-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
EDD NOD
- Thread Starter sgeneris
- Start date
>What I assume you got was a decision letter telling you that you are ineligible for benefits for whatever reason they cite. It should tell you about your appeal rights.
Yes. They did not give a reason, but I suspect I mistakenly provided an incorrect proof.
You do not need to make your appeal when filing the appeal, just MAKE SURE you get it in within the time frame given. It can be as basic as "I wish to appeal this decision."
OK, good.
>The problem I see is that you have so little actual documentation of your being gainfully self employed.
>I would begin with showing them my income tax forms showing the income you have made from this self employment. If you didn't make any money at all, for the last quite a while, what proves you are self employed?
Indeed.
I have been (1) an independent consultant, author and speaker since 1970s and (2) from 2000 I also operated a website via which I was marketing and selling my books and papers. A few years before the pandemic I had to initiate a reprofile from (1) to (2) to return to profitability, which was taking considerable time for a one-person business with a website. Just when the sales started inched up a bit in 2019, showing promise, the pandemic hit and killed the prospects.
So when I found out late in November 2020 that self-employed were eligible for benefits, I applied retroactive to April, assuming that (1) the long history as self-employed was enough to qualify me as such and (2) the pandemic killing my chance to recover the business was legitimate grounds for applying. In fact, I thought that people in my circumstances were exactly their target (at 73 it is difficult to find employment even in normal circumstances, but despite my efforts during a pandemic it proved impossible).
It now looks like both my assumptions were mistaken? Can I claim this in the appeal? Does an appeal even makes sense? I don't see what info I could provide.
My concern is that, given what happened in CA, they are keen to find fraud and will impose the 30% penalty.
The paid amount is quite large and although although I still have most of it, some is gone and I am unable to come up even with that
Thanx for your help.
Yes. They did not give a reason, but I suspect I mistakenly provided an incorrect proof.
You do not need to make your appeal when filing the appeal, just MAKE SURE you get it in within the time frame given. It can be as basic as "I wish to appeal this decision."
OK, good.
>The problem I see is that you have so little actual documentation of your being gainfully self employed.
>I would begin with showing them my income tax forms showing the income you have made from this self employment. If you didn't make any money at all, for the last quite a while, what proves you are self employed?
Indeed.
I have been (1) an independent consultant, author and speaker since 1970s and (2) from 2000 I also operated a website via which I was marketing and selling my books and papers. A few years before the pandemic I had to initiate a reprofile from (1) to (2) to return to profitability, which was taking considerable time for a one-person business with a website. Just when the sales started inched up a bit in 2019, showing promise, the pandemic hit and killed the prospects.
So when I found out late in November 2020 that self-employed were eligible for benefits, I applied retroactive to April, assuming that (1) the long history as self-employed was enough to qualify me as such and (2) the pandemic killing my chance to recover the business was legitimate grounds for applying. In fact, I thought that people in my circumstances were exactly their target (at 73 it is difficult to find employment even in normal circumstances, but despite my efforts during a pandemic it proved impossible).
It now looks like both my assumptions were mistaken? Can I claim this in the appeal? Does an appeal even makes sense? I don't see what info I could provide.
My concern is that, given what happened in CA, they are keen to find fraud and will impose the 30% penalty.
The paid amount is quite large and although although I still have most of it, some is gone and I am unable to come up even with that
Thanx for your help.
>why do you think your business died out due to the pandemic? What financial documentation can you provide that the pandemic actually affected your self employment?
>based on your having worked a certain amount during a certain time period for a covered employer
>your business/income/self employment was affected by the pandemic.
The circumstances are trickier -- see my reply to the previous respondent.
At the time when the pandemic hit I had been involved in a multi-year effort to return to profitability by switching the business from consulting and teaching to authoring and publishing. As a one person business, that would have taken some time and the pandemic stopped that. So it's not that I had income and it disappeared, or that I could not work -- I have been posting on the site, working on books and papers, but the former were to market the latter and during 20-present there were no sales. I was trying to reach income and I wasn't able to. The problem is there is no "before" and "after" documentable difference. The closest I could come to that is that in 2019 there was a minor inchup in sales, which did not continue in 20-21. It's difficult to document "if only", but there is no doubt in my mind of the pandemic effect.
I have been self employed in the same business in DBA mode continuously since 1970s
(Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Amazon pages and more -- a well known entity). Initially as a consultant and public/onsite instructor so there were "covered employers" to speak of. But in the years before the pandemic I had switched to publishing and selling publications via the website, so there are no such employers, only sale records or site support donations or subscriptions). As I explained above, they are minor because I was trying to recover the business and was interrupted. And they are in my name not a registered business.
If a pandemic piles up just about when I was trying to return my business to profitability, there is no reason to exclude me from help given even to those in better circumstances -- my long career and reputation in that business should count for something. Except for the wealthy there is nobody unaffected seriously by the pandemic so all should get help -- those in worse shape more than all. But that's not how the system works.
>based on your having worked a certain amount during a certain time period for a covered employer
>your business/income/self employment was affected by the pandemic.
The circumstances are trickier -- see my reply to the previous respondent.
At the time when the pandemic hit I had been involved in a multi-year effort to return to profitability by switching the business from consulting and teaching to authoring and publishing. As a one person business, that would have taken some time and the pandemic stopped that. So it's not that I had income and it disappeared, or that I could not work -- I have been posting on the site, working on books and papers, but the former were to market the latter and during 20-present there were no sales. I was trying to reach income and I wasn't able to. The problem is there is no "before" and "after" documentable difference. The closest I could come to that is that in 2019 there was a minor inchup in sales, which did not continue in 20-21. It's difficult to document "if only", but there is no doubt in my mind of the pandemic effect.
I have been self employed in the same business in DBA mode continuously since 1970s
(Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Amazon pages and more -- a well known entity). Initially as a consultant and public/onsite instructor so there were "covered employers" to speak of. But in the years before the pandemic I had switched to publishing and selling publications via the website, so there are no such employers, only sale records or site support donations or subscriptions). As I explained above, they are minor because I was trying to recover the business and was interrupted. And they are in my name not a registered business.
If a pandemic piles up just about when I was trying to return my business to profitability, there is no reason to exclude me from help given even to those in better circumstances -- my long career and reputation in that business should count for something. Except for the wealthy there is nobody unaffected seriously by the pandemic so all should get help -- those in worse shape more than all. But that's not how the system works.
PayrollHRGuy
Well-Known Member
Who were your employers?
Your "long career and reputation" means nothing as far as UI is concerned.
UI is not a needs-based program. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and get UI.
>Who were your employers?
That was just background info -- they don't count because it's history -- it was years ago.
>Your "long career and reputation" means nothing as far as UI is concerned.
Indeed, it was my mistake to think otherwise. That probably explains at least in part the giant CA fraud.
>UI is not a needs-based program. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and get UI.
We're not talking regular UI here, but pandemic relief. The vulnerability to a pandemic effects is hugely dependent on circumstances. The monopolistic oligarchic corporate welfare state not only disregards this, but exploits it. That is why the oligarch's wealth exploded and the vast majority of the public suffers. It's a recipe for societal suicide and you are watching it.
That was just background info -- they don't count because it's history -- it was years ago.
>Your "long career and reputation" means nothing as far as UI is concerned.
Indeed, it was my mistake to think otherwise. That probably explains at least in part the giant CA fraud.
>UI is not a needs-based program. You could have a billion dollars in the bank and get UI.
We're not talking regular UI here, but pandemic relief. The vulnerability to a pandemic effects is hugely dependent on circumstances. The monopolistic oligarchic corporate welfare state not only disregards this, but exploits it. That is why the oligarch's wealth exploded and the vast majority of the public suffers. It's a recipe for societal suicide and you are watching it.
Last edited:
Zigner
Well-Known Member
Huh? What in the world are you rambling about?
It is no different than car insurance, conceptually speaking. You pay your premiums and then you can file a claim when the specified event has occurred.
>It is no different than car insurance, conceptually speaking. You pay your premiums and then you can file a claim when the specified event has occurred.
Do you really think that the effects of a pandemic are not different than a car accident?
That they made self-employed who did not contribute to the UI system eligible indicates that even
in the US it was understood that it was different.
Do you really think that the effects of a pandemic are not different than a car accident?
That they made self-employed who did not contribute to the UI system eligible indicates that even
in the US it was understood that it was different.
If one received PUA/UI income in 2021 that is taxable, but received a NOD of ineligibility and there is a good chance to have to return the funds, is the only option to pay the tax and ask for a refund in 2022, or can the tax be deferred until the appeal and definitive decision?
commentator
Member
This article does not say anything I disagree with. Instead of the usual way unemployment was done, they chose the unemployment system to provide a great deal of money to a whole lot of people in a very short time. I sincerely doubt that even a tiny number of the people who initiated this situation understood how unemployment insurance works in the normal run of things, and the system was not designed to pay tons and tons of money to lots and lots of people who were not required to qualify based on earnings criteria based on employer tax contributions.
They also were not set up to pay out money to everybody, like the tax system was. I compared it to dropping a watermelon on an ant. I had friends and family members who waited months and months for backpay, some who were declared ineligible due to complete off the wall misunderstandings, and sometimes I saw downright incompetence and even criminal behavior among staff who had hastily been dumped into the departments due to this new program.
That said, these people who filed are not likely to be found to be committing a crime. They do still have the appeals rights that the program has always had in place. They are NOT a court system, and as I have always said, they are much more interested, once they have determined that a person received benefits who was not eligible for them, in recouping some of the money than they are in prosecuting individuals.
Yes, there were huge blankets of invalid claims filed for stolen social security numbers and identities by criminal enterprises. Those are the ones they'd like to discover and prosecute.
People who filed claims and then failed to comply with further requests or requirements may not have understood what was being asked for. People who receive notices from the agency that they may be overpaid should go through the whole process of appealing and attempting to resolve the problem. The thoughts of the agency and the government at that time was "pay 'em, we'll sort them out later!" Thus we have the mess. There are a LOT of people in this situation.
Last edited:
commentator
Member
Regarding your other inquiry, I would say that the unemployment system and the income tax system are VERY far apart from each other. My suggestion is to keep them completely separate in your dealings with them. In other words, pay the taxes you owe at the present time on the unemployment money you did receive. If later you are determined ineligible, you might never end up having to repay the money (due to it being waived) or you might not be found ineligible in the appeals process....in any case, don't try to think ahead and assume you'll be paying money back at this point.
YES it is worth it to file the appeal. You'd be silly not to. But really, all you can do in the appeal is tell the agency representative what you are telling us about here. You were self employed. Then due to the pandemic, your business went away. What documentation do you have of this? What can you show me to prove this? And I am not talking about one single thing, but you using the kitchen sink method. Throw everything you can think of in there. They will tell you if they don't think it is helpful.
Incidentally, as I said, no discourse is necessary in the appeal request. And no rhetoric about how deserving you are is necessary in the actual hearing. They do not give a rats patootie about what you think about what has happened and how it has been handled or the oligarcic welfare state. You need to be polite, business-like and brief. Well organized is also good.
You either were, or were not self employed before the pandemic, and your business either did or did not suffer as a result of the pandemic. That is the reason you filed for unemployment benefits, we assume. Now what you need to do is show some more definitive proof of that than you did originally. No accusations of fraud or theft or crimes you have committed, they just want more documentation of your being self employed. As to what you can come up with to show them that, it's up to you.
As I said, don't be shy about showing your financial records, as they are not public record, but they may be helpful. Also, explain fully what the documentation you are providing is and what you are attempting to show by it. Listen to what the adjudicator asks you and answer their questions briefly and politely. It will not help anything if you procede to go all "Patrick Henry" on them or tell them what you think about the world situation. They are simply trying to do their jobs, which is to determine if you do or do not qualify for the benefits you have received.
I hate the attitude of people who want to mindlessly screech about the old evil 'guv-ment' that is trying to mess over all of us. As I say, these are people who are merely doing their jobs in a system that does work at least to some extent. Worst case scenario, you got a nice loan during the pandemic. It will be a long time before you have to repay it, if you ever have to repay it. And there's a pretty good chance, since you were not a fraudster attempting to profit from the pandemic illegally, you may not have to repay it. Do your best to work with the system. Best wishes.
YES it is worth it to file the appeal. You'd be silly not to. But really, all you can do in the appeal is tell the agency representative what you are telling us about here. You were self employed. Then due to the pandemic, your business went away. What documentation do you have of this? What can you show me to prove this? And I am not talking about one single thing, but you using the kitchen sink method. Throw everything you can think of in there. They will tell you if they don't think it is helpful.
Incidentally, as I said, no discourse is necessary in the appeal request. And no rhetoric about how deserving you are is necessary in the actual hearing. They do not give a rats patootie about what you think about what has happened and how it has been handled or the oligarcic welfare state. You need to be polite, business-like and brief. Well organized is also good.
You either were, or were not self employed before the pandemic, and your business either did or did not suffer as a result of the pandemic. That is the reason you filed for unemployment benefits, we assume. Now what you need to do is show some more definitive proof of that than you did originally. No accusations of fraud or theft or crimes you have committed, they just want more documentation of your being self employed. As to what you can come up with to show them that, it's up to you.
As I said, don't be shy about showing your financial records, as they are not public record, but they may be helpful. Also, explain fully what the documentation you are providing is and what you are attempting to show by it. Listen to what the adjudicator asks you and answer their questions briefly and politely. It will not help anything if you procede to go all "Patrick Henry" on them or tell them what you think about the world situation. They are simply trying to do their jobs, which is to determine if you do or do not qualify for the benefits you have received.
I hate the attitude of people who want to mindlessly screech about the old evil 'guv-ment' that is trying to mess over all of us. As I say, these are people who are merely doing their jobs in a system that does work at least to some extent. Worst case scenario, you got a nice loan during the pandemic. It will be a long time before you have to repay it, if you ever have to repay it. And there's a pretty good chance, since you were not a fraudster attempting to profit from the pandemic illegally, you may not have to repay it. Do your best to work with the system. Best wishes.
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time to help me out and apologies on pressing you further.
As somebody who deals in logic, I recognize yours as impecable. However, we don't live in a logic-driven world. So here's my general concern, after which I will take some of your specific points.
After looking closer into the business details I detected what might well be a discrepancy between the system's definition and my common sense understanding of self-employment based on which I applied for benefits. I lived long enough (73) to know that in the atmosphere created by the massive fraud in CA this could easily, if not likely, interpreted as fraud, with catastrophic consequences that I can't survive (in all my life not even once did I come into contact with the law and I was not going to start @73, but people like me, not the real frauds, who get caught up in such circumstances because we are more naive and easier). Even if that does not happen, If that difference exists I doubt they will waive repayment, but hey, from god's mouth to yours.
Now for your specific points:
>My suggestion is to keep them completely separate in your dealings with them. In other words, pay the taxes you owe at the present time on the unemployment money you did receive. If later you are determined ineligible, you might never end up having to repay the money (due to it being waived) or you might not be found ineligible in the appeals process....in any case, don't try to think ahead and assume you'll be paying money back at this point.
Of course. But the problem is that while I still have the bulk of the money -- I use it only for necessities and I live frugally -- I don't have all of it, nor other resources. If I pay the tax, I will have to wait for next year to get it back and I will have even less to pay back. What happens in that case?
>YES it is worth it to file the appeal. You'd be silly not to. But really, all you can do in the appeal is tell the agency representative what you are telling us about here. You were self employed. Then due to the pandemic, your business went away. What documentation do you have of this? What can you show me to prove this? And I am not talking about one single thing, but you using the kitchen sink method. Throw everything you can think of in there. They will tell you if they don't think it is helpful.
Again, logical. But if my suspicion is correct "I was self-employed ... due to the pandemic the business went away" may not work.
* First, because of my misunderstanding of their concept of se; and
*Second, because the reality is more complicated: It's not that the business got "wiped out". Without going into the details, I had been struggling for an extended time to make it profitable and
2019 was the first year I saw some minor results, so what the pandemic did was to freeze it for a couple of years. Given the nature of the business, that is a devastating effect, but I don't think "had it not been for the pandemic, the business would have continued to improve" during 2020-21 and it did not" will hold water.
Simply put, when they extended the PUA to self-employed, I assumed that (1) it was self-evident that the pandemic affected everybody and (2) struggling one-person businesses operating in DBA mode were a primary target, which is why I applied. That assumption seems to have been wrong.
>Incidentally, as I said, no discourse is necessary in the appeal request. And no rhetoric about how deserving you are is necessary in the actual hearing. They do not give a rats patootie about what you think about what has happened and how it has been handled or the oligarcic welfare state. You need to be polite, business-like and brief. Well organized is also good.
Oh, c'mon, I am not that stupid, this is just venting HERE.
>You either were, or were not self employed before the pandemic, and your business either did or did not suffer as a result of the pandemic. That is the reason you filed for unemployment benefits, we assume. Now what you need to do is show some more definitive proof of that than you did originally. No accusations of fraud or theft or crimes you have committed, they just want more documentation of your being self employed. As to what you can come up with to show them that, it's up to you.
See previous comments. I hope you're right, but also that you understand my concerns. If I thought I was but it does not fit their definition...
>As I said, don't be shy about showing your financial records, as they are not public record, but they may be helpful. Also, explain fully what the documentation you are providing is and what you are attempting to show by it. Listen to what the adjudicator asks you and answer their questions briefly and politely. It will not help anything if you procede to go all "Patrick Henry" on them or tell them what you think about the world situation. They are simply trying to do their jobs, which is to determine if you do or do not qualify for the benefits you have received.
The problem is not shyness, but what they require the records to show I don't have. A small, one-person, home office business constrained to operate just as "personal name DBA some business name" may not even be considered a business. As somebody confused here PUA with UI "you can be a millionaire and get it", which did happen a lot.
>I hate the attitude of people who want to mindlessly screech about the old evil 'guv-ment' that is trying to mess over all of us. As I say, these are people who are merely doing their jobs in a system that does work at least to some extent. Worst case scenario, you got a nice loan during the pandemic. It will be a long time before you have to repay it, if you ever have to repay it. And there's a pretty good chance, since you were not a fraudster attempting to profit from the pandemic illegally, you may not have to repay it. Do your best to work with the system. Best wishes.
I agree and my problem was rarely with those. But their job is defined controlled with rewards and punishments by those on top and they are a completely different ball of wax.
Thanks again for your help and sorry for taking so much of your time.
As somebody who deals in logic, I recognize yours as impecable. However, we don't live in a logic-driven world. So here's my general concern, after which I will take some of your specific points.
After looking closer into the business details I detected what might well be a discrepancy between the system's definition and my common sense understanding of self-employment based on which I applied for benefits. I lived long enough (73) to know that in the atmosphere created by the massive fraud in CA this could easily, if not likely, interpreted as fraud, with catastrophic consequences that I can't survive (in all my life not even once did I come into contact with the law and I was not going to start @73, but people like me, not the real frauds, who get caught up in such circumstances because we are more naive and easier). Even if that does not happen, If that difference exists I doubt they will waive repayment, but hey, from god's mouth to yours.
Now for your specific points:
>My suggestion is to keep them completely separate in your dealings with them. In other words, pay the taxes you owe at the present time on the unemployment money you did receive. If later you are determined ineligible, you might never end up having to repay the money (due to it being waived) or you might not be found ineligible in the appeals process....in any case, don't try to think ahead and assume you'll be paying money back at this point.
Of course. But the problem is that while I still have the bulk of the money -- I use it only for necessities and I live frugally -- I don't have all of it, nor other resources. If I pay the tax, I will have to wait for next year to get it back and I will have even less to pay back. What happens in that case?
>YES it is worth it to file the appeal. You'd be silly not to. But really, all you can do in the appeal is tell the agency representative what you are telling us about here. You were self employed. Then due to the pandemic, your business went away. What documentation do you have of this? What can you show me to prove this? And I am not talking about one single thing, but you using the kitchen sink method. Throw everything you can think of in there. They will tell you if they don't think it is helpful.
Again, logical. But if my suspicion is correct "I was self-employed ... due to the pandemic the business went away" may not work.
* First, because of my misunderstanding of their concept of se; and
*Second, because the reality is more complicated: It's not that the business got "wiped out". Without going into the details, I had been struggling for an extended time to make it profitable and
2019 was the first year I saw some minor results, so what the pandemic did was to freeze it for a couple of years. Given the nature of the business, that is a devastating effect, but I don't think "had it not been for the pandemic, the business would have continued to improve" during 2020-21 and it did not" will hold water.
Simply put, when they extended the PUA to self-employed, I assumed that (1) it was self-evident that the pandemic affected everybody and (2) struggling one-person businesses operating in DBA mode were a primary target, which is why I applied. That assumption seems to have been wrong.
>Incidentally, as I said, no discourse is necessary in the appeal request. And no rhetoric about how deserving you are is necessary in the actual hearing. They do not give a rats patootie about what you think about what has happened and how it has been handled or the oligarcic welfare state. You need to be polite, business-like and brief. Well organized is also good.
Oh, c'mon, I am not that stupid, this is just venting HERE.
>You either were, or were not self employed before the pandemic, and your business either did or did not suffer as a result of the pandemic. That is the reason you filed for unemployment benefits, we assume. Now what you need to do is show some more definitive proof of that than you did originally. No accusations of fraud or theft or crimes you have committed, they just want more documentation of your being self employed. As to what you can come up with to show them that, it's up to you.
See previous comments. I hope you're right, but also that you understand my concerns. If I thought I was but it does not fit their definition...
>As I said, don't be shy about showing your financial records, as they are not public record, but they may be helpful. Also, explain fully what the documentation you are providing is and what you are attempting to show by it. Listen to what the adjudicator asks you and answer their questions briefly and politely. It will not help anything if you procede to go all "Patrick Henry" on them or tell them what you think about the world situation. They are simply trying to do their jobs, which is to determine if you do or do not qualify for the benefits you have received.
The problem is not shyness, but what they require the records to show I don't have. A small, one-person, home office business constrained to operate just as "personal name DBA some business name" may not even be considered a business. As somebody confused here PUA with UI "you can be a millionaire and get it", which did happen a lot.
>I hate the attitude of people who want to mindlessly screech about the old evil 'guv-ment' that is trying to mess over all of us. As I say, these are people who are merely doing their jobs in a system that does work at least to some extent. Worst case scenario, you got a nice loan during the pandemic. It will be a long time before you have to repay it, if you ever have to repay it. And there's a pretty good chance, since you were not a fraudster attempting to profit from the pandemic illegally, you may not have to repay it. Do your best to work with the system. Best wishes.
I agree and my problem was rarely with those. But their job is defined controlled with rewards and punishments by those on top and they are a completely different ball of wax.
Thanks again for your help and sorry for taking so much of your time.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
It sounds like the problem is that your "business" is actually a "hobby".
Pls don't feel obligated to respond -- I am replying also for the benefit of others who might want to comment/help.
>This article does not say anything I disagree with. Instead of the usual way unemployment was done, they chose the unemployment system to provide a great deal of money to a whole lot of people in a very short time. I sincerely doubt that even a tiny number of the people who initiated this situation understood how unemployment insurance works in the normal run of things, and the system was not designed to pay tons and tons of money to lots and lots of people who were not required to qualify based on earnings criteria based on employer tax contributions.
Absolutely agree. That does mean, however, that some of the public -- particularly the naive, without resources and connections -- won't get snared.
>They also were not set up to pay out money to everybody, like the tax system was. I compared it to dropping a watermelon on an ant. I had friends and family members who waited months and months for backpay, some who were declared ineligible due to complete off the wall misunderstandings, and sometimes I saw downright incompetence and even criminal behavior among staff who had hastily been dumped into the departments due to this new program.
Exactly my point.
>That said, these people who filed are not likely to be found to be committing a crime. They do still have the appeals rights that the program has always had in place. They are NOT a court system, and as I have always said, they are much more interested, once they have determined that a person received benefits who was not eligible for them, in recouping some of the money than they are in prosecuting individuals.
I so much hope you're right. But you can understand my concerns. For somebody who has all his life stayed away from this sort of thing and has no experience to rely on it's scary.
>Yes, there were huge blankets of invalid claims filed for stolen social security numbers and identities by criminal enterprises. Those are the ones they'd like to discover and prosecute.
People who filed claims and then failed to comply with further requests or requirements may not have understood what was being asked for. People who receive notices from the agency that they may be overpaid should go through the whole process of appealing and attempting to resolve the problem. The thoughts of the agency and the government at that time was "pay 'em, we'll sort them out later!" Thus we have the mess. There are a LOT of people in this situation.
That is clearly true. I just hope I won't be the unlucky one -- not at 73.
>This article does not say anything I disagree with. Instead of the usual way unemployment was done, they chose the unemployment system to provide a great deal of money to a whole lot of people in a very short time. I sincerely doubt that even a tiny number of the people who initiated this situation understood how unemployment insurance works in the normal run of things, and the system was not designed to pay tons and tons of money to lots and lots of people who were not required to qualify based on earnings criteria based on employer tax contributions.
Absolutely agree. That does mean, however, that some of the public -- particularly the naive, without resources and connections -- won't get snared.
>They also were not set up to pay out money to everybody, like the tax system was. I compared it to dropping a watermelon on an ant. I had friends and family members who waited months and months for backpay, some who were declared ineligible due to complete off the wall misunderstandings, and sometimes I saw downright incompetence and even criminal behavior among staff who had hastily been dumped into the departments due to this new program.
Exactly my point.
>That said, these people who filed are not likely to be found to be committing a crime. They do still have the appeals rights that the program has always had in place. They are NOT a court system, and as I have always said, they are much more interested, once they have determined that a person received benefits who was not eligible for them, in recouping some of the money than they are in prosecuting individuals.
I so much hope you're right. But you can understand my concerns. For somebody who has all his life stayed away from this sort of thing and has no experience to rely on it's scary.
>Yes, there were huge blankets of invalid claims filed for stolen social security numbers and identities by criminal enterprises. Those are the ones they'd like to discover and prosecute.
People who filed claims and then failed to comply with further requests or requirements may not have understood what was being asked for. People who receive notices from the agency that they may be overpaid should go through the whole process of appealing and attempting to resolve the problem. The thoughts of the agency and the government at that time was "pay 'em, we'll sort them out later!" Thus we have the mess. There are a LOT of people in this situation.
That is clearly true. I just hope I won't be the unlucky one -- not at 73.
>It sounds like the problem is that your "business" is actually a "hobby"
Well I don't think I could have lived on a "hobby" since 1970s. But you are validating my concern that it can be viewed as that -- if you did, others will -- without a thorough look at it, particularly the stage it was in and why when the pandemic hit, which I don't think the appeal process is equipped for or interested in.
If you work hard full time but experience constraining circumstances not under your control it does not mean you should not be helped to **survive a pandemic** just like those who did the same and succeeded because of different circumstances. I have always had a serious problem with the **extreme** individualistic notion that whatever happens to you is always strictly due to you and only to you and therefore you're on your own. It's absurd and extremely destructive, **particularly in existential crisis situations like a pandemic**. If the pandemic did not make it clear in the US (and the West in general), I dk what will . Whatever the system saved was due primarily to not adhering to individualism.
Well I don't think I could have lived on a "hobby" since 1970s. But you are validating my concern that it can be viewed as that -- if you did, others will -- without a thorough look at it, particularly the stage it was in and why when the pandemic hit, which I don't think the appeal process is equipped for or interested in.
If you work hard full time but experience constraining circumstances not under your control it does not mean you should not be helped to **survive a pandemic** just like those who did the same and succeeded because of different circumstances. I have always had a serious problem with the **extreme** individualistic notion that whatever happens to you is always strictly due to you and only to you and therefore you're on your own. It's absurd and extremely destructive, **particularly in existential crisis situations like a pandemic**. If the pandemic did not make it clear in the US (and the West in general), I dk what will . Whatever the system saved was due primarily to not adhering to individualism.
Last edited:
Zigner
Well-Known Member
I was going by the information you gave
Yes, I realized that and I responded very carefully to precisely that.
Since the 70s the business went through several stages.
There were good and bad ones. Objective factors
(age, health) had an impact, some changes had to be made which, given
the nature of the business, take a long time to yield results. If
a pandemic happens to hit at such a time, does it mean that it's a hobby
and you don't deserve survival help? Probably more than others. That's
precisely why I said knowing much more than just what can be said in a thread
like this is necessary.
Whatever the constraints and drawbacks of operating the way I did, I never
had problems with it except now in the pandemic and existential crises require a different approach.
Yes, I realized that and I responded very carefully to precisely that.
Since the 70s the business went through several stages.
There were good and bad ones. Objective factors
(age, health) had an impact, some changes had to be made which, given
the nature of the business, take a long time to yield results. If
a pandemic happens to hit at such a time, does it mean that it's a hobby
and you don't deserve survival help? Probably more than others. That's
precisely why I said knowing much more than just what can be said in a thread
like this is necessary.
Whatever the constraints and drawbacks of operating the way I did, I never
had problems with it except now in the pandemic and existential crises require a different approach.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that you work with someone to help you distill your thoughts into something that won't confuse those who will be hearing your story during the appeal.
Best of luck to you.
Best of luck to you.
commentator
Member
I worked for many years within the unemployment system. Some of it in eligibility, adjudication, some of it in actual fraud recoupment. And something I have said more than a thousand times at least, is that first of all, the unemployment system, which includes the PUA system, is not impressed with your fraud, your criminality, your terror of "the legal system." Okay, the unemployment system is an agency, NOT CRIMINAL COURT. They only recommend their most blatant and spectacular fraudsters to the criminal courts for prosecution. Literally hundreds of thousands of people in the state, especially a big one like California are found to be ineligible for benefits every month.
Your failure of logic is that you are seeing yourself as a special special case, in which you might accidentally be drawn up and accused of bad motives, etc. because you did not interpret the very sketchy guidelines that were available to the agency as you should have, and horror of horrors, you filed a claim when you weren't eligible. That isn't fraud. That isn't even wrongdoing. You did not intentionally set out to deceive these people.
Yeah, yeah, I know, you're so many years old and you've never been in trouble before, you've been made to feel like a criminal, they've treated you terribly, mishandled this, you'd just like to forget the whole business, you wish you'd never filed in the first place, you can't sleep at night.. will they come for me before the trial.......I have heard people say things like this so many times. Please, believe me, you did nothing wrong, and you have nothing to worry about.
You say, "What if I didn't understand, and what if I didn't meet the guidelines for being self employed they'd set up?" and "What if I don't have enough proof?" Well, really, so what? You filed a claim in good faith, and you actually got approved, their decision, and that is NOT committing fraud by any definition. You might turn out to be overpaid, not your fault, but you have done nothing criminal, nothing to get you in any trouble with the legal system. As for being able to repay, they have waivers for people who do not have the financial means to repay, and after going through every appeal process, if you are really determined to have been overpaid, they will be very open to setting you up a repayment plan and giving you a really long time to repay. They're used to working with people who are not financially well off. They're not going to come after you with guns blazing especially not anytime soon.
And when you talk to them, you tell them your situation and you give them everything you can think of to explain your self employment activities, and do not be surprised if they find that it was good enough to meet the definitions. If nothing else, make a good TRY at it. Running from it and ignoring it, not appealing the overpayment is the craziest thing you can do, as that is the one thing that will GUARANTEE that you are overpaid and have to pay the money back eventually. From my mouth to God's ear is...well, let me put it this way, I am making a much more educated guess than you are capable of making about this situation, okay?
And for the millionth time I have said this, no, it doesn't make any darn difference to the person who is doing your hearing whether or not you are overpaid or whether you aren't. They get paid exactly the same either way. The system does not benefit from making people ineligible. There are a heck of a lot of people who do try their best to steal money from the system. They are the ones they love to catch just because that is the right thing to do. The "massive frauds" do not mean they have changed their laws and ways of going about things and are going to penalize the regular well intentioned people who have signed up who now have some possible hitch in their eligibility.
From what you say, you did a very half hearted job of submitting proofs with your claim. They want more. This just means what it says. Find them some more evidence. Tell them you were self employed. Don't worry that it "may not be good enough." You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
>I worked for many years within the unemployment system. Some of it in eligibility, adjudication, some of it in actual fraud recoupment. And something I have said more than a thousand times at least, is that first of all, the unemployment system, which includes the PUA system, is not impressed with your fraud, your criminality, your terror of "the legal system." Okay, the unemployment system is an agency, NOT CRIMINAL COURT. They only recommend their most blatant and spectacular fraudsters to the criminal courts for prosecution. Literally hundreds of thousands of people in the state, especially a big one like California are found to be ineligible for benefits every month.
You have a much better perspective on this than I do -- indeed, it is precisely because having never been in this situation or interacted with the agency -- it's only natural for me to be concerned.
So I accept the facts as you describe them -- mine is just an emotional reaction.
>Your failure of logic is that you are seeing yourself as a special special case, in which you might accidentally be drawn up and accused of bad motives, etc. because you did not interpret the very sketchy guidelines that were available to the agency as you should have, and horror of horrors, you filed a claim when you weren't eligible. That isn't fraud. That isn't even wrongdoing. You did not intentionally set out to deceive these people.
Not logic, because I KNOW it's not fraud. My concern was about how it will be interpreted -- that's different. Your comments are very helpful in calming me, thanx.
>Yeah, yeah, I know, you're so many years old and you've never been in trouble before, you've been made to feel like a criminal, they've treated you terribly, mishandled this, you'd just like to forget the whole business, you wish you'd never filed in the first place, you can't sleep at night.. will they come for me before the trial.......I have heard people say things like this so many times. Please, believe me, you did nothing wrong, and you have nothing to worry about.
There is all that, but humans are not logic machines and by operating this way agencies trigger this stuff. What you say is reassuring.
> You say, "What if I didn't understand, and what if I didn't meet the guidelines for being self employed they'd set up?" and "What if I don't have enough proof?" Well, really, so what? You filed a claim in good faith, and you actually got approved, their decision, and that is NOT committing fraud by any definition. You might turn out to be overpaid, not your fault, but you have done nothing criminal, nothing to get you in any trouble with the legal system. As for being able to repay, they have waivers for people who do not have the financial means to repay, and after going through every appeal process, if you are really determined to have been overpaid, they will be very open to setting you up a repayment plan and giving you a really long time to repay. They're used to working with people who are not financially well off. They're not going to come after you with guns blazing especially not anytime soon.
This is reassuring because this was the other source of stress. It is however quite complicated in my case and the tax issue makes it even worse. If it comes to that do you think that can defer that part of the repayment until I get the tax refund? There is a specific reason that's important.
>And when you talk to them, you tell them your situation and you give them everything you can think of to explain your self employment activities, and do not be surprised if they find that it was good enough to meet the definitions. If nothing else, make a good TRY at it. Running from it and ignoring it, not appealing the overpayment is the craziest thing you can do, as that is the one thing that will GUARANTEE that you are overpaid and have to pay the money back eventually. From my mouth to God's ear is...well, let me put it this way, I am making a much more educated guess than you are capable of making about this situation, okay?
I am mailing the appeal form and you can rest assured I will do all that if they give me the time to do it.
And for the millionth time I have said this, no, it doesn't make any darn difference to the person who is doing your hearing whether or not you are overpaid or whether you aren't. They get paid exactly the same either way. The system does not benefit from making people ineligible. There are a heck of a lot of people who do try their best to steal money from the system. They are the ones they love to catch just because that is the right thing to do. The "massive frauds" do not mean they have changed their laws and ways of going about things and are going to penalize the regular well intentioned people who have signed up who now have some possible hitch in their eligibility.
I think I already responded to this when I distinguished between the workers and the top.
>From what you say, you did a very half hearted job of submitting proofs with your claim. They want more. This just means what it says. Find them some more evidence. Tell them you were self employed. Don't worry that it "may not be good enough." You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Indeed, I did even worse, I made a stupid mistake: I misunderstood what an Affidavit means -- I thought I could sign one myself and that would be enough -- so for all practical purposes I submitted NO proof. So the NOD is hardly a surprise. Satisfying the criteria -- that's a fifferent matter.
You have a much better perspective on this than I do -- indeed, it is precisely because having never been in this situation or interacted with the agency -- it's only natural for me to be concerned.
So I accept the facts as you describe them -- mine is just an emotional reaction.
>Your failure of logic is that you are seeing yourself as a special special case, in which you might accidentally be drawn up and accused of bad motives, etc. because you did not interpret the very sketchy guidelines that were available to the agency as you should have, and horror of horrors, you filed a claim when you weren't eligible. That isn't fraud. That isn't even wrongdoing. You did not intentionally set out to deceive these people.
Not logic, because I KNOW it's not fraud. My concern was about how it will be interpreted -- that's different. Your comments are very helpful in calming me, thanx.
>Yeah, yeah, I know, you're so many years old and you've never been in trouble before, you've been made to feel like a criminal, they've treated you terribly, mishandled this, you'd just like to forget the whole business, you wish you'd never filed in the first place, you can't sleep at night.. will they come for me before the trial.......I have heard people say things like this so many times. Please, believe me, you did nothing wrong, and you have nothing to worry about.
There is all that, but humans are not logic machines and by operating this way agencies trigger this stuff. What you say is reassuring.
> You say, "What if I didn't understand, and what if I didn't meet the guidelines for being self employed they'd set up?" and "What if I don't have enough proof?" Well, really, so what? You filed a claim in good faith, and you actually got approved, their decision, and that is NOT committing fraud by any definition. You might turn out to be overpaid, not your fault, but you have done nothing criminal, nothing to get you in any trouble with the legal system. As for being able to repay, they have waivers for people who do not have the financial means to repay, and after going through every appeal process, if you are really determined to have been overpaid, they will be very open to setting you up a repayment plan and giving you a really long time to repay. They're used to working with people who are not financially well off. They're not going to come after you with guns blazing especially not anytime soon.
This is reassuring because this was the other source of stress. It is however quite complicated in my case and the tax issue makes it even worse. If it comes to that do you think that can defer that part of the repayment until I get the tax refund? There is a specific reason that's important.
>And when you talk to them, you tell them your situation and you give them everything you can think of to explain your self employment activities, and do not be surprised if they find that it was good enough to meet the definitions. If nothing else, make a good TRY at it. Running from it and ignoring it, not appealing the overpayment is the craziest thing you can do, as that is the one thing that will GUARANTEE that you are overpaid and have to pay the money back eventually. From my mouth to God's ear is...well, let me put it this way, I am making a much more educated guess than you are capable of making about this situation, okay?
I am mailing the appeal form and you can rest assured I will do all that if they give me the time to do it.
And for the millionth time I have said this, no, it doesn't make any darn difference to the person who is doing your hearing whether or not you are overpaid or whether you aren't. They get paid exactly the same either way. The system does not benefit from making people ineligible. There are a heck of a lot of people who do try their best to steal money from the system. They are the ones they love to catch just because that is the right thing to do. The "massive frauds" do not mean they have changed their laws and ways of going about things and are going to penalize the regular well intentioned people who have signed up who now have some possible hitch in their eligibility.
I think I already responded to this when I distinguished between the workers and the top.
>From what you say, you did a very half hearted job of submitting proofs with your claim. They want more. This just means what it says. Find them some more evidence. Tell them you were self employed. Don't worry that it "may not be good enough." You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Indeed, I did even worse, I made a stupid mistake: I misunderstood what an Affidavit means -- I thought I could sign one myself and that would be enough -- so for all practical purposes I submitted NO proof. So the NOD is hardly a surprise. Satisfying the criteria -- that's a fifferent matter.
Share this page
