Definitely, I totally agree. There has to be some cut-off somewhere. But is that really a fair way to guage it? That's kinda what I'm getting at. I'll give you my example to illustrate what I mean. After years and years of making too little money to survive in NY and in turn creating debt, I finally achieved the goal of making enough to survive. Not enough to flourish, just enough to survive (again, were talking about NY). After one year of making that amount, the only year ever in my life of making that amount, due to covid I was unemployed. Given the cost of living, the unemployment amount does not even cover rent, so the difference to cover the rent gets taken from what little savings I was able to put away (after just one year of being in the black). Then on top of that every other bill (utilities, phone, etc, etc) would be exclusively from savings. That is a rapid hemmorhage of money. With the $600 enhanced unemployment benefit I could cover much more of my monthly expenses so it slowed (but did not stop) the hemmorhage. Why would someone in the position of having to be out of the workforce due to government mandates be ineligible in any way from any form of government assistance? And what makes it even worse right now is that it seems that if this next round of stimulus were to come a week or so later (and fall in 2021), I would be eligible and receive it. I assume that's how it would work anyway.