Laid off workers rent summer home.

[asmom]

I was commenting on this part:



When the government kicks something in, which I itemized, that part IS public assistance.

Unemployment benefits, unlike welfare, are taxed. Therefore you are not getting something for free, unlike public assistance. It's NOT the same. To summarize:

1. You must have worked to receive UE.
2. You pay taxes on UE.

It's bad enough that millions of people have lost their jobs, most through no fault of their own. In addition to the shame and burden of trying to pay their bills, they are now supposed to feel guilty- no ashamed- for receiving a legitimate benefit for which they worked in the first place. I've seen less derision towards criminals.

[Scanner]

It is called Unemployment Insurance and everyone who works pays into it; employers pay into it. When you pay for any kind of insurance, the point of insurance is.... You do not have to collect UI when you are unemployed - that is your choice but do not take some sort of 'holier than thou' attitude about it.

I can see this is going to be an adversarial thread - fine. . .I'm game.

I didn't say I was "holier than thou" - it just doesn't even occur to me to go to the government when I am underemployed. I try to live off of savings during that time. But who am I to judge - you are saying I am (may be) entitled and I should pony up at the Bar of Entitlement.

I think you are right actually.

it is taxed as income the same as most other insurance payouts (this was just an 'd'Oh' moment for me as I always thought taxing UI was kicking a person when they were down).

And as soon as I collect, I'll escrow my share for taxes.

Collecting UI (it is not an entitlement, it is insurance), and putting the money into retirement is your choice - where are you getting the money to live on so you can put the UI into retirement?

Gee, I am workng for it. At least I was.

Money is fungible so maybe you are not putting the UI into retirement, you are putting different money away.

Again, I'm sold. No need to convince me. . .I'm going to learn the system. One of my co-workers told me last winter, when hours were scarce, received underemployment. I'll file a claim.

SUI is stimulus money added onto existing UI payments under the 'prime the pump' theory of economy. If no one has any money, no one spends it - well, you know how the theory goes.

Yeah, the theory: you print money and kinda hope every thing gets gonig again and nobody notices more money is circulating.

Funny Money.

Right?

W/O the US printing money our whole economy would collapse - where do you think that paper in your wallet comes from?

Oh, I agree the government is supposed to tender money. That's a heck of a lot different than "printing" money. I am just starting to doubt the value of what is backed by that. You think a fiat system of money is a good standard to operate the largest economy in the world?

You can afford a Daytimer?? I have to scratch notes on my skin because I can't afford a pen or paper.

I prefer puns over sarcasm.

Working for the IRS, I know we are trying to ream everyone - except we have to redefine 'ream' to mean collect taxes owed for services provided.

Hey, you are just collecting, doing your job in an insular world where you don't have to go out everyday and prove yourself in the marketplace (a gov't worker). I understand the divergence of thought but I also know you don't set policy, only enforce it and this country is hard on the self-employed. I don't take issue with you personally but rather the laws.

Ream the self-employed too hard and their won't be any jobs and therefore no SUI.

Maat5

Now. . .as much as you and I agree on the abuse of entitlements in this country, I do support a minimum wage. I do think there has to be some amount of dignity in work and a minimum wage supports that idea.

I do think society degrades into a "king-serfs" arrangement without a basic minimum wage.

[disneysteve]

Teachers' pay was changed from monthly to yearly to prevent them from collecting UI during the summer.

In the process, were they paid any more or just have the same salary spread out over more pay periods? If they were paid the same annual amount, then why would they have needed UI in the first place?

[GrimJack]

In the process, were they paid any more or just have the same salary spread out over more pay periods? If they were paid the same annual amount, then why would they have needed UI in the first place?

Nope, their 9 months pay was totaled then divided into 12 and they are paid monthly (this is a simplification of course).

I remember one year when WA state changed the pay date from the 5th to the 15th for a one-time earning on the interest.

[disneysteve]

Nope, their 9 months pay was totaled then divided into 12 and they are paid monthly

So if they managed their funds properly, they shouldn't have needed to collect UI. It doesn't matter if you get 50K in a lump sum on January 1, if it gets spread evenly over 9 months or over 12 months. It is still 50K (or whatever the salary happens to be). Why would someone file for UI just because they happened to get paid over 9 months instead of 12? Plus, most teachers I know work during the summer, so they have that income on top of their regular teacher salary. See, in that case, I'd say collecting UI was not appropriate.

[GrimJack]

I can see this is going to be an adversarial thread - fine. . .I'm game.

I didn't say I was "holier than thou" - it just doesn't even occur to me to go to the government when I am underemployed. I try to live off of savings during that time. But who am I to judge - you are saying I am (may be) entitled and I should pony up at the Bar of Entitlement.

My apologies, I misread/mis-characterized some of your comments. I still do not buy UI as an entitlement any more than I consider accepting insurance money to fix my car or to cover my health care. Are you aware of AFLAC (and their famous goose)? Do you know what it is that they do with relation to what Unemployment Insurance does?

And as soon as I collect, I'll escrow my share for taxes.

If you do decide to collect, you will be offered the option to have a %age taken for taxes.

Gee, I am workng for it. At least I was.

Okay, you were not specific when you said you be putting UI into retirement so, as I mentioned money is fungible so how would you know you were putting the UI monies into retirement as opposed to earnings?

Again, I'm sold. No need to convince me. . .I'm going to learn the system. One of my co-workers told me last winter, when hours were scarce, received underemployment. I'll file a claim.

Kool

Yeah, the theory: you print money and kinda hope every thing gets gonig again and nobody notices more money is circulating.

Funny Money.

Right?

Oh, I agree the government is supposed to tender money. That's a heck of a lot different than "printing" money. I am just starting to doubt the value of what is backed by that. You think a fiat system of money is a good standard to operate the largest economy in the world?

When you mentioned 'fiat money' I immediately went here - who even knew there was Fed fan-fic!?!

I prefer puns over sarcasm.

You lost me here - if you think that was sarcasm you never played 'we were so poor that...'

Hey, you are just collecting, doing your job in an insular world where you don't have to go out everyday and prove yourself in the marketplace (a gov't worker). I understand the divergence of thought but I also know you don't set policy, only enforce it and this country is hard on the self-employed. I don't take issue with you personally but rather the laws.

I don't even enforce anything - my job is to help people, most people call with "where's my refund?" - I have not been trained on balance due yet, that probably won't happen until March of next year.

Ream the self-employed too hard and their won't be any jobs and therefore no SUI.

Self-employment is not my bag, it has never interested me as a way to spend my life. How are you getting reamed?

This is my first government job in 25 years - in my entire life, I have less than 5 years working for the gov. I've cleaned toilets, dug ditches, worked on super-computers that were half the world away, but I have never been self-employed and I don't want to be so sue me.

[GrimJack]

There are 50 million people on food stamps now (approx. 20% of the pop) - it is estimated that 50% of the children in the US will depend on food stamps during childhood.

But I digress

[cptacek]

The $25 extra / week is not from "unimployment insurance". It is from the federal government.

The first $2400 of UI is not taxed federally (at least it wasn't last year). I don't think it is taxed in Kansas, either. Your state may be different.

I don't think the 65% subsidy of insurance is taxed. That is not from UI. It is from the federal government.

As I've said before, I don't believe in this whole country there is not one job that someone who is unemployed can do. It might mean moving. It might mean driving farther or staying in a 1 bedroom apartment hours away from your family, and seeing them only on the weekends. (I've done all of these things to get a job.)

It's bad enough that millions of people have lost their jobs, most through no fault of their own. In addition to the shame and burden of trying to pay their bills, they are now supposed to feel guilty- no ashamed- for receiving a legitimate benefit for which they worked in the first place. I've seen less derision towards criminals.

Why can't you have a discussion about government policy and what should and should not be provided without thinking that people who want the government to give less in benefits (or stop changing laws that make someone else provide more, as the case may be) are trying to pile on someone who is having a bad time at it. Why does it have to be personal?

[Scanner]

I agree with Cpatek - I am just saying sooner or later you have to wean people off the gov't tit.

Even if it's "insurance" and not an "entitlement" (and I am not so ready to give in on that point but let's move forward) - we all see with health insurance the potential for abuse, fraud, misuse, and just plain inefficiency.

Health insurance (to use the comparison) was never meant to be something you bought and then "used" - it was meant to protect from catastrophe. Now, you regularly read articles on how people are supposed to, when sick, go out and buy health insurance.

Like if I were a health insurance co, I would want to know my purchasers are sick? That's like having a suicidal man ponying up to buy life insurance.

Now, you are advising me (and I may as well). . .knowing that I will be "underemployed" in my second job this winter to go out and file a claim, becuase it is rightfully mine?

And that doesn't bother you?

[disneysteve]

How long do I think Unemployment Insurance should last?
How long do you think the recession will last?

There is one big problem with this line of thinking. Every other insurance I can think of: life, disability, auto, home, health, etc. has defined coverage limits. So if your argument is that unemployment is insurance, you can't rightfully say that the coverage should be unlimited. The premiums charged for insurance are based on risk assessment, actuarial data, etc. If my health insurance had unlimited benefits, the premium would be astronomical. So you can't say that people who have been paying into a system built around 26 weeks of coverage should now be able to collect for 52 or 75 or 99 weeks because it is insurance and they paid for it.

[Scanner]

DS,

A lot of health insurance nowadays has an unlimited maximum and I think that is a problem. Some policies have a 2 million lifetime max.

Here's the problem, like 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, it delays the forcing of difficult decisions such as take a lessor paying job.

In the case of health insurnace, in the past here's what happened - let's say you had $1,000,000 in lifetime coverage and grandma at 55 y.o. (I am excluding Medicare b/c that gets more complicated) goes on life support. Attorney, doctor, and families would all fight about whether to pull the plug on grandma. Court motions would be filed, injuctions issued, many ethical debates would be spurred and so forth and when the health insurance ran out at $1,000,000. . .guess what everyone did?

They pulled the plug on grandma!!! You think the hospital was going to let grandma sit around on a life support at $10,000/day? You think the family can keep grandma plugged in and go towards bankruptcy on $10,000/day? Of course not - family, doctors, and hospital pulled the plug.

$1,000,000 later.

I see a great parallel here with UI and health insurance - it creates a sense of paralysis on everyone on what the reasonable course of action is, whether it's an entitlement, benefit, or welfare.

[disneysteve]

Here's the problem, like 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, it delays the forcing of difficult decisions such as take a lessor paying job.

it creates a sense of paralysis on everyone on what the reasonable course of action is, whether it's an entitlement, benefit, or welfare.

Exactly. Extending benefits doesn't solve the problem of helping get people back to work. If anything, it worsens the problem. It just keeps delaying the inevitable need to get a job, even if it isn't the perfect dream job.

[maat55]

There are 50 million people on food stamps now (approx. 20% of the pop) - it is estimated that 50% of the children in the US will depend on food stamps during childhood.

But I digress

Just because the government qualifies 50 million people for food stamps does not mean that 50 million people would starve without it. Our inept government is notorious for creating need and dependency but not ending it.

[asmom]

DS,


I see a great parallel here with UI and health insurance - it creates a sense of paralysis on everyone on what the reasonable course of action is, whether it's an entitlement, benefit, or welfare.

Exactly. Extending benefits doesn't solve the problem of helping get people back to work. If anything, it worsens the problem. It just keeps delaying the inevitable need to get a job, even if it isn't the perfect dream job.

LOL, there is just NO evidence to support this viewpoint. I'm sure you can provide me with heaps of anecdoctes to justify this belief but when you stack up the 7 or 8 abusers that you may have met up with against the millions of people who are out of work, it doesn't mean much. On the contrary, there is evidence of people losing their homes, moving back in with their parents, lack of jobs creation, etc. Do you really think there is a significant number of people who would really prefer to leave their homes for the "luxury" of UE? It's not even that much, in Georgia the max is $330 per week. C'mon.....

[disneysteve]

Extending benefits doesn't solve the problem of helping get people back to work.

LOL, there is just NO evidence to support this viewpoint.

Please explain how giving people a check every week helps get them back to work sooner. It isn't about data. It isn't about anecdotes. It is human nature. Two sayings come to mind: 1) Necessity is the mother of invention and 2) Desperate times call for desperate measures. When their backs are against the wall, people will do whatever they need to do to feed their families. That might mean working 3 part-time jobs. It might mean moving away from their families to find work. It might mean getting other family members to get jobs to help out. When someone knows there is a weekly check coming every week for the next year or two, where is the motivation and sense of urgency to do everything possible to find work?

Let me share just one anecdote that I know is 100% true and unadulterated. I left my job on February 2, 2000. I had no job lined up and no prospects but I was fed up with a bad situation. While I was out, I did not collect UE. What I did do was buy a newspaper every Friday and spend the evening with a map planning out my route to 2-3 dozen yard sales the next day. I was up at 6am every Saturday and Sunday and spent the morning hours at yard sales and flea markets. During the week, I made the rounds of the area thrift shops and a couple of nights each week, spent hours in auction houses. All of that time was spent buying merchandise to resell on ebay. I listed at least 10 items per day so at any given time I had at least 100 auctions running. Of course, that meant a few hours a day processing sales, answering buyer questions, sending invoices, packing and shipping orders. I also drove 45 minutes each way once a week to an outlet store where I bought a lot of merchandise for resale.

I probably spent less time with my family while I was unemployed than I did while I was working. I was busting my butt to bring in cash until a regular job came along. Would I have done all of that had I been receiving an UE check every week. Of course not. Why do all of that work if I didn't need to?

I don't believe my personal experience is that different than the norm. Most of us work because we have to work. We need the income to pay our rent and feed our families. Provide income in the absence of work and you greatly decrease the incentive and motivation to work. That incentive and motivation doesn't return until the end of the "free" money approaches. Does that apply to everyone? Of course not. There are people who are real go-getters and the minute they lose a job, they are out pounding the pavement looking for work, sending out resumes, going for interviews, scouring the internet for any job they can find. But I think a lot more people are less aggressive and less motivated. As long as they have enough coming in to make ends meet (or even less than needed but still have room on their credit cards), they don't get that fire in their eyes to beat down doors to find work until the end of the income stream approaches.

I'll agree to disagree on this one.