to 100 more a week, bringing it to the acceptable 300.


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

ColdRider said:


> Don't think of it as them taking away _*your*_ $600.
> 
> Think of it as temporary assistance coming to a end.












It was her money everyone has been given.

Economics. They are real


----------



## Driving With A Purpose (Jul 28, 2020)

This whole COVID situation is a huge mess, regardless of what caused it. I think it is going to cause some people to realize they make more money not working than working, so, of course, they will be motivated to be lazy. Those who legitimately want to work (example: recent college grads who want to use their degrees) are in a bind because lots of companies are hesitant to hire. 

There is a positive aspect in that I think lots of people will learn to become more frugal, because they have no other choice. When you get creative about being frugal, there is lots that can be done. This might convince some people to cut back on non-essentials like cigarettes and sports gambling. 

Of course there is a flip side to being frugal. It hurts the economy. Can you imagine being a sales person who sold furniture for restaurants or drinking fountains. Not me! I'd be updating my resume pronto, even though it might not do much good in this economy. And then I'd likely get a side hustle job like driving for UberEats.

Unfortunately, I think there will be a spike in suicides. People just need to realize they are being given a precious gift that is not easy to get, and that is time. Someone who is really bored because there is nothing to do might end up watching more Netflix and gaining a lot of weight. Or they can do something productive. One thing I do is go out of my way to take cancelled deliveries and give the food to homeless people or anyone desperate enough to accept food from a total stranger. Sunday I had a cancellation so large that it fed five people.

The money we are getting from the government doesn't last forever and has consequences. I don't want to come across like one of those rabid goldbugs, but gold and silver are both doing extremely well right now. A good portion of that is likely people coming to their senses about this "free money" from the government and realizing that our national debt is going up very sharply.

Sorry to sound like such a hard%$#. Life sure can be complicated!


----------



## The queen 👸 (Jan 2, 2020)

All the Congress people on both side should take only 50 to 70% pay cut as well .


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Percentage based will never work for those on PUA. It will require another complete overhaul of outdated programming... it would take months to execute as each and every person will have to send in wages that will have to be verified one by one... there are still people waiting for unemployment payments now... from March.
> 
> Over complicating this is done to frustrate on purpose. It will not stop the economic devastation that will occur when millions are evicted from their homes...


The worst part is that someone that had been earning 75,000.00 a year would be getting 1000.00 a week at 70%.
Where as, someone making the Federal Minimum Wage at one of those "essential" jobs has a choice, go back to work and risk not only getting infected by then spreading it to others since they can't stop working and be able to pay their bills...or

Get a whopping 203.00 a week because that is 70% for 7.25x40x52x.7/52



Driving With A Purpose said:


> This whole COVID situation is a huge mess, regardless of what caused it. I think it is going to cause some people to realize they make more money not working than working, so, of course, they will be motivated to be lazy. Those who legitimately want to work (example: recent college grads who want to use their degrees) are in a bind because lots of companies are hesitant to hire.
> 
> There is a positive aspect in that I think lots of people will learn to become more frugal, because they have no other choice. When you get creative about being frugal, there is lots that can be done. This might convince some people to cut back on non-essentials like cigarettes and sports gambling.
> 
> ...


Let's break down the fallacies in this argument.

First the intent of the PUA was specifically to allow people to stay home as the most effective way to prevent this from spreading.
Second, someone choosing to not risk dying isn't being "lazy" because they have taken advantage of the system set up specifically to allow them to stay home and safe.
Third, if you haven't taken any Econ courses in college it may come as a surprise to you that people choosing to become more frugal is Not A Positive Aspect. If the majority of the poor and middle class stop spending money our economy collapses. Seriously, the economy can't handle people saving until they have 6 months worth of income in the bank because that takes longer than 6 months. Think about it, if 80% of your income is gone just from living (rent, utilities, transportation, food, debt) then how long does it take to save up 6 months of income. The total net effect on the economy, in the long run, will be negative no matter what.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The queen &#128120; said:


> All the Congress people on both side should take only 50 to 70% pay cut as well .


*Yes!!!!*


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

The queen &#128120; said:


> All the Congress people on both side should take only 50 to 70% pay cut as well .


Great proposal.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

The queen &#128120; said:


> All the Congress people on both side should take only 50 to 70% pay cut as well .


Queen for President!


Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> First the intent of the PUA was specifically to allow people to stay home as the most effective way to prevent this from spreading.


 cite your source


----------



## ldriva (Jan 23, 2015)

Uberguyken said:


> I'll take whatever they give... But sure don't see $200 as reasonable. Half or $300 would be a number that makes sense...


I was going to say $400 because that's the exact number in the middle. Frankly I do not understand what's not clicking with Congress that the reason why people were making more on unemployment because they weren't getting paid enough in the first place.


----------



## ColdRider (Oct 19, 2015)

ldriva said:


> Frankly I do not understand what's not clicking with Congress that the reason why people were making more on unemployment because they weren't getting paid enough in the first place.


_Enough_ is relative.


----------



## Lvd2020 (Apr 9, 2020)

It’s not gonna be 200 unless the second stimulus check is more than 1200. The 200 was just the starting point for republicans. Pelosi said she was open to less than the 600 if the second round of stimulus checks were more than the first round. Will probably be between 300 and 600. Mnuchin knows the economy is basically being propped up by the pua bonus.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

_"I don't know that there is another plan, other than no deal," said White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. "Which will allow unemployment, enhanced unemployment, I might add, to expire. &#8230; No deal certainly becomes a greater possibility the longer these negotiations go._" -Washington Post-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...x-unemployment-insurance-eviction-moratorium/


----------



## Big Lou (Dec 11, 2019)

Go Nancy....Go Nancy.....Go Nancy!!!


----------



## MikeSki (Apr 2, 2020)

They’re not cutting shit


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

nj9000 said:


> I think the Republicans are bartering. They're just starting low so when Dems finally compromise the final number will be lower. If they start @ $300 they'd be in a weaker position. $200 will still leave most Americans with a lot of financial problems and I think they know that.
> 
> The 70% thing, not sure how that can be implemented. They want to give states 2 months, with a possible extension of another 2 months to work through it. I'm guessing that they just need a system where they can input a wage number for each applicant and it spits out a certain amount of benefits. With Uber/Lyft you'd just give them your earnings summary and/or 1099-K. If it comes to that I hope they base it off this year before the virus hit. It should be whatever people were making just before the virus.


if the republicans came in at $600 the dems will try to negotiate it upwards.

If the GOP comes in at 200 the dems can go to $800 and meet in the middle, 400-500...

the GOP offering $200 is good because it's a lowball offer that can be negotiated.


----------



## Bbonez (Aug 10, 2018)

SinTaxERROR said:


> Percentage based will never work for those on PUA. It will require another complete overhaul of outdated programming... it would take months to execute as each and every person will have to send in wages that will have to be verified one by one..


CA already set up to pay based on a percentage basis, that's how the base pay is calculated before you add the flat $600 in federal cheese.


----------



## K-pax (Oct 29, 2016)

Bbonez said:


> CA already set up to pay based on a percentage basis, that's how the base pay is calculated before you add the flat $600 in federal cheese.


Up in WA, they still haven't adjusted most PUA claimants. I'm getting as if I made minimum wage part time. After this last payment today, I go down to $235 A WEEK.... BEFORE TAXES. After spending WEEKS trying to get in touch with unemployment, I am told there is no problem with my account and I'm lucky to get paid at all... Oh how great it's going to be when congress moves to a % model. People are just not going to get anything at that point.


----------



## Zibbit (Nov 11, 2018)

mch said:


> You're just mad because you played yourself by not cashing in&#128514; You shoulda gone out there and earned some shoe $$$.
> 
> Raise it to $1200!!!


99% of the piece of shits who are opposed to this are bitter because they don't qualify for it. Either because they are illegals or their AGI from their last tax return is negative.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

K-pax said:


> Up in WA, they still haven't adjusted most PUA claimants. I'm getting as if I made minimum wage part time. After this last payment today, I go down to $235 A WEEK.... BEFORE TAXES. After spending WEEKS trying to get in touch with unemployment, I am told there is no problem with my account and I'm lucky to get paid at all... Oh how great it's going to be when congress moves to a % model. People are just not going to get anything at that point.


Hey are minimum here in Colorado is only 223 minus taxes. So basically 200 a week. That's good though. that means they went off your net income. Which means you can pretty much drive and not lose your unemployment.


----------



## K-pax (Oct 29, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> Hey are minimum here in Colorado is only 223 minus taxes. So basically 200 a week. That's good though. that means they went off your net income. Which means you can pretty much drive and not lose your unemployment.


Nah. I made $30 an hour at least doing Uber.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

K-pax said:


> Nah. I made $30 an hour at least doing Uber.


Gross not net &#128521;


----------



## K-pax (Oct 29, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> Gross not net &#128521;


They don't go off of that. Other drivers in WA were adjusted to the maximum. I was left at the minimum. How WA was supposed to do it is to put people on minimum (for 2 weeks is what they originally said), so that they're in the system, and then have a human look at the 1099s and adjust the benefit to match income. They aren't looking at the actual filed tax docs that include all deductions. They are looking at the 1099s that Uber and Lyft send to drivers, so they are going off the amount of gross income after U/L take their cuts. I have not been adjusted. They just kept me at the minimum because they are doing so terribly at running the ESD system, that there are STILL people who aren't getting checks. There was some fraud, months ago, and since then they literally go through every single claim by every single person and manually check off on it (even if every claim has been fraud free thus-far), which delays the checks by 2 additional days after you file (we are getting them thursday or friday now)

The unfair thing is that the drivers who were adjusted to the maximum all applied before the state said they could (they were begging and pleading people to wait till the system was in place).. The fraud took place right after they got adjusted, and the state hasn't bothered to get to anyone since. So if you waited till the day they said you could apply for PUA, you got screwed. Now, I wish I had just applied before they said we were supposed to, and I'd be in a lot less of a scary situation now that this $600 no longer applies. I am going down to $235 a week the next time I file this sunday. I have no idea what the uber market is like right now, but I can't survive with a family of 4 on $235 a week in such an expensive state like WA (the fastest rising cost of living in the entire country). I have been working on some e-courses to get into other lines of reasonably paying work, but that's going to be hampered somewhat now that I have to scramble for funds. WA does something like dock you 75% of what you make while filing, and I'm not entirely clear if they will kick me off of unemployment totally if I go over the $235 (for the entire week), since PUA is not like traditional unemployment where you're either employed or you're not.

Their phone lines are so full that it's impossible to get anyone most of the time, and even when you do, it's usually a new hire who hasn't really been trained, and will be confused at even the most basic questions. I'm convinced that they aren't training people AT ALL in PUA, because they seem to have no idea that our income isn't stored with the state like w2 employees.


----------

