I believe her mistake in this was filling in the "reason for no longer working" box incorrectly. she may have used the example of, "still working" as her reason, rather than "residual income" or even, "temporary work".
The basic understanding of "Employer" vs "Payment from" means completely different things in the eyes of the government.
I am pretty sure at this point that she was not employed by Google at any time during her unemployment claim. So to fill out the box that says "Employer Name" or even the one labeled, "Reason for no longer working", would be the wrong answer... even though she meant well.
The Continued Claim form does have an error on it, in the fact that it's required question, "Did you work or earn money", "Employer Name (required)" and "Reason for No Longer Working (required)" insists that all money earned is received from an employer and that you were employed to be able to have received that money... Rather than receiving money from any source of gambling winnings, gift or in this case, residual income.
Since the average unemployment benefits is $292 a week and the maximum in only a handful of states is $475 a week ($400 being the maximum in most US states)...
I can see that reporting on your weekly unemployment continued claim form that your earnings of $100 (through ads) during a week's period would mean $100 will be deducted from your weekly befits. That should not be much of an issue and to my best of understanding, that is basically how it works.
The same could be said that $100 out of $405 (in NY) could also mean that "unemployment benefits were greatly reduced"... by about one quarter... for that weekly benefit amount. The following week resets to your full weekly benefit's amount.
That being said, if you report an amount on your claim form, your weekly benefit will be reduced by that much unless the amount you are reporting is higher than the maximum amount your weekly benefit is for, in which case, you will not receive any benefits for that week.
But to say, "greatly reduced", can be read as a shocking amount until you actually know all the numbers involved. In this case, "greatly reduced" equals "by 25%".
At least there is a federal stimulus payment of $25/week being added to people's unemployment checks that does not get touched.
That is just it. Dont most sites have a clause in their TOS that says whatever data you put on to their site, is their property to do with whatever they want to do with it?
Unless that data is copyrighted material, and then the site has the right to just delete it on or before the copyright holder's request to do so.
I wonder who in their adult life, still keeps all the reports and homework assignments from elementary school...
Sometimes items of today may seem like your entire world, but 10 years later, those same items are just a small piece of who you are today, if even that.
I am reminded of Al Bundy's line about his high school QB days and... does it really matter much today?
On the post: Unemployed? Blogging? Don't Put Ads On Your Site Or You Might Lose Your Unemployment Check
Re: Re: Reduced by 25% = "greatly"?
The basic understanding of "Employer" vs "Payment from" means completely different things in the eyes of the government.
I am pretty sure at this point that she was not employed by Google at any time during her unemployment claim. So to fill out the box that says "Employer Name" or even the one labeled, "Reason for no longer working", would be the wrong answer... even though she meant well.
The Continued Claim form does have an error on it, in the fact that it's required question, "Did you work or earn money", "Employer Name (required)" and "Reason for No Longer Working (required)" insists that all money earned is received from an employer and that you were employed to be able to have received that money... Rather than receiving money from any source of gambling winnings, gift or in this case, residual income.
On the post: Unemployed? Blogging? Don't Put Ads On Your Site Or You Might Lose Your Unemployment Check
Reduced by 25% = "greatly"?
Since the average unemployment benefits is $292 a week and the maximum in only a handful of states is $475 a week ($400 being the maximum in most US states)...
I can see that reporting on your weekly unemployment continued claim form that your earnings of $100 (through ads) during a week's period would mean $100 will be deducted from your weekly befits. That should not be much of an issue and to my best of understanding, that is basically how it works.
The same could be said that $100 out of $405 (in NY) could also mean that "unemployment benefits were greatly reduced"... by about one quarter... for that weekly benefit amount. The following week resets to your full weekly benefit's amount.
That being said, if you report an amount on your claim form, your weekly benefit will be reduced by that much unless the amount you are reporting is higher than the maximum amount your weekly benefit is for, in which case, you will not receive any benefits for that week.
But to say, "greatly reduced", can be read as a shocking amount until you actually know all the numbers involved. In this case, "greatly reduced" equals "by 25%".
At least there is a federal stimulus payment of $25/week being added to people's unemployment checks that does not get touched.
On the post: Creative Web Destruction: Sites Go Away
Re: Modern vs. Traditional
That is just it. Dont most sites have a clause in their TOS that says whatever data you put on to their site, is their property to do with whatever they want to do with it?
Unless that data is copyrighted material, and then the site has the right to just delete it on or before the copyright holder's request to do so.
On the post: Creative Web Destruction: Sites Go Away
Sometimes items of today may seem like your entire world, but 10 years later, those same items are just a small piece of who you are today, if even that.
I am reminded of Al Bundy's line about his high school QB days and... does it really matter much today?
On the post: WSJ Defies NFL's Restriction On Live Blogging
Re: Need A Three-Strikes Law For TV
and sarcasm should be noted as such
On the post: Who Is EMI Talking To? Apple Doesn't Seem To Know
No Subject Given
http://www.8trackheaven.com/
Next >>