Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

191012141537

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    Thanks for reply

    What about tax on covid payment ?

    There will be no tax on that yet - it seems this will be done at year end and it's advised if you can to keep a few euro aside to be able to pay it. Otherwise it can be written off against medical expenses, for example, if you have any. Or they may amend tax credits for 2021 to factor in any money owing. It's a balls but at least for small business like us, we can keep on our staff and they are getting paid a salary near to their usual salary for now, rather than us having to let them go. If you have a savings account throw a few euro into it for the next few weeks and hope that you can cover any tax bill at year end.

    Just to say, I'm not a tax expert - just an employer whose head has been melted with this :-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    There will be no tax on that yet - it seems this will be done at year end and it's advised if you can to keep a few euro aside to be able to pay it. Otherwise it can be written off against medical expenses, for example, if you have any. Or they may amend tax credits for 2021 to factor in any money owing. It's a balls but at least for small business like us, we can keep on our staff and they are getting paid a salary near to their usual salary for now, rather than us having to let them go. If you have a savings account throw a few euro into it for the next few weeks and hope that you can cover any tax bill at year end.

    Just to say, I'm not a tax expert - just an employer whose head has been melted with this :-)


    This is where the confusion is. If my wage works out the same and I get 50 euro back why do I owe tax ?

    If I owe tax on covid payment I'm then down money every week technically ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 493 ✭✭The_Chap


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    This is where the confusion is. If my wage works out the same and I get 50 euro back why do I owe tax ?

    If I owe tax on covid payment I'm then down money every week technically ?

    your net wage is higher than previous in both examples

    normal net = 587 vs 700 and 637

    the covid payment is currently not being included in your tax calculation, therefore due to the calculation basis of tax you are due a refund as cumulatively to date you have overpaid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    The_Chap wrote: »
    your net wage is higher than previous in both examples

    normal net = 587 vs 700 and 637

    the covid payment is currently not being included in your tax calculation, therefore due to the calculation basis of tax you are due a refund as cumulatively to date you have overpaid.

    Thanks The Chap . I understand the refund of tax but it's the tax on the covid payment I'm trying to figure out.

    The most recent payslip makes sense except for the covid payment part. If I have to pay tax on this then i am down on my wages ?

    The previous payslip of 700 nett would make sense if I have to pay covid tax as I would just put the balance away (i.e 113 euro)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,097 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    Hi

    I need a bit of help please

    We are on wage subsidy scheme here in work and we cant make head or tail of pay slip

    Normal
    Gross pay 669
    net pay 587


    Subsidy
    Covid 350
    Employer pay 319.9
    tax refund 30
    nett pay 700


    This week
    Covid 350
    Employer pay 237.19
    Tax refund 50
    Nett pay 637


    Can anyone help. When I questioned this I was told we would get a lump sum at end of subsidy to allow for drop in employer pay and we will have to pay tax on lump sum

    Something not right here ?
    Here's my take on it - It would appear that the first week was incorrect as your employer seems to have worked your pay out based on your gross weekly figure of €669. For the purposes of the wage subsidy scheme you are only allowed work on net figure (€587). So it looks like this week has been done correctly. The refund of tax is fine and is based on your own personal tax credits, so a colleague on the same salary may have a slightly different tax refund.

    Sam your employer is wrong on both slips.

    Employer top up plus the subsidy cannot be anymore than your average or normal nett. Your employer is paying you to much of a top up and the subsidy should actually be reduced accordingly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    Seve OB wrote: »
    Sam your employer is wrong on both slips.

    Employer top up plus the subsidy cannot be anymore than your average or normal nett. Your employer is paying you to much of a top up and the subsidy should actually be reduced accordingly.

    Is the 2nd one not correct - €350 subsidy plus €237 to give his previous net pay of €587?


  • Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭ilovespudss


    Is the 2nd one not correct - €350 subsidy plus €237 to give his previous net pay of €587?

    Yeah, second in is spot on.

    The first one would have seen the €350 subsidy tapered down by the excess amount over €587


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,097 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB


    Is the 2nd one not correct - €350 subsidy plus €237 to give his previous net pay of €587?

    Sorry my bad. It’s Friday night!
    I did a quick calculation of 30% which is obviously wrong at the subsidy was capped at 359 rather than the full 70%......

    Time for beer I think!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    Seve OB wrote: »
    Sorry my bad. It’s Friday night!
    I did a quick calculation of 30% which is obviously wrong at the subsidy was capped at 359 rather than the full 70%......

    Time for beer I think!


    Enjoy it - if I was still a drinker I'd have one too :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭PEACEBROTHER


    Haven’t read the whole thread but just want to ask something

    So we are working week on week off - the week off we are getting the scheme and employer backs it up to near full pay -

    We have heard rumours now that even the weeks we work we will still be getting the scheme ? Doesn’t make sense to me ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭ilovespudss


    Haven’t read the whole thread but just want to ask something

    So we are working week on week off - the week off we are getting the scheme and employer backs it up to near full pay -

    We have heard rumours now that even the weeks we work we will still be getting the scheme ? Doesn’t make sense to me ?

    The scheme can be used whether you are in work or not. It's the employers call then whether he tops you up regardless, tops you up for only the weeks you're working, or doesn't top you up at all.

    For us, we've had a reduced capacity in work so say 40/50% of the workforce have been in constantly since the lockdown began (essential service). Those that have been working have received the max topup allowable. Those not working have received a partial topup.

    We've done it like this to try to be fair to those that are working while maintaining those that aren't as much as possible.

    Your employer seems to have committed to full topups regardless, which is commendable to be honest.

    Only issue with the way your employer is choosing to use the scheme is some will feel why would they work if they would get the same for being at home. It's a shortsighted view, but I'm sure will feel like that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭PEACEBROTHER


    The scheme can be used whether you are in work or not. It's the employers call then whether he tops you up regardless, tops you up for only the weeks you're working, or doesn't top you up at all.

    For us, we've had a reduced capacity in work so say 40/50% of the workforce have been in constantly since the lockdown began (essential service). Those that have been working have received the max topup allowable. Those not working have received a partial topup.

    We've done it like this to try to be fair to those that are working while maintaining those that aren't as much as possible.

    Your employer seems to have committed to full topups regardless, which is commendable to be honest.

    Only issue with the way your employer is choosing to use the scheme is some will feel why would they work if they would get the same for being at home. It's a shortsighted view, but I'm sure will feel like that.

    Thanks for the reply and explanation


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Enjoy it - if I was still a drinker I'd have one too :D

    Thanks for your help Pistachio


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Seve OB wrote: »
    Sorry my bad. It’s Friday night!
    I did a quick calculation of 30% which is obviously wrong at the subsidy was capped at 359 rather than the full 70%......

    Time for beer I think!

    thanks for the help


  • Registered Users Posts: 76 ✭✭MildThing84


    Hi all,

    So in laymans terms for those earning the mid range end of salary, and are being paid 80% of it, the employer gets diddly?

    Do people think this could lead to employer's adjusting pay downwards in order to qualify for the biggest subsidy? Almost collective bargaining for these months and return it later?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭kennethsmyth


    Hi all,

    So in laymans terms for those earning the mid range end of salary, and are being paid 80% of it, the employer gets diddly?

    Do people think this could lead to employer's adjusting pay downwards in order to qualify for the biggest subsidy? Almost collective bargaining for these months and return it later?

    Yep


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭kennethsmyth


    Hi all,

    So in laymans terms for those earning the mid range end of salary, and are being paid 80% of it, the employer gets diddly?

    Do people think this could lead to employer's adjusting pay downwards in order to qualify for the biggest subsidy? Almost collective bargaining for these months and return it later?

    Wouldn’t return it later though


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Is there something about only working 4 days and no overtime when on wage subsidy scheme ?

    Our wages are messed up every week and it seems that the company is juggling figures but can't ( or wont ) explain pay slip to us


  • Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭ilovespudss


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    Is there something about only working 4 days and no overtime when on wage subsidy scheme ?

    Our wages are messed up every week and it seems that the company is juggling figures but can't ( or wont ) explain pay slip to us

    Dont know about the 4 days, I dont see the reason for that, but the overtime is messy. If you are being topped up to your max allowable as standard, then there is no room to pay overtime without the subsidy being tapered. Not many employers are going to voluntarily do this.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭gb19815


    I’ve been getting covid payment from employer only , what happens too unused tax credits during this period ??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Dont know about the 4 days, I dont see the reason for that, but the overtime is messy. If you are being topped up to your max allowable as standard, then there is no room to pay overtime without the subsidy being tapered. Not many employers are going to voluntarily do this.

    It's a mess tbh . When we ask we get a different answer and it seems they dont know what they are doing themselves

    im just afraid we'll be faced with a bill at the end of this and also be down money from employer because they keep changing the figure


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,074 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Some further digging on this.

    Error in the Revenue files for our 3 legal entities seems to impact on any employee with ARNWP of between €943.75 and €960.

    Column P (Tier 2) in the spreadsheet calculates a value based on 80% of ARNWP, and if that value returns higher than €755.00 then it appears to default the max top-up to €755. Works out correct for the vast majority, but for a very small number of staff it throws out an incorrect value.

    We've flagged to Revenue so waiting to hear back from them

    Just to follow up.

    Revenue can see that there's a problem on ARNWPs betwen €943.75 and €960 but still don't seem sure as to 1) how it arose or 2) how to fix it.

    They've advised us to amend manually in our payroll system this month - which we had already done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 286 ✭✭th283


    Hi guys, quick question on the wage subsidy scheme, I'm a full time employee on a salary, I've been on the wage subsidy scheme for a few weeks, working my usual 5 days. Boss called me in to the office last week and said from now on I will only be working 2 days per week, have to take 2 days annual leave and 1 day unpaid. So two questions really - can i be forced to take annual leave? And will the wage subsidy scheme cover the "unpaid" day?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭dundalkfc10


    gb19815 wrote: »
    I’ve been getting covid payment from employer only , what happens too unused tax credits during this period ??

    You will need them to cover the covid payment. Single persons credits only cover 317 a week, so if your Covid payment is more than this you will owe 20 possibly 40% of it


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭snowgal


    Hi,
    I'm totally lose when it comes to how I'm being paid and if I I will owe tax later in the year when its all balanced and figured out. My net pay before all of this chaos was €420. My employer has been geneourous enough to put up my pay slip from the wage subsidary that I received. My first payslip was as follows:

    Covid19 subsidiary scheme:
    Top up:
    Total deductions:
    Total take home (net pay):

    The most recent payslip is written as followed:

    ????


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭snowgal


    Hi
    We have 2 employees who are on the wage subsidy scheme. At the minute we are covering 30% and the Government the 70. However in the next few weeks before we reopen our building we will more than likely need them in to assist for more than 30% of their time. However we're obviously still watching the pennies in any way we can to keep afloat. Is it possible that we pay them 50% of their salary for 50% of their time and the government would cover the other 50% or is this a completely wrong way of doing things? Thanks


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    snowgal wrote: »
    Hi
    We have 2 employees who are on the wage subsidy scheme. At the minute we are covering 30% and the Government the 70. However in the next few weeks before we reopen our building we will more than likely need them in to assist for more than 30% of their time. However we're obviously still watching the pennies in any way we can to keep afloat. Is it possible that we pay them 50% of their salary for 50% of their time and the government would cover the other 50% or is this a completely wrong way of doing things? Thanks

    Just continue to pay them 30% and the government will continue paying the 70%. That's what it's there for. And they should be grateful for you topping up the 30%.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭snowgal


    eh i dunno wrote: »
    Just continue to pay them 30% and the government will continue paying the 70%. That's what it's there for. And they should be grateful for you topping up the 30%.

    thanks. But are we entitled to ask them to work over 30% of their time if we continue to do this?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,792 ✭✭✭2Mad2BeMad


    snowgal wrote: »
    thanks. But are we entitled to ask them to work over 30% of their time if we continue to do this?

    The whole point of the subsidy is to keep the person employed.

    Im on the subsidy, my employer tops me up by 30percent, I am still doing 40hours of work a week (essential worker)(apparently)

    Some employers are letting employees have some days of during this maybe because business is slow or they feel its fair as the company is only paying out 30percent.
    But regardless you can make your employees work a full week as they are still being paid there wage in full.


  • Registered Users Posts: 343 ✭✭Siobh73


    Asking again if anyone has experience of Revenue allowing them to go back and rectify top up amounts entered in the early weeks of the subsidy scheme? My employer won't even raise it as a query with Revenue as he says they won't entertain it. I feel they should at least ask...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Pistachio19


    snowgal wrote: »
    thanks. But are we entitled to ask them to work over 30% of their time if we continue to do this?

    Yes, they can be working more hours and you still use the scheme. Our employees haven't been working much so far but there is work coming up and they will be doing more hours. We will continue to use the scheme and top up in the same way we've been doing during the quiet periods i.e. taking the max subsidy and then topping up the balance. Rest assured we will continue to fit the criteria for elegibility for the scheme.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,210 ✭✭✭jos28


    Siobh73 wrote: »
    Asking again if anyone has experience of Revenue allowing them to go back and rectify top up amounts entered in the early weeks of the subsidy scheme? My employer won't even raise it as a query with Revenue as he says they won't entertain it. I feel they should at least ask...

    I made a total mess of the first 2 weeks payroll. I brought everyone on subsidy up to their normal take home pay without passing on the tax refunds that it triggered. I obviously had to re-do them even though I had submitted them to Revenue. I sent them a message through 'My Enquiries' and I was told to re-submit with the correct figures. I did that and it all balanced in the end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 relegation6


    My GFs work contract ends on May 31st. She's been receiving Covid payment since her place of employment closed it's doors. I'm thinking that her Covid payment will stop as soon as contract is finished (employer pays her the Covid payment) As she doesn't have an EU passport, I'm guessing she won't be entitled to any further benefits? She'll have to find a job somewhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    My GFs work contract ends on May 31st. She's been receiving Covid payment since her place of employment closed it's doors. I'm thinking that her Covid payment will stop as soon as contract is finished (employer pays her the Covid payment) As she doesn't have an EU passport, I'm guessing she won't be entitled to any further benefits? She'll have to find a job somewhere.

    Non EU/EEA citizens can apply for the pandemic unemployment payment. They must be resident in Ireland and previously employed here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 relegation6


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Non EU/EEA citizens can apply for the pandemic unemployment payment. They must be resident in Ireland and previously employed here.

    Thanks a million.


  • Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭tina1040


    If the scheme ends mid June, how will that work for monthly paid staff for their June salary?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,558 ✭✭✭Tow


    tina1040 wrote: »
    If the scheme ends mid June, how will that work for monthly paid staff for their June salary?

    It is a Weekly system, so Revenue want employees changed to weekly, to cater for this and other problems with restarters and leavers etc.

    https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/documents/pmod-topics/guidance-on-operation-of-twss.pdf 2.8
    For pay frequencies other than weekly, employers should consider placing these rehired employees on a weekly pay frequency to simplify the alignment with the TWSS payments and to prevent PUP payment overlaps that may trigger a DEASP overpayment situation for the employee

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭tina1040


    Tow wrote: »
    It is a Weekly system, so Revenue want employees changed to weekly, to cater for this and other problems with restarters and leavers etc.

    https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/documents/pmod-topics/guidance-on-operation-of-twss.pdf 2.8

    I don't think revenue expect monthly salaries to be changed to weekly. There is no way to change to weekly on the software we use. I have based cash forecasts on 3 months of TWSS april, may and june.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,803 ✭✭✭snowgal


    Yes, they can be working more hours and you still use the scheme. Our employees haven't been working much so far but there is work coming up and they will be doing more hours. We will continue to use the scheme and top up in the same way we've been doing during the quiet periods i.e. taking the max subsidy and then topping up the balance. Rest assured we will continue to fit the criteria for elegibility for the scheme.

    Thanks for the answers to this everyone. Afraid Im still not done! The Director here is saying that legally we cannot ask them to work more than 30% of their hours though I have said alot of companies seem to be. However she will not budge because of employees potentially suing or something :rolleyes: so Im trying to find if this is anywhere in writing from Revenue or Gov. Has anyone seen anything along the way about this? Many thanks


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    snowgal wrote: »
    Thanks for the answers to this everyone. Afraid Im still not done! The Director here is saying that legally we cannot ask them to work more than 30% of their hours though I have said alot of companies seem to be. However she will not budge because of employees potentially suing or something :rolleyes: so Im trying to find if this is anywhere in writing from Revenue or Gov. Has anyone seen anything along the way about this? Many thanks

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/covid19_temporary_wage_subsidy_scheme.html

    Everything you need is there. And your director is wrong. Course you can ask them to work more than 30% of the hours. You could actually have them working 100% of the hours and just have them claiming the covid subsidy payment with no top up from the employer.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    eh i dunno wrote: »
    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/covid19_temporary_wage_subsidy_scheme.html

    Everything you need is there. And your director is wrong. Course you can ask them to work more than 30% of the hours. You could actually have them working 100% of the hours and just have them claiming the covid subsidy payment with no top up from the employer.

    I wouldn’t fully agree with you here, though I do get your point.

    The subsidy scheme is in place to ensure that a business with temporary reduction in income / cash flow can retain the contractual link to their employees.

    However I understand that strictly speaking a reduction in salary can only be agreed with the employee’s consent as it is a change to the contract between employer and employee.

    Now the alternative is often redundancy so it’s usually accepted. But I would think the employee is within their rights not to work 100% of the hours if they’re not getting paid their agreed full salary.

    A subtle difference to your point but one worth noting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,066 ✭✭✭✭eh i dunno


    Will23 wrote: »
    I wouldn’t fully agree with you here, though I do get your point.

    The subsidy scheme is in place to ensure that a business with temporary reduction in income / cash flow can retain the contractual link to their employees.

    However I understand that strictly speaking a reduction in salary can only be agreed with the employee’s consent as it is a change to the contract between employer and employee.

    Now the alternative is often redundancy so it’s usually accepted. But I would think the employee is within their rights not to work 100% of the hours if they’re not getting paid their agreed full salary.

    A subtle difference to your point but one worth noting.

    I've had my hours cut during this and am on the wage subsidy scheme at the minute so it will be interesting if my boss asks me to work full time next month while not topping up my 70% government benefit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    eh i dunno wrote: »
    I've had my hours cut during this and am on the wage subsidy scheme at the minute so it will be interesting if my boss asks me to work full time next month while not topping up my 70% government benefit.

    Yeah, true. In a sense the subsidy is between the employer and revenue and has nothing to to with the employee, I mean that in the sense that if you continue to get paid for the work you do it doesn’t really matter where it comes from.

    Hopefully if they’re expecting you to fulfil your full hours you’ll get paid as you did before.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    Will23 wrote: »
    Yeah, true. In a sense the subsidy is between the employer and revenue and has nothing to to with the employee, I mean that in the sense that if you continue to get paid for the work you do it doesn’t really matter where it comes from.

    Hopefully if they’re expecting you to fulfil your full hours you’ll get paid as you did before.

    Well it does, the company will be putting the employee into arrears with Revenue, not the company.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I have a question.
    Some staff of a supplier of mine are back working today. They mentioned that while off they got more from furlough payment than actual wages.
    Worried now they have to repay.
    Question is, did people come out with more being furloughed than working?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,576 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    They'll have to pay tax on the 350, not sure the exact amount but everyone seems to be saying save 30% as it's owed back.
    Lots of people in the same situation, could have been doing a few hours on a Saturday getting €50 there now on €350 until God knows when.
    Payment should have been based on average of last few paypackets to avoid the situation we have now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    I have a question.
    Some staff of a supplier of mine are back working today. They mentioned that while off they got more from furlough payment than actual wages.
    Worried now they have to repay.
    Question is, did people come out with more being furloughed than working?

    No tax on payment at present


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,694 ✭✭✭✭L-M


    They'll have to pay tax on the 350, not sure the exact amount but everyone seems to be saying save 30% as it's owed back.
    Lots of people in the same situation, could have been doing a few hours on a Saturday getting €50 there now on €350 until God knows when.
    Payment should have been based on average of last few paypackets to avoid the situation we have now.

    I know of 2 people who are older who get around 100 a week from work and they don’t pay tax.

    They won’t be taking it back because they won’t get it. It was announced for all as a streamline payment, that’s how it came into effect so quick


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭Alrigghtythen


    L-M wrote: »
    I know of 2 people who are older who get around 100 a week from work and they don’t pay tax.

    They won’t be taking it back because they won’t get it. It was announced for all as a streamline payment, that’s how it came into effect so quick

    They will be taking it back and I hope they enforce it 100%. Not everyone in the country got it. Some people still had to work and got nothing from the government.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    They will be taking it back and I hope they enforce it 100%. Not everyone in the country got it. Some people still had to work and got nothing from the government.

    ?? You got paid ,didn't you?


Advertisement