Half of pandemic unemployment money may have been stolen: report

[SueDonJ]

There are studies that show people are more inclined to commit fraud when they believe nobody suffers directly from their actions.

I am not sure it matters if the taxpayers get screwed 5% (a little fraud) or 50% of the amount ( a lot of fraud) , they still get screwed. If the taxpayers are not at a loss then who gets screwed, nobody?

I think we're all in agreement that if fraud is involved there's no question that all taxpayers are getting screwed. It seems like what's at issue is what constitutes fraud, and IMO it's not fraud when the people whose jobs were impacted by COVID collect all the unemployment compensation that has been legally authorized.

 

[DrQ]

I got a spate of notices back in Jan that “my employee” had applied for unemployment and the Unemployment folks wanted me to verify their former employment. After I sent four of them back stating, a) I have never had an employee, b) never heard of the person applying, c) the address for my “business” was a place I had never been, they finally stopped. It was impossible to speak to the Unemployment folks since every time I called the number on the notice, it was busy. No clue how many more of my “employees” claimed benefits.

I asked my attorney about this and she said she and several other of her clients had gotten the same scam attempts.

Ohio has paid out over $2.1 Billion in fraudulent claims since Mar 2020. https://www.13abc.com/2021/05/18/unemployment-fraud-overpayments-tops-21-billion-in-ohio/

Cheers

Unfortunately, if these names are victims of identity theft, they will be in a world of hurt if they actually need benefits.

Until COVID, this has been a low profit scam. Until now, most states have been low tech on identity verification. When it got infused with cash and overloaded, the scammers swooped in.

 

[amycurl]

If one's business model requires one to pay your employees a sub-living wage, then one needs a new business model. I think a lot of "essential" workers reevaluated their choices post-pandemic.

 

[am1]

If one's business model requires one to pay your employees a sub-living wage, then one needs a new business model. I think a lot of "essential" workers reevaluated their choices post-pandemic.

Or if ones skills do not allow earning a living wage then maybe they need to improve their skills. A "living wage" should include roommates, few if any kids and no iphones or cigarettes.

 

[Roger830]

I think we're all in agreement that if fraud is involved there's no question that all taxpayers are getting screwed.

I don't agree.

Taxpayers will never pay, it's money issued by the fed that only adds to the trillions of dollars of debt that hasn't affected anybody yet.

 

[Brett]

I don't agree.

Taxpayers will never pay, it's money issued by the fed that only adds to the trillions of dollars of debt that hasn't affected anybody yet.

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer (company)

The special "CARES ACT" federal payments is ending for most states. it' still undedetermined how much the payments had on the economy, compensating unemployed workers until work is available and how much is "fraud".

The payments are not in the "trillions"

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284857/total-unemployment-benefits-paid-in-the-us/

 

[Fried_shrimp]

As a taxpayer I don't at all feel that unemployment payouts are a misuse of my taxes when fraud isn't involved, and I'm in favor of reasonable measures that are aimed to prevent fraud and punish fraudsters. I'd say the same about any other taxpayer-funded programs, whether or not I agree with the causes being funded.

As it relates to unemployment and other payouts that were specifically implemented to help those whose lives were upended by COVID and COVID-related mandates, I think this country wasted far more of my taxpayer dollars giving Tom Brady and others like him easy access to money for which they had zero need. That was pure DYKWIA greed (and let's face it, unearned awards for lobbyists) which prevented people who genuinely needed help from getting enough to make a difference in their desperate situations.

Having said all that, this article is sensationalist rubbish that contains zero facts to back up the non-specific claims. But no doubt within just a few short hours a certain segment of our population will believe it as gospel and start it trending on social media, bellowing that this is yet another reason why everybody who collects unemployment needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (even though they don't own boots.)

I hate this crap.

And which country are you a taxpayer in? I'm going to guess you either still are in Britain or at the very least, grew up in Britain (Americans don't use the word "rubbish") which is a much more socialist than the US so I would be unsurprised that a Brit thinks these payments are okay. BTW, what is being talked about is the taxpayer supplements to unemployment, not the actual unemployment. Businesses have always paid for unemployment. What is new are the taxpayer supported supplements that keep people from ever wanting to go back to work and should have never been started.

 

[Fried_shrimp]

Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer (company)

The special "CARES ACT" federal payments is ending for most states. it' still undedetermined how much the payments had on the economy, compensating unemployed workers until work is available and how much is "fraud".

The payments are not in the "trillions"

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284857/total-unemployment-benefits-paid-in-the-us/

View attachment 36495

Work has been available for months, in some places a year. If people had planned correctly there would never had been a need for the so called CARES act. It was purely a way for liberals to buy more votes with our tax dollars.

 

[Brett]

Work has been available for months, in some places a year. If people had planned correctly there would never had been a need for the so called CARES act. It was purely a way for liberals to buy more votes with out tax dollars.

Those "liberals" are still keeping good patriotic Americans from working !

 

[SueDonJ]

And which country are you a taxpayer in? I'm going to guess you either still are in Britain or at the very least, grew up in Britain (Americans don't use the word "rubbish") which is a much more socialist than the US so I would be unsurprised that a Brit thinks these payments are okay. BTW, what is being talked about is the taxpayer supplements to unemployment, not the actual unemployment. Businesses have always paid for unemployment. What is new are the taxpayer supported supplements that keep people from ever wanting to go back to work and should have never been started.

I'm not British, have never been to Britain, didn't realize that using a perfectly American word like "rubbish" would give a dolt the impression that I'm not American enough to understand what I'm talking about. If you actually read what I post for the meaning I intend, instead of interpreting it wrongly, deliberately, so that it fits the argument you want to have with me, you'd realize that you and I are discussing the same issues. Look again at my post that you quoted. I noted, "... other payouts that were specifically implemented to help those whose lives were upended by COVID and COVID-related mandates ..." which covers the supplements that you obviously find objectionable.

As for whether $300 is enough to keep people from going back to work when their situations have been made far more desperate than a $300 temporary fix, I and others in this thread have delved into that claptrap beyond the insulting and ignorant politically-motivated talking point that you've brought to the table. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

 

[bluehende]

Work has been available for months, in some places a year. If people had planned correctly there would never had been a need for the so called CARES act. It was purely a way for liberals to buy more votes with our tax dollars.

So out of the three relief bills only 1 is a problem. Wonder what the difference is?

 

[beejaybeeohio]

Or if ones skills do not allow earning a living wage then maybe they need to improve their skills. A "living wage" should include roommates, few if any kids and no iphones or cigarettes.

Then who would serve/prepare you your food when you dine out, be it at a fancy restaurant or lowly McDonalds? Who would give you your pedicure? Who would cut your grass. lay down your mulch, plow your snow? Who would pick up your trash? Who would do these jobs that do not provide a living wage?

Seems to me it is easy to talk the talk without having walked the walk of a fellow human being in less fortunate circumstances.

 

[arcsinx]

The unemployment issue is such a tricky one. On one hand, people truly did need help, and this is a way to do that. On the other, it's a much more nuanced issue. The rate that people have been paid on unemployment, in many states, amounts to $13-$16 an hour of full-time pay. To think that this is NOT causing people to stay away from jobs is simply silly. Who would turn down $13.50/hour full-time unemployment benefits vs. $7.25 at McDonalds working your butt off? The logical human answer is the one that benefits them the most.

I know unemployment systems are largely antiquated in their software (this came out last year when the first stimulus was being undertaken), and in the expediency of the moment, a flat sum of money is the easiest answer. But there surely are more pragmatic ways to go about it than just "600 extra per week", which breaks the entire economy in a lot of areas, as we've seen in many areas. (As a resident in an area where the $7.25 min wage is still prevalent, many businesses that pay that rate are having worker shortages, having to close on Sundays/Mondays, etc.)

For example, the short-term loans issued last year to help employers keep payroll and hire employees - I think that's a very smart way to go about it.

 

[SueDonJ]

... For example, the short-term loans issued last year to help employers keep payroll and hire employees - I think that's a very smart way to go about it.

I don't think that a program which qualified Tom Brady's company for one of those short-term loans was a smart use of taxpayer funds AT ALL, and I think it's disgusting that he and others like him, who could economically ride out the temporary effects of COVID with comparatively little sacrifice, got in line and depleted the funds. Some were shamed into giving it back but not all. I don't disagree with you that it was a lifesaver for small businesses which would have had no recourse other than closing their doors, but any business owners who were liquid enough to self-fund should have been explicitly excluded right from the start. It should have been means-based, as should every governmental aid program.

 

[Fried_shrimp]

I'm not British, have never been to Britain, didn't realize that using a perfectly American word like "rubbish" would give a dolt the impression that I'm not American enough to understand what I'm talking about. If you actually read what I post for the meaning I intend, instead of interpreting it wrongly, deliberately, so that it fits the argument you want to have with me, you'd realize that you and I are discussing the same issues. Look again at my post that you quoted. I noted, "... other payouts that were specifically implemented to help those whose lives were upended by COVID and COVID-related mandates ..." which covers the supplements that you obviously find objectionable.

As for whether $300 is enough to keep people from going back to work when their situations have been made far more desperate than a $300 temporary fix, I and others in this thread have delved into that claptrap beyond the insulting and ignorant politically-motivated talking point that you've brought to the table. If that's all you've got, you've got nothing.

Ah, so name calling ("would give a dolt") is considered acceptable now. Gotcha.

BTW, I have never, in my 59 years on this Earth, ever heard anyone not of the British persuasion, used the term "rubbish" in the manner you did.

That $300 was at one point $600.......per week. But some folks around here, just like the current government, couldn't care less how they spend other people's money.

 

[SueDonJ]

...
BTW, I have never, in my 59 years on this Earth, ever heard anyone not of the British persuasion, used the term "rubbish" in the manner you did.

I read a lot. It expands the vocabulary. <shrug>

 

[SueDonJ]

... That $300 was at one point $600.......per week. But some folks around here, just like the current government, couldn't care less how they spend other people's money.

FYI, that $600 unemployment supplement was implemented by the former administration.

Now can you please try to write a post that doesn't scream your obvious support for one thing and obvious non-support of another based solely on politics?

 

[arcsinx]

On the topic of "spending other people's money", I just thought I'd point out that almost everyone in a modern society benefits from the spending of other people's money. If all of society somehow had a way to track each person's own tax contributions and each person couldn't participate or use parts of society that they didn't contribute to, much of our way of life would collapse entirely. So it's a flawed argument at its core. And if this is somehow construed as political, feel free to delete.

 

[Fried_shrimp]

FYI, that $600 unemployment supplement was implemented by the former administration.

I have never 100% agreed with everything any president has ever done.

Now can you please try to write a post that doesn't scream your obvious support for one thing and obvious non-support of another based solely on politics?

And vice versa.

Also still awaiting an apology for the name-calling, which you, above all others should know is a violation of the rules.

 

[DrQ]

I think it's time to rethink the restaurant business model.

The current model allows for lazy management. You can pay waitstaff crap wages and schedule more waitstaff than necessary for each shift without penalty because the waitstaff is being pand aid by tips. That is a Sh!** way to treat your employees.

In H/S, I worked in a restaurant as a busboy. I had been working as a house boy in the afternoons for the school year while I was a senior in H/S because I only had two morning classes to attend to graduate. The housekeeper fired me three times because she wanted a full time guy. She rehired me twice when the burn-out druggies she hired didn't work out (in less than a week). On the third firing, I approached the manager and complained. She was a great lady that appreciated loyalty and put me in as a busboy for the lunch hour at my current (minimum) wage. I was also told to keep my mouth shut as far as my wage. (The housekeeper did not really think things through as I was about to graduate, duh)

I learned to hustle and found a great appreciation for the four ladies who were the the servers. They had been there for years and it was a tough job, but I learned customer service from them which I took into my professional life.

At night, the story was different. I got called a few times to fill in during dinner service. There was more waitstaff than traffic. Turnover was slow. I would wait for the customer to leave and the explode on the table to clean it up. The night waitstaff was amazed as apparently, they had to cajole the night bus staff to clean tables. And they stiffed us on tip out (maybe that's why their bus staff didn't show up?).

What I did see, was at night, waitstaff was over staffed with no penalty to management. We may have been somewhat understaffed during lunch, but exceptional people rose to the challenge and reaped the reward, again, no penalty to management.

By paying servers a living wage and get away from tips, management will actually have to MANAGE.

 

[Fried_shrimp]

On the topic of "spending other people's money", I just thought I'd point out that almost everyone in a modern society benefits from the spending of other people's money. If all of society somehow had a way to track each person's own tax contributions and each person couldn't participate or use parts of society that they didn't contribute to, much of our way of life would collapse entirely. So it's a flawed argument at its core. And if this is somehow construed as political, feel free to delete.

I disagree. The US was at it's height before we really had taxation (temp taxes for the War Between the States but not constant taxes). IMO, we could go back to that, stop the taxation, and everyone is responsible for his/her own life and not expect others to be responsible for them (scratch all social programs which started in 1932, 150 years AFTER the start of this country). Give nothing to society and take nothing from society. Of course, it would suck for some folks who have spent generations sucking on the government's teat but it has already proven to work so no collapse.

 

[Fried_shrimp]

I think it's time to rethink the restaurant business model.

The current model allows for lazy management. You can pay waitstaff crap wages and schedule more waitstaff than necessary for each shift without penalty because the waitstaff is being pand aid by tips. That is a Sh!** way to treat your employees.

In H/S, I worked in a restaurant as a busboy. I had been working as a house boy in the afternoons for the school year while I was a senior in H/S because I only had two morning classes to attend to graduate. The housekeeper fired me three times because she wanted a full time guy. She rehired me twice when the burn-out druggies she hired didn't work out (in less than a week). On the third firing, I approached the manager and complained. She was a great lady that appreciated loyalty and put me in as a busboy for the lunch hour at my current (minimum) wage. I was also told to keep my mouth shut as far as my wage. (The housekeeper did not really think things through as I was about to graduate, duh)

I learned to hustle and found a great appreciation for the four ladies who were the the servers. They had been there for years and it was a tough job, but I learned customer service from them which I took into my professional life.

At night, the story was different. I got called a few times to fill in during dinner service. There was more waitstaff than traffic. Turnover was slow. I would wait for the customer to leave and the explode on the table to clean it up. The night waitstaff was amazed as apparently, they had to cajole the night bus staff to clean tables. And they stiffed us on tip out (maybe that's why their bus staff didn't show up?).

What I did see, was at night, waitstaff was over staffed with no penalty to management. We may have been somewhat understaffed during lunch, but exceptional people rose to the challenge and reaped the reward, again, no penalty to management.

By paying servers a living wage and get away from tips, management will actually have to MANAGE.

I concur. Get rid of tips and then let the good restaurants thrive and the bad ones fall away. People won't be able to use cheap food prices supplemented by tips to get people to come to a lousy restaurant. On the other hand, you may find less incentive for workers to be really good since they get the same wages for subpar work. A good example of this is comparing the NCL Pride of America (US crewed boat that sails the Hawaiian waters) to any of the Caribbean sailing ships that have non-US crews. So while some things may bet better, no tipping, some things could get worse, such as customer service.

 

[arcsinx]

I disagree. The US was at it's height before we really had taxation (temp taxes for the War Between the States but not constant taxes). IMO, we could go back to that, stop the taxation, and everyone is responsible for his/her own life and not expect others to be responsible for them (scratch all social programs which started in 1932, 150 years AFTER the start of this country). Give nothing to society and take nothing from society. Of course, it would suck for some folks who have spent generations sucking on the government's teat but it has already proven to work so no collapse.

Tariffs were the main income of the federal government for many years, but in today's world where so much is made overseas, higher tariffs would effectively be a national sales tax. Or companies would make domestically instead of overseas, but then higher prices would result anyway. The end result is the same - the consumer (you, me) pay for it, the same as a tax.

Social programs are ingrained into our world's society. Take streetlights - who pays for those? If there were no taxes and no government to put up street lights on public streets, who would do it? Most would consider streetlights a useful public good, but someone has to pay for them. This is a tiny example, but it scales to larger ones as well. Take social security retirement benefits: The typical person will take out 33% more in benefits than they pay in - taking money from other people.

On topic of this thread, maybe unemployment insurance could be restructured so that it's cashflow neutral, in a sense: You need to claim unemployment for X weeks, get diminishing returns each week until it runs out (many states already do this). Then, in the future, you must pay back the amount your borrowed on unemployment; government refunds will be garnished fully, and future income is garnished at (say) 2% until it is paid back, with inflation-indexed interest. Until it's paid back, you are not eligible to receive unemployment benefits again.

 

[Brett]

I disagree. The US was at it's height before we really had taxation (temp taxes for the War Between the States but not constant taxes). IMO, we could go back to that, stop the taxation, and everyone is responsible for his/her own life and not expect others to be responsible for them (scratch all social programs which started in 1932, 150 years AFTER the start of this country). Give nothing to society and take nothing from society. Of course, it would suck for some folks who have spent generations sucking on the government's teat but it has already proven to work so no collapse.

LOL ! "US at it's height"
yeah, The US has been on a downward spiral after 1909

 

[Brett]

All those forgivable PPP loans not paid back !
any fraud there?