What are your thoughts on the Government Stimulus Checks?

[maize]

2 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

ok...that's one. I believe the final plan did. 

Is it finalized yet?

[hippiemamato3]

Just now, maize said:

Is it finalized yet?

I've read a bunch of conflicting reports, but I think so? 

[maize]

6 minutes ago, hippiemamato3 said:

I've read a bunch of conflicting reports, but I think so? 

This seems fairly up to date--nothing is finalized yet.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488782-senate-closes-in-on-trillion-dollar-coronavirus-stimulus-bill

Edited March 21, 2020 by maize

[QueenCat]

3 hours ago, hippiemamato3 said:

The Republicans don't want to send it to the ones who are most vulnerable and need it the most. I think it's completely typical. 

 

True.. but they do want to send it to almost all taxpayers,  which is not a typical attitude in the current Republican led Senate. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by QueenCat

[Robin M]

3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

What about self-employed who had to close their business?

I am not familiar if a they are able to collect UE

The proposed answer is they wants us to take out SBA loans to get by which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We have an SBA mortgage so essentially they wants us to take out a loan to pay a loan.  No thank you.  There was some talk of no payroll taxes for a couple months, but all that does is increase the amount of pay from the employer so again it isn't helpful.  We haven't closed yet, although we may be reducing our hours as we are customer dependent.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Robin M

[ktgrok]

On 3/20/2020 at 6:58 PM, Crimson Wife said:

I have a problem with the full amount going towards many upper middle class folks but only a portion going to those with earned income but no income tax liability. I'm sorry, but most working class folks will spend it (thereby helping to prop up the economy) while many upper middle class folks will just put it into savings.

Any citizen or legal resident who has earned income below the cap should receive the full amount regardless of tax liability.

The economy is in big trouble and it's the working class folks who are most likely to be affected and need help affording groceries & household supplies.

This bugs me hugely. Hugely. It's flat out evil. 

On 3/20/2020 at 7:37 PM, Carrie12345 said:

I see it as the simplest way to get food dollars to families that need it. Going through applications will take too long.

Today, my family doesn’t *need it, and we’re relatively confident that we won’t at all, but I can’t actually guarantee that dh’s employer will feel the same way in, say, 4 weeks.

I don’t think it’s a perfect solution, but I do think it will help enough people to be worth it.

This is true. If you only give it to people out of a job at this point in time, what about those that lose their job a few weeks from now? 

On 3/20/2020 at 8:35 PM, Sneezyone said:

I’m not sure what folks are defining as wealthy but we will qualify despite not losing any wages and I have every intention of putting that money right back into a small business in my area. I’ve already scheduled my ‘post-corona’ patio installation. I don’t ‘need’ it but I will spend it and help the economy rebound. We also own rental property so a mortgage deferment means we can offer a rent break to our tenants if they’re unemployed. Our current tenants are retirees on a fixed income tho so we will just keep paying as usual.

This is the other option. IF this happens and we get it we will most likely put it in savings in case DHs job doesn't continue (he works for a large company involved in vacation rentals - his job is probably secure, but you never know), but the other option is to spend at least some on home improvements and donate the rest. 

10 hours ago, SamanthaCarter said:

I am not happy about the stimulus checks. I think all of that money needs to be funneled into state unemployment commissions, and the states can determine if and how to increase benefits. They are better tasked for it.

With deferrals on mortgages, evictions, utilities, and student loans, free school lunches, those things should buy people enough time to get benefits flowing into the household. 

At least here, unemployment is capped at less than $300 a week. No where near enough especially in single income families with kids. Not even close. And the other issue is those with more than one job. My husband has his main job, then teaches part time at a college to add to our income. If he lost his main job he would technically still be employed although not full time, so would he even be able to get unemployment? Not that it would begin to touch our bills. 

9 hours ago, SereneHome said:

Whoever suggested funneling to unemployment has the right idea. 

another thing to consider - with stock market crashing, I am sure there will be people who were going to retire this / next year but now might have to reconsider.  That is another area where govt should be addressing....

My dad is supposed to retire at the end of next month, or maybe it was sooner. But my mom had medical stuff being done first, dental surgery and a pelvic surgery. Those were canceled as they are not emergencies, although needed, and that is going to be a problem, as the cost will be very different once he retires and doesn't have group insurance to top off her medicare. 

[Tap]

3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

What about self-employed who had to close their business?

I am not familiar if a they are able to collect UE

If they pay into it.  Unemployment Insurance, is a program you pay into. It is similar to a forced savings account. If you have paid in, you have a balance that you can draw from if you are unemployed. There are stipulations to when you can access unemployment, for how long, and how much your checks will be. As a business owner, they can pay into the program for themselves, or not. It is their choice.  If they pay in, then owners do have a balance to draw against. 

One thing, that is part of some stimulus packages, is allowing broader parameters for people to access benefits. 

[SereneHome]

24 minutes ago, Robin M said:

The proposed answer is they wants us to take out SBA loans to get by which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We have an SBA mortgage so essentially they wants us to take out a loan to pay a loan.  No thank you.  There was some talk of no payroll taxes for a couple months, but all that does is increase the amount of pay from the employer so again it isn't helpful.  We haven't closed yet, although we may be reducing our hours as we are customer dependent.

I work for a small CPA firm. My boss spent all day yesterday on the phone with clients -trying to figure out who is doing what, who needs help filing for SBA loans, etc.

She did cut our hours as she basically said tax season is over - since everything was moved to July

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Robin M said:

The proposed answer is they wants us to take out SBA loans to get by which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We have an SBA mortgage so essentially they wants us to take out a loan to pay a loan.  No thank you.  There was some talk of no payroll taxes for a couple months, but all that does is increase the amount of pay from the employer so again it isn't helpful.  We haven't closed yet, although we may be reducing our hours as we are customer dependent.

I think these may end up being forgiven if certain conditions are met, at least, that’s the talk I was hearing on cable yesterday. Kinda like public interest loan forgiveness or something.

[SamanthaCarter]

57 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

At least here, unemployment is capped at less than $300 a week. No where near enough especially in single income families with kids. Not even close. And the other issue is those with more than one job. My husband has his main job, then teaches part time at a college to add to our income. If he lost his main job he would technically still be employed although not full time, so would he even be able to get unemployment? Not that it would begin to touch our bills.

I didn’t go into that, but when I said let the states determine how to increase benefits, I meant increases in amounts and eligibility.  Because I understand people are going to need benefits who wouldn’t normally fit within the rules of eligibility. Virginia has already relaxed several requirements, dropping the one week waiting period and the weekly job-search check-in with VEC. I assume there will be other requirements dropped within days or weeks that allow the underemployed to receive some benefits. 
 

This is just a clarification of my position. These are the kinds of things I would like to see happen with a big dose of federal funds into state unemployment coffers, so states can offer these enhanced benefits. Not some single $1k stimulus check. 

[Robin M]

40 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think these may end up being forgiven if certain conditions are met, at least, that’s the talk I was hearing on cable yesterday. Kinda like public interest loan forgiveness or something.

I haven't seen anything in that regard.  There was so much red tape and hoops we had to jump through just to get the mortgage  loan for the shop building, plus putting up everything collateral that I'd been gun shy about even accepting any type of disaster/recovery loan through them.  And it will take time for those who chose to get loans to come through so there should be some other method to help small business get through being forced to shut down. It's a cascade effect too as there are other businesses, venders who make their living from providing goods and services to small business. We all rely on each other so this whole thing is just going to snowball if it lasts too long. 

 

 

In regard to stimulus checks, If the legislature can ever come to an agreement, I think everyone should be treated equally and get the same amount.  Shouldn't matter how it's used.  At least an effort would have been made to help which in turn will somehow help stimulate the economy as well.  It's going to be impossible to please everyone.  

[Sneezyone]

20 minutes ago, Robin M said:

I haven't seen anything in that regard.  There was so much red tape and hoops we had to jump through just to get the mortgage  loan for the shop building, plus putting up everything collateral that I'd been gun shy about even accepting any type of disaster/recovery loan through them.  And it will take time for those who chose to get loans to come through so there should be some other method to help small business get through being forced to shut down. It's a cascade effect too as there are other businesses, venders who make their living from providing goods and services to small business. We all rely on each other so this whole thing is just going to snowball if it lasts too long. 

 

 

In regard to stimulus checks, If the legislature can ever come to an agreement, I think everyone should be treated equally and get the same amount.  Shouldn't matter how it's used.  At least an effort would have been made to help which in turn will somehow help stimulate the economy as well.  It's going to be impossible to please everyone.  

 

Yeah, it remains to be seen what the final legislation looks like but I hope they include loan forgiveness, particularly if they attach some conditions like maintaining employee payroll or something.

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Tap said:

If they pay into it.  Unemployment Insurance, is a program you pay into. It is similar to a forced savings account. If you have paid in, you have a balance that you can draw from if you are unemployed. There are stipulations to when you can access unemployment, for how long, and how much your checks will be. As a business owner, they can pay into the program for themselves, or not. It is their choice.  If they pay in, then owners do have a balance to draw against. 

One thing, that is part of some stimulus packages, is allowing broader parameters for people to access benefits. 

Unemployment Insurance varies greatly from state to state.  I am not aware of any state that allows sole proprietors to participate.  The small business would have to be set up as an S Corporation and the owner be considered an employee. Unemployment is funded through payroll taxes, not by individuals who have balances upon which to draw. 

[Bootsie]

8 hours ago, Quill said:

Ok, that is a fair point. There is a difference between a sporadic govt windfall and a dependable, regularly-issued “free money” check. I was speaking to the philosophy, though. IME, there’s a constant ton of rhetoric out of the right wing strongly decrying anything they define as “socialistic”. That’s why all the outcry against ACA; that’s why there’s this big narrative pushing back against college educations and emphasizing trades (because if people can be convinced that tradesmanship is better, they won’t concern themselves with campaign promises expanding tuition-free college access); that’s why other social programs are constantly under the knife (cutting SNAP, for instance). But if a Republican President decides upon something with the same structure - that is, tax payer money being freely given to the public, whatever the explanation (i.e., whether it is Bush saying it’s “surplus” and therefore belongs to the people, or it’s Trump supposedly helping people with the pandemic fallout) - nobody bats an eye. 

The hypocrisy of it drives me bonkers. 

I think the difference is that many Republicans do not view sending checks broadly to the US population as "socialistic".  They view it as a reduction in taxes.  It is in line with smaller government.   And, if the government is going to increase spending to stimulate the economy; they would prefer for the decisions of where that money is going to be spent to be determined by the people rather than by the government.  

[TechWife]

12 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

All of that is included in the updated package.

I know they are trying for expanded unemployment benefits, but I haven’t seen anything about SNAP, rent assistance or other programs. Do you have any links so that I can catch up?

[Pawz4me]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I think the difference is that many Republicans do not view sending checks broadly to the US population as "socialistic".  They view it as a reduction in taxes.  It is in line with smaller government.   And, if the government is going to increase spending to stimulate the economy; they would prefer for the decisions of where that money is going to be spent to be determined by the people rather than by the government.  

It seems to me history tells us they prefer giving it mostly to large corporations and the wealthy, and allowing it to trickle down. Which has proven over and over not to work very well, but still  . . .

But when I say "history" I'm referring to my own life time. I'm old enough to remember President Reagan. Beyond what I've witnessed myself I admit to a lot of ignorance in this area.

[Carrie12345]

2 hours ago, TechWife said:

I know they are trying for expanded unemployment benefits, but I haven’t seen anything about SNAP, rent assistance or other programs. Do you have any links so that I can catch up?

I *think* I saw somewhere that N.Y. or NJ or PA (I’ve been trying to keep tabs on all 3, since my area and family are impacted by all 3, plus I’m looking at GA and FL where the rest of my family is, so I DO NOT claim to have my details straight) was sending an extra month of food assistance.

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, TechWife said:

I know they are trying for expanded unemployment benefits, but I haven’t seen anything about SNAP, rent assistance or other programs. Do you have any links so that I can catch up?

The latest was from early last night. I haven’t caught up this morning. This may be rolled into ‘aid to states’ who administer these programs. I found this this am. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488844-sticking-points-force-stimulus-package-talks-to-spill-into-sunday

Edited March 22, 2020 by Sneezyone

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

The latest was from early last night. I haven’t caught up this morning. This may be rolled into ‘aid to states’ who administer these programs. I found this this am. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488844-sticking-points-force-stimulus-package-talks-to-spill-into-sunday

 

That's a start, I wonder if the federal gov't will also up their contribution to the programs? While administered by the state, they are funded by a combination of federal and state funds. I also wonder if the state can use those funds for other purposes - the details aren't clear in the article. I guess time will tell.

One of my friends is a disability advocate, and disability advocates have found a provision in the bill that would open the door to possible denial of education for people with IEP's.

"Buried within a proposal put forth Thursday by U.S. Senate Republicans is a provision directing Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to prepare a report to Congress outlining any special education obligations that she thinks school districts should be temporarily freed from.

...

The report, which would be due within 30 days, should have 'recommendations on any additional waivers the secretary believes are necessary to be enacted into law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to provide limited flexibility to states and local educational agencies to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities during the emergency,'  the bill states

'Such a report would provide the basis for the secretary to recommend any number of waivers that in future bills could upend key civil rights protections,' said Denise Stile Marshall, CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, or COPAA, a nonprofit that represents special education attorneys. 'COPAA is especially concerned that some members of Congress may use the national crisis as justification for giving Secretary DeVos unnecessary authority to waive key provisions of IDEA, Sec. 504 and ESSA — just when our children and their families need the protections the most.' "

 

https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2020/03/20/coronavirus-stimulus-plan-could-weaken-protections-for-students-with-disabilities/28019/

[TechWife]

I also really wish they wouldn't call this a stimulus bill. It's purpose is more rescue than stimulus - trying to provide a way for people to continue to pay their regular bills. No one who needs the stimulus money is going to be spending money on discretionary items. I wouldn't be surprised if others who could spend it on discretionary items will bank it instead, not knowing what is coming down the line in coming weeks.

[hippiemamato3]

19 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I also really wish they wouldn't call this a stimulus bill. It's purpose is more rescue than stimulus - trying to provide a way for people to continue to pay their regular bills. No one who needs the stimulus money is going to be spending money on discretionary items. I wouldn't be surprised if others who could spend it on discretionary items will bank it instead, not knowing what is coming down the line in coming weeks.

Maybe I'm completely out of touch, but I don't see $1000 as helping anyone accomplish much of anything. 

[mommyoffive]

Senate falls far short of votes needed to advance coronavirus bill as clash between Republicans and Democrats intensifies

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-falls-far-short-of-votes-needed-to-advance-coronavirus-bill-as-clash-between-republicans-and-democrats-intensifies/ar-BB11xjB8?ocid=spartandhp

[rjand6more]

We are self employed contractors(DH is a house painter).  We are a sole proprietorship.  He had 4 jobs put on hold because of social distancing regulations. He has enough work(in empty houses) to last 3 weeks.  And then that's it.  Nothing.  I do know that if the president grants it, we can qualify for Disaster Unemployment Assistance(which caps at $390/week). There are lots of hoops though,like time deadlines that may not be reasonable.  

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Senate falls far short of votes needed to advance coronavirus bill as clash between Republicans and Democrats intensifies

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-falls-far-short-of-votes-needed-to-advance-coronavirus-bill-as-clash-between-republicans-and-democrats-intensifies/ar-BB11xjB8?ocid=spartandhp

That's an interesting way to frame what happened. (The headline, I mean)

[Roadrunner]

I think it’s a terrible idea. 
If I were designing aid, I would make sure to put a moratorium on evictions right now and keep hot water and electricity going in everybody’s home as long as we are banned from working and have stay at home order. Also I would pay for virus related medical care so already stressed families won’t be facing bankruptcy and won’t be hiding sick to avoid medical costs. And also those losing jobs right now need food stamps in addition to unemployment checks.

[Liz CA]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

I think it’s a terrible idea. 
If I were designing aid, I would make sure to put a moratorium on evictions right now and keep hot water and electricity going in everybody’s home as long as we are banned from working and have stay at home order. Also I would pay for virus related medical care so already stressed families won’t be facing bankruptcy and won’t be hiding sick to avoid medical costs. And also those losing jobs right now need food stamps in addition to unemployment checks.

 

I heard that something is in the works that mortgage companies do not foreclose. A forebearance plan would help many, I think. Our utility provider sent an email informing us that nobody's power would be shut off during this crisis regardless of payments made or not.

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, Liz CA said:

 

I heard that something is in the works that mortgage companies do not foreclose. A forebearance plan would help many, I think. Our utility provider sent an email informing us that nobody's power would be shut off during this crisis regardless of payments made or not.

 

Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages (up to 50% of the mortgages out there) are already eligible for up to 12 months of forbearance. This was announced a few days ago.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

6 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I think it’s a terrible idea. 
If I were designing aid, I would make sure to put a moratorium on evictions right now and keep hot water and electricity going in everybody’s home as long as we are banned from working and have stay at home order. Also I would pay for virus related medical care so already stressed families won’t be facing bankruptcy and won’t be hiding sick to avoid medical costs. And also those losing jobs right now need food stamps in addition to unemployment checks.

 

The medical care issue is being debated as part of the Senate's proposal. The moratorium on evictions and utility shutoffs has been declared by multiple state governors as part of their emergency decrees.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

I think it’s a terrible idea. 
If I were designing aid, I would make sure to put a moratorium on evictions right now and keep hot water and electricity going in everybody’s home as long as we are banned from working and have stay at home order. Also I would pay for virus related medical care so already stressed families won’t be facing bankruptcy and won’t be hiding sick to avoid medical costs. And also those losing jobs right now need food stamps in addition to unemployment checks.

That’s fine, but there should be a protection for the landlords (like us) who lose rent as well. That is our livelihood and when people can’t earn money to pay their rent, we don’t earn money to sustain ourselves, either. 

I mean, I certainly don’t want to chuck anyone out for non-payment and wouldn’t want to even if it were not law right now, but it doesn’t seem like the landlords are thought of in this situation. Maybe the govt is thinking of big property holders with thousands pf units, not small time people with a handful of rentals. 

[Sneezyone]

I'm relieved the bill didn't pass the senate. the 500B treasury fund w/zero strings and no oversight is a non-starter.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

How would evicting people help you financially right now anyway?  Do you think that there will be a line out the door trying to move in with people ordered to stay home?

If you do not have the moneyto sustain yourself, will you not be eligible for all the same things your renters will be eligible for? Are you worried about losing your home? About not feeding your children?

It may not be in a landlord's financial interest to evict someone.  And, a landlord may not choose to evict someone at this moment.  But, the legal right to do so increases the chances that the landlord will get paid.  Some people will choose not to dip into their savings or use their limited funds to pay their rent if their is not consequence if they don't.  

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

That’s fine, but there should be a protection for the landlords (like us) who lose rent as well. That is our livelihood and when people can’t earn money to pay their rent, we don’t earn money to sustain ourselves, either. 

I mean, I certainly don’t want to chuck anyone out for non-payment and wouldn’t want to even if it were not law right now, but it doesn’t seem like the landlords are thought of in this situation. Maybe the govt is thinking of big property holders with thousands pf units, not small time people with a handful of rentals. 

Which puts you and them in the same boat  - unable to earn money. The idea is you can't evict them, but to also put in place something to prevent your mortgage company from foreclosing on you. In some areas mortgage payments will be able to be waived, and some mortgage companies are doing that now voluntarily. That doesn't address the lack of income issue, which sucks. But a lot of people are looking at lack of income, from chefs to hairdressers to eye doctors to dentists. It isn't taht the landlords are not thought of, it is that there isn't much to do about the lost jobs/income at the moment. Which just sucks. 

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

That’s fine, but there should be a protection for the landlords (like us) who lose rent as well. That is our livelihood and when people can’t earn money to pay their rent, we don’t earn money to sustain ourselves, either. 

I mean, I certainly don’t want to chuck anyone out for non-payment and wouldn’t want to even if it were not law right now, but it doesn’t seem like the landlords are thought of in this situation. Maybe the govt is thinking of big property holders with thousands pf units, not small time people with a handful of rentals. 

if you are losing income, then yes, help should be given to you. 

 

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

Which puts you and them in the same boat  - unable to earn money. The idea is you can't evict them, but to also put in place something to prevent your mortgage company from foreclosing on you. In some areas mortgage payments will be able to be waived, and some mortgage companies are doing that now voluntarily. That doesn't address the lack of income issue, which sucks. But a lot of people are looking at lack of income, from chefs to hairdressers to eye doctors to dentists. It isn't taht the landlords are not thought of, it is that there isn't much to do about the lost jobs/income at the moment. Which just sucks. 

 

Unemployment. They should be able to increase it temporarily.

I want help targeted to those directly affected.

 

[Bootsie]

25 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Which puts you and them in the same boat  - unable to earn money. The idea is you can't evict them, but to also put in place something to prevent your mortgage company from foreclosing on you. In some areas mortgage payments will be able to be waived, and some mortgage companies are doing that now voluntarily. That doesn't address the lack of income issue, which sucks. But a lot of people are looking at lack of income, from chefs to hairdressers to eye doctors to dentists. It isn't taht the landlords are not thought of, it is that there isn't much to do about the lost jobs/income at the moment. Which just sucks. 

But the landlord is in a different position than just being unable to earn money.  The landlord is still providing what was contractually promised.  The hairdresser does not still have to cut my hair but not get paid for it.  This basically says that one party to a contract must honor the contract, while the other party does not.  I think that is a dangerous place to go for two reasons:  (1) it allows people who COULD pay their rent to choose not to.  It leads to things like in an area with a high number of college renters who are not planning on being around next year to not take care of the apartment, and decreasing the value of the property, and not paying the rent.  (2) it means that in the future landlords realize that they are in a risky position; they are less likely to rent to people--especially people who are less likely to have substantial savings or essential jobs; they are more likely to charge a higher rent to cover this risk when they do. In the long-run this does not benefit renters

[hippiemamato3]

2 hours ago, OKBud said:

I can not overstate how helpful having 1000$ in hand will be for almost everyone in my birth family. So many Americans live every day right on the edge.

You know how people are always saying that you must save money because all it takes is one emergency to wipe you out? Well this is an emergency.  A lot of people didn't have the margins to buy an extra week of food so that they can stay home for two weeks if they or their loved ones get sick.   People are wiped out. And I don't mean in a the-economy-is-in-a-recession way, I mean right now today, people have spent all their money and their workplace is closed and they are wiped out.

The difference isn't between 20,000$ in savings and 21,000 in savings for **a lot** of people. It's the difference between 0 and 1000$ in hand.  This, in addition to expanded benefits, will get people through. So, yes, it will accomplish much for the actual people who need it. What it means to the rich and the rich-adjacent [that's lower-middle-class me in this context] is pretty much beside the point in my opinion.

Thank you for the clarification. I hope they can get the money where it needs to go as quickly as possible. 

[Liz CA]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages (up to 50% of the mortgages out there) are already eligible for up to 12 months of forbearance. This was announced a few days ago.

 

LOL. I am always a little late with the news these days. I don't listen to radio anymore but to Overdrive Audiobooks. Evidently I miss a bit.  Most of the time I am just as happy not knowing, however, in this crisis I should be better informed. I will come here more often where the most up to date people congregate. 

[Sneezyone]

45 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But the landlord is in a different position than just being unable to earn money.  The landlord is still providing what was contractually promised.  The hairdresser does not still have to cut my hair but not get paid for it.  This basically says that one party to a contract must honor the contract, while the other party does not.  I think that is a dangerous place to go for two reasons:  (1) it allows people who COULD pay their rent to choose not to.  It leads to things like in an area with a high number of college renters who are not planning on being around next year to not take care of the apartment, and decreasing the value of the property, and not paying the rent.  (2) it means that in the future landlords realize that they are in a risky position; they are less likely to rent to people--especially people who are less likely to have substantial savings or essential jobs; they are more likely to charge a higher rent to cover this risk when they do. In the long-run this does not benefit renters

 

Utility companies can say the same thing. They are still providing services with no guarantee that they will be paid. This happens to them every year when temps fall below/exceed certain levels. This isn't about a property right being taken away but about delaying the exercise thereof during an emergency. The emergency part seems to be lost here.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Liz CA said:

 

LOL. I am always a little late with the news these days. I don't listen to radio anymore but to Overdrive Audiobooks. Evidently I miss a bit.  Most of the time I am just as happy not knowing, however, in this crisis I should be better informed. I will come here more often where the most up to date people congregate. 

 

Honestly, things are moving so, so fast that it's really hard to keep up. The Senate proposal may not be the only one on the table by tomorrow either. The Speaker is working to draft an alternative.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

How would evicting people help you financially right now anyway?  Do you think that there will be a line out the door trying to move in with people ordered to stay home?

If you do not have the moneyto sustain yourself, will you not be eligible for all the same things your renters will be eligible for? Are you worried about losing your home? About not feeding your children?

We’re not even considering evicting anyone. But if any of our current tenants were not good payers before Coronavirus, they wouldn’t become better by knowing they cannot be evicted. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

Totally. But is that pressing enough on large enough scale to be directly addressed by Congress right now? They were already not paying while evictions were possible, these hypothetical people. 

 

I'll admit that I'm jaded b/c we own property in a state with lots of high-volume, low-rent landlords and very few tenant protections. Where our rental is, a day late and a dollar short can earn you an eviction in 7 days or less...and that's on a property that may not even be considered habitable in states with even modest regulations. Those same landlords will be the first ones complaining that they can't evict a tenant who owes $500 on a run down 2-bedroom unit. 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

1 minute ago, OKBud said:

 

Totally. But is that pressing enough on large enough scale to be directly addressed by Congress right now? They were already not paying while evictions were possible, these hypothetical people. 

Fortunately, we don’t currently have any problematic tenants, although we do have a few new tenants and thus, not much experience (or zero experience) in what sort of job they do meeting their obligations. But. These are not hypothetical people. We have had to evict people before and it takes a long time and it is a big loss. I just wonder what would happen if we were in the process of trying to get someone to pay when all this happened. 

Also, hopefully none of the new, recently-signed tenants are douchebags who take advantage of the law to not pay rent and thus live there rent-free with us having nothing whatsoever we can do about it. 

Governor Hogan’s briefing today did focus on businesses and SLs and grants, so maybe if necessary, we can avail ourselves of those resources. 

Like everyone, my anxiety about all the uncertainties is ratcheted up to a nine. I don’t think I deserve to be stressed about income not coming in any more than my tenant worried about the same thing. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Which puts you and them in the same boat  - unable to earn money. The idea is you can't evict them, but to also put in place something to prevent your mortgage company from foreclosing on you. In some areas mortgage payments will be able to be waived, and some mortgage companies are doing that now voluntarily. That doesn't address the lack of income issue, which sucks. But a lot of people are looking at lack of income, from chefs to hairdressers to eye doctors to dentists. It isn't taht the landlords are not thought of, it is that there isn't much to do about the lost jobs/income at the moment. Which just sucks. 

That doesn’t help me as our properties are not carrying mortgages. 

[mommyoffive]

Just saw this on MSN

BREAKING NEWS: Senate coronavirus bill fails to get enough votes to clear first procedural hurdle. Details to come

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Utility companies can say the same thing. They are still providing services with no guarantee that they will be paid. This happens to them every year when temps fall below/exceed certain levels. This isn't about a property right being taken away but about delaying the exercise thereof during an emergency. The emergency part seems to be lost here.

Utility companies are never (? AFAIK) a husband-wife team providing electricity, internet or water and sewer. Presumably, BGE is not going to starve from a few months of not levying late fees. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

Utility companies are never (? AFAIK) a husband-wife team providing electricity, internet or water and sewer. Presumably, BGE is not going to starve from a few months of not levying late fees. 

 

Neither are small, mom and pop landlords with Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages who already have the ability to have their mortgage payments delayed for 12 months at 0% interest. Now might be time for you to incorporate your small business (if you haven't already) so that you can benefit from the small-business assistance/loans that WILL be forthcoming.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Neither are small, mom and pop landlords with Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages who already have the ability to have their mortgage payments delayed for 12 months at 0% interest.

🤷🏻‍♀️ We don’t have mortgages on our rentals. 

I have to go now. This conversation is twisting my guts into a tight knot. 

This whole situation is just a tremendous catastrophe I wish I would wake up from any day now. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

🤷🏻‍♀️ We don’t have mortgages on our rentals. 

I have to go now. This conversation is twisting my guts into a tight knot. 

This whole situation is just a tremendous catastrophe I wish I would wake up from any day now. 

 

I really think you should take an antacid and wait 5 days. I'm not saying that to be flippant either. This situation is rapidly evolving and small-business assistance is available and will be more generous once the Senate and House agree on this third bill/appropriation. ETA: We are, BY FAR, less wealthy than many here but quite comfy at <100K/year in taxable income. We are also landlords. Worst comes to worse, we'd take a small, zero interest loan against a 401K and call it a day. We live in VA too, albeit not NOVA. We're not hurting. I do not think extraordinary measures will be necessary but we have credit and options. A lot of people don't.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Sneezyone

[hippiemamato3]

15 minutes ago, Quill said:

That doesn’t help me as our properties are not carrying mortgages. 

That's actually better for you, right? At least you aren't losing out on money you have to pay right to the bank.

 

[mommyoffive]

Democrats block key vote on $2 trillion coronavirus bill as Senate floor erupts with partisan anger

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-block-key-vote-on-dollar2-trillion-coronavirus-bill-as-senate-floor-erupts-with-partisan-anger/ar-BB11xjB8?ocid=spartandhp

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Democrats block key vote on $2 trillion coronavirus bill as Senate floor erupts with partisan anger

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-block-key-vote-on-dollar2-trillion-coronavirus-bill-as-senate-floor-erupts-with-partisan-anger/ar-BB11xjB8?ocid=spartandhp

 

This headline is so, so misleading. The sticking points are the 500B, unrestrained, undisclosed, funds that Treasury (under the direction of moneybags Mnuchin) can distribute at will as well as some provisions that weaken protections established after the last crash. I think, within the next week, a deal will be reached requiring additional (warranted) oversight and requirements for the distribution of those funds to corporations to use a 'special master' (to create fair rules), as was used with the 9/11 victim's compensation fund.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Sneezyone