The Average American Family

[maat55]

Why shouldn’t a person on unemployment insurance benefit to its maximum potential? They paid for it. It’s like my auto insurance. If I lose my car to a flash flood, why would I take $1000 from the insurance company when the car is worth $10,000? Sure, a $1000 car could get me from point A to point B just as easily as a $10,000 car, but I paid for a $10,000 policy, not a $1000 policy and therefore I’m entitled to it. Unemployment insurance is just that, insurance. There are caps on unemployment insurance to limit the length and amount you can stay and be paid. So, I disagree that our social ills and lack of financial responsibility are responsible for the sad statistics stated in this post.

I do agree with you that extending the unemployment insurance benefits (for free) don’t actually solve any problems. However, I’m inclined to not care because it’s a small % compared to the handouts given to banks and corporations (which I also think didn’t solve any problems). And, as our government is willing to dance a lovely waltz towards bankruptcy*, I’d rather the money be tossed towards the people who’ll actually spend it on goods and services and not the banks who are actually loaning it back to the government to make a profit.

Note: *If you want to know what to do when we eventually go bankrupt, I’d suggest you read “Reinventing Collapse”.

Exactly how much have you paid into unemployment?

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

The rules vary from state to state. However, as a general rule, self employed individuals who have setup their business as a corporation - and have paid into the unemployment system on a quarterly basis - are eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Many states also allow for private unemployment insurance that can be purchased from private companies.

I'm a sole proprietor. I'd rather just have no debt and maintain an EF while living below my means as apposed to an child of the nanny state.

Nope! I couldn't maintain my lifestyle on any government sponsored safety net. However, it's nice to know that there is some level of a safety net outside of my own.

You misunderstood the question. I'm asking if you would manage your finances differently if there were no government safety nets?

Example: If there were no unemployment, would you do as you are doing or save an EF for the possibility of loosing your income?

Example: If there were no SS, would you plan to work till you died or would you save more money than you do now?

[maat55]

[QUOTE=maat55;258758]

I'm a sole proprietor. I'd rather just have no debt and maintain an EF while living below my means as apposed to an child of the nanny state.





You misunderstood the question. I'm asking if you would manage your finances differently if there were no government safety nets?

Example: If there were no unemployment, would you do as you are doing or save an EF for the possibility of loosing your income?

Example: If there were no SS, would you plan to work till you died or would you save more money than you do now?

IMO, your mindset is that of an socialist. You have no problem with a horribly mismanaged ponzi scheme for an government retirement plan, You likely have no problem with a government healthcare plan or welfare.

I see these programs as free society viruses. This thread is a testiment to their destruction of personal responsibility. To add, society can deal with its problems in the free market through family, church and charities. Look at all the socialist countries of the world and you will find massive debt and lack of production, as compared to the US, but we are attempting to catch up quickly.

[b4freedom]

Exactly how much have you paid into unemployment?

0.003825 * My Salary (Up to something like ~$30,000/year). The maximum I pay in is about $115/year. The maximum benefit is 60% of your average salary up to ~$600/week.

[b4freedom]

[QUOTE=maat55;258758]

You misunderstood the question. I'm asking if you would manage your finances differently if there were no government safety nets?

Example: If there were no unemployment, would you do as you are doing or save an EF for the possibility of loosing your income?

Example: If there were no SS, would you plan to work till you died or would you save more money than you do now?

I would NOT do anything differently. My point was that the government safety nets are inadequate for my needs and I already have additional non-government safety nets.

However, I feel that the government-run safety nets, such as Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and Family Leave Insurance, are not unreasonable and everyone benefits. They are self funding. They do not profit off of the contributors. They allow individuals to purchase private programs if they aren’t happy with the state option. And, because it is insurance, it is less cost prohibiting.

Social Security is a different beast all together. Prior to 1972 it was self-funding. However, in 1972 they increased those who were eligible and they increased the benefits by 20% without having an equal increase in revenue sources. They did this because they were having a lot of short term surpluses. The result was that there were large long term deficits the following decades. This was done for political reasons. And, essentially, SS is headed towards bankruptcy and has turned into a giant political ponzi scheme. So, I agree with you about SS.

My belief is that if you were allowed to choose between private social security and the government run social security (as you can with unemployment insurance) then the free markets would have ensured that SS wouldn’t be in the mess that it was now.

[maat55]

I would NOT do anything differently. My point was that the government safety nets are inadequate for my needs and I already have additional non-government safety nets.

My point is that most people are not like you and I, they wouod be forced to do things differently if they had to, we do it just because we are self motivated.

However, I feel that the government-run safety nets, such as Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and Family Leave Insurance, are not unreasonable and everyone benefits. They are self funding. They do not profit off of the contributors. They allow individuals to purchase private programs if they aren’t happy with the state option. And, because it is insurance, it is less cost prohibiting.

Disability is not self funded, unemployment is not self funded, even FDIC is not self funded at this point.The problem with government programs is that they eventually pass debt to the next generation due to poor management. I have no problem with voluntary programs, but I despise forced programs.

Social Security is a different beast all together. Prior to 1972 it was self-funding. However, in 1972 they increased those who were eligible and they increased the benefits by 20% without having an equal increase in revenue sources. They did this because they were having a lot of short term surpluses. The result was that there were large long term deficits the following decades. This was done for political reasons. And, essentially, SS is headed towards bankruptcy and has turned into a giant political ponzi scheme. So, I agree with you about SS.

The problem with SS is not itself, nor are most of the other programs we have discussed, the problems is the government management of them. The government is like the mom who wants to befriend her children as apposed to raise them responsibly. And, it only dumbs down society.

My belief is that if you were allowed to choose between private social security and the government run social security (as you can with unemployment insurance) then the free markets would have ensured that SS wouldn’t be in the mess that it was now.

I'm not sure this is possible. I don't see how you can choose between the two. IMO, our future generations will be much better served if SS/medicare are fazedout completely. I would not have a problem with a voluntary privatized system where the government has no control of the money, just the access.

[maat55]

0.003825 * My Salary (Up to something like ~$30,000/year). The maximum I pay in is about $115/year. The maximum benefit is 60% of your average salary up to ~$600/week.

The reason I mention it is because of the 21 years I've been in business I have layed one employee off for about three months, she collected more in benefits than I ever paid in. When my seamstress was earning 30k my total payin per year was roughly 60.00 to 65.00. Thats OESC(Oklahoma) and Futa together.

I don't doubt under normal circumstances unemployment is self funding, but every month now congress is borrowing new money to fund it. In reality, most people think credit cards, unemployment and if necessary BK are sufficient as apposed to self preparation.

[Phenomenal Woman]

I live in a high cost of living area (Silicon Valley) and unfortunatley I know so many people with jobs with decent incomes/jobs such as nurses, managers and etc and still only get by because of the skyrocket price here. It seems that the couple I know who rent fair better than those who own a home financially. But somehow the renter feels like they are poorer because they chose not to go above their means and feel like they have nothing. It is funny how different perspectives defines our financial stances.

[maat55]

IMO, the average americans is dumbed down. The very social programs designed to help the average american are only dumbing us down and raising the cost of the services it wishes to provide to the point where they are much less affordable.

[PrincessPerky]

I work in a poor area and I can assure you I see consumerism and unwise spending habits every single day among my patients, many of whom are unemployed and living on welfare.

I see the same crap around me, but the folk I hang with have two jobs, and lament the cost of new clothes for the kids every time a new fad comes around. Apparently not buying in the latest fad junk toy/outfit/movie/food isn't an option...paying the mortgage late on the other hand is.

[Snoopy2645]

wow really makes me rethink things in my own situation