Your Money: A Hub for Help During the Coronavirus Crisis
March 26, 2020 1:04 PM   Subscribe

If your income has fallen or been cut off completely in the United States, this guide will connect you to the basic information you’ll need to get through this, including on government benefits, free services and financial strategies. (NYT) posted by katra (45 comments total) 38 users marked this as a favorite
 
Modest Needs is working to provide emergency assistance to workers who have had their hours cut and are now facing unmeetable expenses, particularly rent. You can start the application process here.
posted by praemunire at 1:21 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]


This article does a pretty decent job of explaining why I am not entitled to any relief and should go lie down in a ditch. I like how the link for alternative assistance via private loans or debt consolidation goes to a literal dead end.

Building an emergency fund in an emergency. It’s not easy, but even a cushion of $250 can help stave off disaster. Ann has some advice for how you can build up a little extra cash on hand.

The usual Dave Ramsey advice follows. Don't spend your tax refund (which is actually your relief check, but let's not talk about that). Pinch those pennies! Do you really need all that rice? Maybe you and another temporary refugee can split one!

Sometimes it would be better if the NYT just didn't.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:28 PM on March 26 [10 favorites]


For people in New Zealand rather than the States, see here: Covid-19 financial support.
posted by Paragon at 1:34 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]


If you are applying to any assistance program, please by cyber-scam aware (I'm not saying any of the above are BTW - just to be careful on any immediate assistance program - especially if linked from social media or sent to you unsolicited). I've been involved with a US state getting a form online for emergency assistance quickly, and as part of that we reviewed what various other US states/cities were doing. In some cases, cities/states seem to have favored speed over security, and the application forms aren't much more than a generic SurveyMonkey link or other generic online form solution where it is not possible to attribute if it's the real application or a scam - yet the forms are asking for *significant* amounts of personal information.

(US Specific) The Threat Intel team I work with has already advised us on scams using certain vulnerabilities on various public sector websites for COVID related phishing, etc. We expect more of those to pop up and for scams around assistance forms to occur - and given tax deadline push backs this year, the window for scammers to do things like tax refund harvesting, has increased.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:37 PM on March 26 [8 favorites]


If you have a mortgage in California, have a look at this:

Governor Gavin Newsom Announces Major Financial Relief Package: 90-Day Mortgage Payment Relief During COVID-19 Crisis

I've read that all of the major banks are participating except BofA.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:41 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


The caution is well-taken, but Modest Needs is a legitimate charity that's been around for well over a decade and did similar emergency funding for NYC workers post-Sandy.
posted by praemunire at 1:47 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


Don't spend your tax refund (which is actually your relief check

Do you have a cite for this? My understanding is that our "normal" IRS tax refund is one thing, the stimulus checks are another thing entirely, completely separate. They're just using our 2018/2019 returns as evidence of income level to determine if we get a check or not, and direct deposit and/or address info thus on file with the IRS to get the money to us.
posted by soundguy99 at 2:48 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]


Maybe it changed in the final rounds of the negotiations, the reporting I first saw was that in both Senate and House bills it was a tax rebate of some kind.

Forbes Summary from Mar. 24, comparing the Senate and House bills:

Stimulus Checks.

You and I both know why you're really here, but the House makes you wait around for the goods.

Stimulus checks don't make an appearance until nearly 1,100 pages into the bill. Under the proposal, the government would provide an "economic assistance amount" to taxpayers.

Checks would be more significant than in the Senate proposal, up to $1,500 per adult, or $3,000 for married couples filing jointly, as well as $1,500 per child (sorry, no more than three kids).

That would make the base amount for immediate payments $7,500 for a family of five. Checks would start to phaseout for those earning more than $75,000 ($150,000 for joint returns and surviving spouses), but unlike the Senate proposal, there's also an amount for a head of household: $112,500.

Checks would be based on 2020 income even though we haven’t yet filed 2020 returns (it’s a head-scratcher).

As with the Senate proposal, the check would be treated as an advance against a tax credit. Unlike the Senate proposal, you wouldn’t have to have earned income to get the checks: unemployed individuals still qualify. And as with the Senate bill, checks would not be subject to reduction, offset, or levy.


The same language appeared again on 3/25:

White House And Senate Reach Agreement On Stimulus Checks

Maybe everyone will still get whatever refund they would have normally, plus, but the payments still seem to be couched as some kind of early tax refund so the simultaneous advice not to spend tax refund money seemed sort of a jumble at best.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:20 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


And bit more from an explainer updated today:

So how does this work? Do I need to file anything to get my check? Technically, the checks are advances of refundable credits.

Treasury will advance your check based on your most recently filed tax return (2018 or 2019 tax return). If you haven’t filed a tax return, the bill allows Treasury to use the information on your 2019 Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, Form RRB-1099, Social Security Equivalent Benefit Statement.

Okay, I don’t understand. What is a refundable tax credit?

The check acts like a refund you get in advance. When you file your 2020 tax return, the IRS will compare your income numbers. If you should have gotten more than you did, you’ll get a refund. If the numbers on your 2020 tax return are different from your 2019 tax return, I don’t expect that you’ll have to pay it back (as the bill is written now). Don’t worry: most taxpayers should get just the right amount.

posted by snuffleupagus at 3:31 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


[Made small edit above the fold, per OP request.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:43 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


Anyone know if there's one of these for Canada?
posted by dobbs at 3:47 PM on March 26




From that Forbes explainer:

What if I am expecting a refund for the 2019 tax year? Your 2019 refund will not be affected by the stimulus check.

Okay, so it may be an advance on our 2020 tax refunds, but we have a year to figure that out both individually and as a country.

Phrasing it as "your relief check is actually your tax refund" makes it sound like this year right now immediately we get one or the other, not both. Which is not really a helpful way to put it.
posted by soundguy99 at 3:54 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]


Coronavirus Stimulus Payments: When Will They Be Sent and Who Is Eligible? (WSJ)
The IRS will provide updated information on its website about the process but is urging people not to call yet.

[...] People who haven’t filed tax returns can still file for 2019 to make sure the government has their updated income and bank-account information, as well as 2019 information about recent births, deaths, marriages, divorces and moves. Such changes that happened after 2019 won’t be reflected in the payments, however. Those with low incomes or no income can file tax returns for free using the IRS’s Free File program.

The IRS also will have the ability to get information from the Social Security Administration about people who get benefits but don’t typically file tax returns. So these people might not need to file tax returns to claim this payment; the IRS will provide more details about the mechanics.

[...] What about people who owe money to the IRS for prior years?

Other IRS liabilities won’t come out of the payments and even people who owe back taxes should get the full amount they qualify for.
posted by katra at 3:59 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]


Okay, so it may be an advance on our 2020 tax refunds, but we have a year to figure that out both individually and as a country.

Phrasing it as "your relief check is actually your tax refund" makes it sound like this year right now immediately we get one or the other, not both. Which is not really a helpful way to put it.


I think that's right, and fair enough. There's some explanation of the details in terms of filing this year's taxes here. I was specifically talking about the NYT's advice (in one of the articles linked from the "hub") for those without savings not to spend tax refund money when it comes in (to establish a rainy day fund), as these 'relief' payments would appear to be some form of that.

There were some other confused, or at least confusing bits too -- the main NYT article seemed to suggest any loans serviced by Sallie Mae or Navient aren't Dept. of Ed. loans, and that doesn't sound right to me.

Haven't looked into that bit of it yet, I'm still hoping to get some actual work done today.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:08 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


Navient services Ed-owned loans (and others); Sallie Mae now only services private loans (the system is complex enough that it's possible there are a few exceptions around the edges somewhere, but not your run-of-the-mill loans).
posted by praemunire at 4:13 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


As a freelancer / gig worker / independent contractor I am hopeful that some of these changes will be of help. My clients say productions will resume when the governor's shelter in place order lifts - hopefully in May/July - but no one actually knows if this will be true. I went from a fully booked calendar to nothing pretty much over night. The measures proposed so far do seem like they are intended to help precarious workers like me, but then when you get into the details there's always a catch, so then again, maybe not.

Stimulus checks - wonderful, it does seem like I would qualify for $1200. But as a self employed person who has never gotten a tax refund, the IRS doesn't have my direct deposit info. Actual checks seem to be more like months, rather than weeks, away. If I go put a Form 8888 in the mail today, will it help? Who knows.

Extending unemployment insurance to the self employed - wonderful, that would certainly help stave off disaster for me. Unemployment to tide me over until the non-essential businesses I contract for can reopen would be a huge relief. But I just registered for California's UI site, and it explicitly says you cannot list yourself as your employer (but that's the real answer?). You can only list W-2 employers & income, which is the whole fucking problem to begin with, freelancers don't get W-2s. "Self employed" for most workers means "sole proprietor", and the defining feature of being a sole proprietor is that you don't run a W-2 payroll for yourself. Do I just write my name on this UI form and send it in blank and get a UI check? I doubt it.

The pending Paycheck Protection Act being debated in the congress does specifically call out "gig workers" and "independent contractors" as eligible for SBA loans, and those loans are forgivable if used for "any rents, utilities" that were in effect before the crisis. By my reading of the current summary, gig workers would specifically be eligible for $10,000 loans and you could get it forgiven if you needed to pay your personal rent or electric bill. Larger companies the amount is based on a percentage of payroll (and not laying people off). But this legislation is pending, no one has seen the actual language, only a summary of their still contested 'compromise'. Even if this bill passed tomorrow like they expect, I'd still have to go through the loan application process, get the funds, spend them, and then submit documentation that they qualify for forgiveness in the future.
posted by bradbane at 5:12 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]


Yeah, self-employed small business owners have basically nothing but this stalled cash payment to hope for. I had to close my store today by county order: we can't even go in to fulfill online orders, so we had to drag 7 carloads of yarn home to the spare room in order to hopefully maintain a trickle of income. Meanwhile, our landlord still wants rent (and the lease backs him up) even though we can't legally use the space. When this is all over, all stores that aren't Amazon will be dead.
posted by rikschell at 5:23 PM on March 26 [8 favorites]


Under present law, sole proprietors aren't eligible for UI. That's why you set up an S-corp and make yourself an employee. Then (in CA) you pay the tax, and, if you're required to "fire yourself," you can collect. Unfortunately, you can't do this retroactively. Right now, unlike W2 employees, you've never paid into the UI system.
posted by praemunire at 5:25 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]


Right now, unlike W2 employees, you've never paid into the UI system.

Exactly. But here in California, it's more complicated, because AB5 just went into effect which reclassified all workers (I've been a sole proprietor freelancer for 12 years) like me as employees. AB5 compliance is my client's problem, not mine, it doesn't matter to me how they send my check out. Some, but not all, of my clients have transitioned to a W-2 payroll but they have only done that very recently. I was still getting 1099 payments up until February-ish. Because of AB5, I'm on several people's payroll, but I haven't actually received any checks from them through it. And those payrolls are not my actual client's payroll, it's a third party service they've contracted out so it's some random company they signed me up for that I have no relationship with.

I just got an email from CA Senator Nancy Skinner which says, in relation to unemployment:
Under California law, many individuals, like Uber and Lyft drivers, who were treated by their employer as a 1099 or contract worker, are eligible for unemployment insurance, including the additional $600 federal payment because California law has reclassified many of these workers, even if the company that pays the worker has not done so yet.
This seems to imply I should just fill out the forms with my 1099 clients information, regardless of how they chose to pay me. This Legal Aid at Work link was the resource provided for help.
posted by bradbane at 5:48 PM on March 26 [6 favorites]


Tough noogies on them, I say!
posted by praemunire at 6:12 PM on March 26


Even outside of California, it looks like they're covering at least some UI exempt work through the end of the year under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program. The extra $600 a week applies to that. It'll be interesting to read the details, but congress.gov isn't working at the moment.

I'm glad I don't work at a UI agency: it must be beyond insane at the moment. They had 5x more claims last week than any week ever, all these emergency retroactive rule changes, and most likely orders to work from home.
posted by netowl at 6:44 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


We should probably note that the CARES Act hasn't been passed yet, the House votes tomorrow.

The most information I've been able to find about those Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program benefits is this, from a conservative-leaning think tank:

Section 2102 applies to individuals who have exhausted their UI benefits (whether UC or EB or the additional weeks provided under Sec 2107), are not eligible for emergency UC under Sec. 2107, and those not traditionally eligible for UC, (such as the self-employed, independent contractors, and individuals who were scheduled to begin work but are now unable), including individuals in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other territories.

These individuals would be provided broad categories of eligibility such that nearly any individual whose employment is adversely impacted by COVID-19 (including individuals who quit their job), other than those able to telework or receiving paid leave, would be eligible for up to 39 weeks of benefits, fully funded by the federal government.

These benefits will cover weeks of unemployment from January 27, 2020, to December 31, 2020, that are directly attributable to COVID-19. The weekly benefit amount is equal to the amount that would normally be provided under state law (with a minimum equal to 50 percent of the average weekly payment of regular compensation in the state) plus, through July 31, 2020, $600 (as provided by Sec. 2104) and any additional increase that may be provided after enactment of this law.

For the self-employed, residents of territories besides Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia, and others who would not normally be eligible, the weekly benefit amount is the weekly minimum (50 percent of the average regular compensation in the state) plus $600.

posted by snuffleupagus at 7:08 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]


The check acts like a refund you get in advance. When you file your 2020 tax return, the IRS will compare your income numbers. If you should have gotten more than you did, you’ll get a refund. If the numbers on your 2020 tax return are different from your 2019 tax return, I don’t expect that you’ll have to pay it back (as the bill is written now). Don’t worry: most taxpayers should get just the right amount.

That is the most confusing explainer I have ever seen. If it's actually a 'tax credit' or a 'refund advance', then you should have to pay it back if you get a refund in 2020, ie your 2020 refund paid in 2021 will be reduced by the amount you get in April or whatever. If that is true, I have no idea from that paragraph.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:03 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


It's a morass, but after re-reading the available material a few times I think soundguy99's reading is probably correct: according to the explainers the advance credit shouldn't reduce the 2020 refund you'd get under normal circumstances (setting aside that people's 2020 tax year may be anything but normal) but rather the relief is structured as a supplementary refund for the 2020 tax year being advanced early.

Maybe for budgetary reasons, or to avoid impacting the Treasury or the dollar some other way?

I hate tax law and do my best to avoid having to touch it, others can probably offer a more affirmative interpretation.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:13 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


Don’t worry: most taxpayers should get just the right amount.

This is confusing too. I'm assuming by the 'right amount', that if you get less than the max amount allocated based on your older tax refunds, paid in April 2020,, ie: you had a kid, or they estimated your income higher than it was due to the 150k cutoffs, then you will get more on your 2020 refund paid in 2021.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:14 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


It's a morass, but after re-reading the available material a few times I think soundguy99's reading is probably correct: according to the explainers the advance credit shouldn't reduce the 2020 refund you'd get under normal circumstances (setting aside that people's 2020 tax year may be anything but normal) but rather the relief is structured as a supplementary refund for the 2020 tax year being advanced early.

I'm not blaming the explainer for confusing government text, but if it doesn't have to be paid back and it doesn't effect 2020 taxes in any way that is generally considered to be negative, then the explainers should best explain it as a temporary income tax cut, with amounts that are set based on the described factors.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:19 AM on March 27


Don’t worry: most taxpayers should get just the right amount.

This is confusing too.


I mean, it's Forbes - their target readership is not exactly folks desperate for that $1200 check to pay the April rent.

I can't help but read a strong subtext of "Your Trust Fund Managers will be able to sort this out for their usual monthly fee" in that "just the right amount" phrasing.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:10 AM on March 27 [2 favorites]


"One reason for hope: Even small cash cushions can help people stave off disaster. As little as $250 can significantly reduce the risk that a family will miss paying a utility bill or be evicted, research suggests."

what's this now, "research suggests" that having a little bit of money gives you hope, & if you have enough money to pay your bills, you can pay your bills

hang on I got to write this good good advice down, seems really vital

got to leave room to write down the part about how you get $250, I'm sure that's in the next paragraph

oh yes I was not disappointed here we go "First, try to get a handle on your income" then cancel your expensive vacations and reduce contributions to your retirement fund, which you have

perfect ok got it
posted by queenofbithynia at 10:36 AM on March 27 [10 favorites]


Even outside of California, it looks like they're covering at least some UI exempt work through the end of the year under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program. The extra $600 a week applies to that. It'll be interesting to read the details, but congress.gov isn't working at the moment.

After reading a bit more last night, it appears CA is directing contractors/employees of companies they've already begun enforcement against (meaning Uber, Lyft basically) to go ahead and file. The state already has legal judgements in place to make this happen against those specific companies, and they want the rideshare drivers off the road obviously. That doesn't mean all contractors should start entering their 1099's into the UI site (the CA UI site explicitly says not to do this). Or at least, that's the best I can make of it with conflicting information.

For freelancers, it seems like we need to wait to see the specifics of what are in the just-passed house bill.

I have a copy of the "compromise summary" and some analysis from a family member's work. So what I have is old and just a summary not the actual language, but the summary does state that "independent contractors" will qualify for the PUA program. It doesn't say what the details of that are, but IMO it's going to have to be some form of accepting 1099's as proof of employment/income (how else would they do it?). We'll see.
posted by bradbane at 11:28 AM on March 27 [1 favorite]


the summary does state that "independent contractors" will qualify for the PUA program. It doesn't say what the details of that are

oh no. the memes are coming, run
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:38 PM on March 27 [2 favorites]


the relief is structured as a supplementary refund for the 2020 tax year being advanced early.

Maybe for budgetary reasons, or to avoid impacting the Treasury or the dollar some other way?


Total seat-of-the-pants not-a-lawyer guess based on some dimly remembered things from both the Bush "dividends" payments & the '08-'09 recession is that the IRS is the only Federal agency legally (& practically?) able to send money directly to individuals. Without, y'know, individually signed contracts that have to go through a whole bidding & approval process, or having to filter the whole thing through another layer of state/local agencies.

Which would mean, in theory, that at some later point Congress could pass an additional law doing something like giving everyone an additional credit to their 2020 tax filings - boosting the standard deduction or giving everyone an additional $xxxx on their refund or whatever - to reduce or cancel the "advance" element.

it's going to have to be some form of accepting 1099's as proof of employment/income

Agreed, this certainly seems the simplest and fastest way to be able to expand benefits, as the 1099's are already on file with governments.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:41 PM on March 27


Everycrsreport.com: COVID-19 and Stimulus Payments to Individuals: How Did the 2008 Recovery Rebates Work?


Total seat-of-the-pants not-a-lawyer guess based on some dimly remembered things from both the Bush "dividends" payments & the '08-'09 recession is that the IRS is the only Federal agency legally (& practically?) able to send money directly to individuals.


I am a lawyer, though not this kind of lawyer. Still, doesn't sound quite right to me. This was a large piece of legislation, some other means of direct payment could have been authorized. (This page makes reference to other direct payments by Treasury. There's also SSA.) Either way, this does seem to be using roughly the same method as in 2008.
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:34 PM on March 27 [2 favorites]


Using this to jumpstart individual Fed accounts or some other new central banking platform would have been another option. (h/t to kliuless)
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:44 PM on March 27 [2 favorites]


some other means of direct payment could have been authorized

Without a lot of bucking and squawking and stalling from Republicans? They're hardly going to approve the creation of some new agency to distribute money.

This page makes reference to other direct payments by Treasury. There's also SSA.)

Well I mean looking at that page it's either the IRS or the SSA that would be the two agencies with the widest reach, VA would be relatively limited and Personnel Management and Defense Finance also seem like pretty specialized groups. And I think the IRS actually has wider penetration than the SSA - IIRC lots more people pay taxes than have Social Security numbers.

Either way, this does seem to be using roughly the same method as in 2008.

I would not be AT ALL surprised if the only way to get Repubs on board was to structure it as a "refund advance" so us normal folks would have to give it back eventually because god forbid the government just give us money to live, no no no, it has to be a "loan" so we don't get all lazy and immoral.
posted by soundguy99 at 4:20 PM on March 27 [2 favorites]


Without a lot of bucking and squawking and stalling from Republicans? They're hardly going to approve the creation of some new agency to distribute money.

Probably right, but it could have just been the Fed and the Postal Service. Which is screaming for more work to do.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:47 PM on March 27


Here’s how to get a small business loan under the $349 billion coronavirus aid bill (WaPo)
The new loan program is separate from existing federal loan programs, including the Small Business Administration’s disaster relief loans. To learn about the SBA’s other relief programs, visit the SBA’s covid-19 resource center or follow The Post’s federal disaster relief business loan Q&A.

Here are the details on how small-business owners can access the new federal Paycheck Protection Program. This article will be updated as new information is made available.
posted by katra at 8:26 AM on March 31


Archive.is link for that WaPo article.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:49 AM on March 31


Here’s how to get a small business loan under the $349 billion coronavirus aid bill (WaPo)
PLEASE NOTE The Washington Post is providing this story for free so that all readers have access to this important information about the coronavirus.
Here’s what you need to know to get a federal disaster relief business loan (WaPo)
PLEASE NOTE The Washington Post is providing this story for free so that all readers have access to this important information about the coronavirus.
posted by katra at 9:12 AM on March 31


Only if you want to disable your adblockers, which I don't. I don't really think we need to white knight Jeff Bezos here.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:22 AM on March 31 [1 favorite]


Yeah its not like news is important or valuable right now, why should newspapers get any money?
posted by thefoxgod at 5:36 PM on March 31


Worried about paying rent on April 1? What states are doing, and not doing, to help (USA Today)
What to do if you can't pay rent: What happens if you can't pay rent on April 1 because coronavirus forced you out of work?

[...] a USA TODAY analysis shows that at least 34 states have issued broader moratoriums on evictions as of Tuesday, either through executive actions taken by governors or orders issued by state supreme courts.
posted by katra at 9:00 AM on April 1


Yeah its not like news is important or valuable right now, why should newspapers Jeff Bezos get any money your data?

FTFY. I actually subscribe to the Post, through Amazon. I have no idea where the credentials are and don't want them tracking my reading anyway.

The point was more that if they're going to say they're making Covid news free and accessible, they should actually do so.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:06 AM on April 1 [1 favorite]


Social Security recipients won't need tax return to receive stimulus payment (Politico)
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin Wednesday announced that Social Security recipients would not have to file tax returns in order to receive coronavirus stimulus payments.

The reversal comes after complaints from lawmakers that an IRS plan to require seniors to file simplified returns would place an undue burden on them amid widespread shutdowns and social distancing guidelines implemented in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak.

[...] Social Security beneficiaries will receive the payments “as a direct deposit or by paper check, just as they would normally receive their benefits,” the agency said.
posted by katra at 6:46 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS IN THE CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY (CARES) ACT (National Employment Law Project)
The CARES Act creates three new UI programs: Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. [...] This fact sheet will discuss all three, as well as “short-time compensation,” laying out what benefits are available to workers who find themselves without any or enough employment or work in these difficult times.
via How to apply for unemployment benefits after losing your job because of the pandemic (Michelle Singletary, WaPo Perspective, Apr. 16, 2020)

See Also: COVID-19 RESOURCES FOR UNEMPLOYED AND FRONTLINE WORKERS: Frequently Asked Questions (National Employment Law Project)
[...] If your immune system is compromised because you have a serious health condition and you have been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine in order to avoid the greater-than-average health risks if you were to contract COVID-19, you should be able to remain home and apply for unemployment insurance.
posted by katra at 8:23 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]


« Older "CYBERBULLETS CAUSE NO PAIN!!"   |   This Is Not An Endorsement Of Arson Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments