4 ms·

> Should they not have taken it? I seriously considered not cashing my stimulus check until I talked to multiple well off people that cashed their dead relativ

> Should they not have taken it? I seriously considered not cashing my stimulus check until I talked to multiple well off people that cashed their dead relative's checks. There just isnt a cultural expectation in the US that you wouldn't take what you're given. EDIT: Rethinking my comment I'm giving myself too much credit. Since I never got a physical check, I couldn't have "not cashed it" if I wanted to.

mc32 6y ago
>’ cashed their dead relative's checks.’ Unless there is some weird allowance (widower/widow inheritance, etc.) wouldn’t this be straight fraud? I know in some countries people don’t report their relatives’ deaths in order to keep receiving their benefits, but obviously that’s illegal too.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Short answer is likely yes. Long answer is that depending on individual bank policy regarding depositing 3rd party checks, relationship with tellers/branch manager/what have you, or whether person verifying exceptions for remote deposit is sleepy that day, it may very well end up being undetected. And thats checks. ACH is a whole different can of worms. In a sense, I am glad it is getting some scrutiny as clearly people who did not need the money benefited ( likely at the expense of people who really needed it - the currently public fraud cases are pretty amazing already ), but I am worried that this kind of scrutiny will make people hesitant to apply in the future just to avoid the headache.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Doing some of that could get people into lots of trouble. Not sure if they could get them with wire fraud if it’s a physical check but at least financial fraud, impersonation, faking a signature, caching someone else’s check, etc...
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  It is straight fraud good for years in prison.
- vsareto 6y ago
  >Unless there is some weird allowance (widower/widow inheritance, etc.) wouldn’t this be straight fraud? I'd think if the estate is still open, it'd get rolled into that as income legally.
  - mc32 6y ago
    Though that would be a rather small percentage of disbursements... but aside from those corner cases it would be financial fraud...
- nkohari 6y ago
  Almost certainly, yes.
- junar 6y ago
  Yes, people should not be cashing checks for the deceased, but part of the issue was that the IRS was sending them out in the first place before deciding that they shouldn't have. > Q13. Why did the IRS send Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) to deceased individuals? (added June 26, 2020) > A13. Upon enactment of the CARES Act, the IRS worked with unprecedented speed to issue Economic Impact Payments to individuals. The IRS initially implemented the legislation consistent with processes and requirements used with the 2008 stimulus payments, which resulted in EIPs being issued to certain deceased individuals. After further review, it was determined that such persons are ineligible, and the IRS has taken action to prevent future payments to deceased individuals. https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-information-center https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-info...
wavefunction 6y ago
Those people broke the law though cashing checks made out to their dead relatives. I understand that's part of some Americans' expectations of the world as well though.
odonnellryan 6y ago
You pay taxes. You should take what the government gives you in return. I suppose there are many opinions here, but I have plenty of friends who refuse to take unemployment insurance, when they've paid into it for years (sometimes decades).
- _curious_ 6y ago
  Why do you think that is?
  - jacobsenscott 6y ago
    Some people think it is charity (it isn't) and they are too proud to take charity. Some people fear they will be less employable if they do because it is a record of a gap in employment.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    I was in that situation last year (in UK). There was about 2 months we could have claimed for help as I was out of work. I had secured a job though, and we had some (small) savings, so it was going to be messy. There's lots we could have spent the money on, but we didn't need it - we've had to go without meals before, this wasn't that. I think one can easily justify taking the money when you don't need it. Possibly the most moral action would have been to take it and help people who couldn't get the help and really needed. We've had no problem taking charity, still most of the kids clothes are hand-me-downs from other families; and I don't see income support as charity per se, and we take income support of other types not related to being jobless. The "you've paid in" argument would probably not be on our side either. Maybe that fleshes things out anecdotally.
matwood 6y ago
> I talked to multiple well off people that cashed their dead relative's checks. I wouldn't judge a program because of people committing outright fraud.
mushbino 6y ago
To your point, I know a bunch of people who applied for the forgivable loans just to see if they could get it. I know a guy who owns over two hundred Domino's franchises and got a $6M forgivable loan and his business has been up 30% since covid started. He can't hire people fast enough. Another friend was pissed that he wasn't approved for a loan too even though he has zero employees.
- evan_ 6y ago
  Taking on a lot of new employees and increasing production cost a lot of money up front that you won't recoup instantly, cashflow is a killer
- dboreham 6y ago
  He may not have known these facts at the time he applied for the loan. There was extreme urgency projected from the banks at that time (get your application in at 10pm on the Friday the program opened up to stand a chance of getting a loan). So business owners had to decide on that day if their business was going to turn down in the next few months. An essentially unknowable thing for many/most businesses.
eanzenberg 6y ago
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why universal healthcare, free college, basic income, and general socialism won’t work in the American culture. It may work in other cultures like nordic countries where people usually don’t take what isn’t theirs.

mc32 6y ago

>’ cashed their dead relative's checks.’ Unless there is some weird allowance (widower/widow inheritance, etc.) wouldn’t this be straight fraud? I know in some countries people don’t report their relatives’ deaths in order to keep receiving their benefits, but obviously that’s illegal too.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Short answer is likely yes. Long answer is that depending on individual bank policy regarding depositing 3rd party checks, relationship with tellers/branch manager/what have you, or whether person verifying exceptions for remote deposit is sleepy that day, it may very well end up being undetected. And thats checks. ACH is a whole different can of worms. In a sense, I am glad it is getting some scrutiny as clearly people who did not need the money benefited ( likely at the expense of people who really needed it - the currently public fraud cases are pretty amazing already ), but I am worried that this kind of scrutiny will make people hesitant to apply in the future just to avoid the headache.
- mc32 6y ago
  Doing some of that could get people into lots of trouble. Not sure if they could get them with wire fraud if it’s a physical check but at least financial fraud, impersonation, faking a signature, caching someone else’s check, etc...
michaelmrose 6y ago
It is straight fraud good for years in prison.
vsareto 6y ago
>Unless there is some weird allowance (widower/widow inheritance, etc.) wouldn’t this be straight fraud? I'd think if the estate is still open, it'd get rolled into that as income legally.
- mc32 6y ago
  Though that would be a rather small percentage of disbursements... but aside from those corner cases it would be financial fraud...
nkohari 6y ago
Almost certainly, yes.
junar 6y ago
Yes, people should not be cashing checks for the deceased, but part of the issue was that the IRS was sending them out in the first place before deciding that they shouldn't have. > Q13. Why did the IRS send Economic Impact Payments (EIPs) to deceased individuals? (added June 26, 2020) > A13. Upon enactment of the CARES Act, the IRS worked with unprecedented speed to issue Economic Impact Payments to individuals. The IRS initially implemented the legislation consistent with processes and requirements used with the 2008 stimulus payments, which resulted in EIPs being issued to certain deceased individuals. After further review, it was determined that such persons are ineligible, and the IRS has taken action to prevent future payments to deceased individuals. https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-information-center https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-info...

wavefunction 6y ago

Those people broke the law though cashing checks made out to their dead relatives. I understand that's part of some Americans' expectations of the world as well though.

odonnellryan 6y ago

You pay taxes. You should take what the government gives you in return. I suppose there are many opinions here, but I have plenty of friends who refuse to take unemployment insurance, when they've paid into it for years (sometimes decades).

_curious_ 6y ago
Why do you think that is?
- jacobsenscott 6y ago
  Some people think it is charity (it isn't) and they are too proud to take charity. Some people fear they will be less employable if they do because it is a record of a gap in employment.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  I was in that situation last year (in UK). There was about 2 months we could have claimed for help as I was out of work. I had secured a job though, and we had some (small) savings, so it was going to be messy. There's lots we could have spent the money on, but we didn't need it - we've had to go without meals before, this wasn't that. I think one can easily justify taking the money when you don't need it. Possibly the most moral action would have been to take it and help people who couldn't get the help and really needed. We've had no problem taking charity, still most of the kids clothes are hand-me-downs from other families; and I don't see income support as charity per se, and we take income support of other types not related to being jobless. The "you've paid in" argument would probably not be on our side either. Maybe that fleshes things out anecdotally.

matwood 6y ago

> I talked to multiple well off people that cashed their dead relative's checks. I wouldn't judge a program because of people committing outright fraud.

mushbino 6y ago

To your point, I know a bunch of people who applied for the forgivable loans just to see if they could get it. I know a guy who owns over two hundred Domino's franchises and got a $6M forgivable loan and his business has been up 30% since covid started. He can't hire people fast enough. Another friend was pissed that he wasn't approved for a loan too even though he has zero employees.

evan_ 6y ago
Taking on a lot of new employees and increasing production cost a lot of money up front that you won't recoup instantly, cashflow is a killer
dboreham 6y ago
He may not have known these facts at the time he applied for the loan. There was extreme urgency projected from the banks at that time (get your application in at 10pm on the Friday the program opened up to stand a chance of getting a loan). So business owners had to decide on that day if their business was going to turn down in the next few months. An essentially unknowable thing for many/most businesses.

eanzenberg 6y ago

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why universal healthcare, free college, basic income, and general socialism won’t work in the American culture. It may work in other cultures like nordic countries where people usually don’t take what isn’t theirs.