yo mama Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Senate extends unemployment benefits. For the record, I believe in unemployment benefits. TEMPORARY unemployment benefits. But 2+ years? That's straining even my (mostly) liberal sensibilities. I dunno, I've never needed to ask for the benefits so I can't say what's its like to be in that situation. But I've been unemployed plenty of times. Each time sucked donkey balls, and each time I was maniacally driven to find new employment in order to redeem myself in my own eyes. In my experience it was easier to find a "better" job once you already had a job (even if it was crummy), and it was easier to take a crummy job when the alternative was hunger. Granted, I only know a few people who are on unemployment, but each of them basically waited until they were about half way through their benefits before they started seriously pounding the pavement full time. I guess I just can't imagine it taking 2 years to find a job, regardless of the economy. Then again, I've been willing to take some pretty $hitty jobs in my life. I've got mixed feelings about whether this is the right thing to deficit spend on. I think I'd rather see the government use the money to instead hire people who are currently unemployed. Seems those people would be more likely to use that government position as a jumping off point to find the job they "really" want, relative to not working at all. And taxpayers would actually get *something* back in return, relative to just sending out a check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Senate extends unemployment benefits. For the record, I believe in unemployment benefits. TEMPORARY unemployment benefits. But 2+ years? That's straining even my (mostly) liberal sensibilities. I dunno, I've never needed to ask for the benefits so I can't say what's its like to be in that situation. But I've been unemployed plenty of times. Each time sucked donkey balls, and each time I was maniacally driven to find new employment in order to redeem myself in my own eyes. In my experience it was easier to find a "better" job once you already had a job (even if it was crummy), and it was easier to take a crummy job when the alternative was hunger. Granted, I only know a few people who are on unemployment, but each of them basically waited until they were about half way through their benefits before they started seriously pounding the pavement full time. I guess I just can't imagine it taking 2 years to find a job, regardless of the economy. Then again, I've been willing to take some pretty $hitty jobs in my life. I've got mixed feelings about whether this is the right thing to deficit spend on. I think I'd rather see the government use the money to instead hire people who are currently unemployed. Seems those people would be more likely to use that government position as a jumping off point to find the job they "really" want, relative to not working at all. And taxpayers would actually get *something* back in return, relative to just sending out a check. In some ways that would be better, but more costly because of the beuracracy necessary to support the new positions. I have no problem extending the benefits given the ratio of open positions and people looking for jobs. I wouldn't necessarily look to direct hire the individuals but rather identify more infrastructure projects to hire the contractors who would hire the unemployed to complete, with an emphasis on infrastructure with payback. (example: energy grid and weather proofing govt buildings) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 In some ways that would be better, but more costly because of the beuracracy necessary to support the new positions. I have no problem extending the benefits given the ratio of open positions and people looking for jobs. I wouldn't necessarily look to direct hire the individuals but rather identify more infrastructure projects to hire the contractors who would hire the unemployed to complete, with an emphasis on infrastructure with payback. (example: energy grid and weather proofing govt buildings) Okay, I'll buy that. There's plenty of infrastructure that needs to be built, and plenty of contractors who need work. But I know for a fact that cuts and hiring freezes at places like the IRS have hurt they're ability to do a job the country needs doin'. I'm sure that isn't the only agency that could seriously use some reinforcements (INS, FBI, federal court system, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 My biggest issue with unemploymnet in general is the calculus involved. It goes far beyond providing for basic needs in some cases and can be a dis-incentive to seek work if the only positions available will pay LESS than unemploymnet will. I am all for a safety net, but the current situation goes beyond providing for those in need and starts advocating NOT working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 How are the benefits determined? Can't remember. I thought it was half of your wage or something like that? That's not much money for somebody who say makes $30K a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 How are the benefits determined? Can't remember. I thought it was half of your wage or something like that? That's not much money for somebody who say makes $30K a year. It is for the people making 100K plus in all the white collar jobs that were eliminated . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 It is for the people making 100K plus in all the white collar jobs that were eliminated . . . . So there are no caps? I admit i've never had the pleasure of having to apply for them. :knockonwood: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 So there are no caps? I admit i've never had the pleasure of having to apply for them. :knockonwood: There are maximums, which differ by state: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Savin...ld-you-get.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 So there are no caps? I admit i've never had the pleasure of having to apply for them. :knockonwood: I know a guy that was just under 100K and he is doing juuuuuust fine cruisin along on unemploymnet, which is contrary to the INTENT . . a bridge between jobs in times of hardship. It shouldnt be an opportunity for an extended sabbatical, or to STOP looking for a job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missoula Griz Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have never drawn unemployment. I have made 6 digit income from time to time. If i did have to draw unemployment, it should be much higher than someone who makes substantially less. I have paid a shiiitload of taxes over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I know a guy that was just under 100K and he is doing juuuuuust fine cruisin along on unemploymnet, which is contrary to the INTENT . . a bridge between jobs in times of hardship. It shouldnt be an opportunity for an extended sabbatical, or to STOP looking for a job. From BJ's link: Illinois $385 $385 * 52 wks = $20,020 yr That's before taxes too right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 That's before taxes too right? Yes, unemployment payments are taxable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 From BJ's link: Illinois $385 $385 * 52 wks = $20,020 yr That's before taxes too right? FALSE! The first 2400 is tax free now. Plus that is an average of all recipients, not what everyone necessarily receives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) Yes, unemployment payments are taxable. but the first $2400 is tax free . . Edited March 10, 2010 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have never drawn unemployment. I have made 6 digit income from time to time. If i did have to draw unemployment, it should be much higher than someone who makes substantially less. I have paid a shiiitload of taxes over the years. Exactly. I should get some kind of bonus when I retire for NOT having taken unemployment. Like those "perfect attendance" ribbons they hand out to the nerds at 6th grade graduation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 FALSE! The first 2400 is tax free now. Plus that is an average of all recipients, not what everyone necessarily receives. I understood the chart to be a cap max, not the average of what everyone gets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 From BJ's link: Illinois $385 $385 * 52 wks = $20,020 yr That's before taxes too right? $20k is not a living wage. Well, I guess it is if you get your food from restaurant dumpsters and sleep under a bridge. Anyone saying they can live on that in preference to working is a fool. They can EXIST on it.....maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Exactly. I should get some kind of bonus when I retire for NOT having taken unemployment. Like those "perfect attendance" ribbons they hand out to the nerds at 6th grade graduation. Except unless you're self employed, you never paid in those taxes, your employer did right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Senate extends unemployment benefits. For the record, I believe in unemployment benefits. TEMPORARY unemployment benefits. But 2+ years? That's straining even my (mostly) liberal sensibilities. I dunno, I've never needed to ask for the benefits so I can't say what's its like to be in that situation. But I've been unemployed plenty of times. Each time sucked donkey balls, and each time I was maniacally driven to find new employment in order to redeem myself in my own eyes. In my experience it was easier to find a "better" job once you already had a job (even if it was crummy), and it was easier to take a crummy job when the alternative was hunger. Granted, I only know a few people who are on unemployment, but each of them basically waited until they were about half way through their benefits before they started seriously pounding the pavement full time. I guess I just can't imagine it taking 2 years to find a job, regardless of the economy. Then again, I've been willing to take some pretty $hitty jobs in my life. I've got mixed feelings about whether this is the right thing to deficit spend on. I think I'd rather see the government use the money to instead hire people who are currently unemployed. Seems those people would be more likely to use that government position as a jumping off point to find the job they "really" want, relative to not working at all. And taxpayers would actually get *something* back in return, relative to just sending out a check. The problem with taking a "crummy" job is that you make more on unemployment than the "crummy" jobs pay. I also think that you have to remember that employers pay in for unemployment benefits. It's not welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 $20k is not a living wage. Well, I guess it is if you get your food from restaurant dumpsters and sleep under a bridge. Anyone saying they can live on that in preference to working is a fool. They can EXIST on it.....maybe And that's PRE-TAX. I pay more than that for childcare alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) also, if you are self employed you don't qualify for benefits. edit: oops Grunge beat me to it Edited March 10, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I understood the chart to be a cap max, not the average of what everyone gets? You are right. But that is for a single unemployed person. If you are married, it goes up. It also goes up for each child you have. The guy I know has 5 kids. He makes more than double that 385 number a week on unemploymnet . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I understood the chart to be a cap max, not the average of what everyone gets? correct that chart listed MAX benefits Except unless you're self employed, you never paid in those taxes, your employer did right? the way they figure out benefits is crazy....has to do with X previous weeks worked and money made or paid or something like that...you could be working a FT job for say 5 months but if you were unemployed or even in say school prior to that you could actually not qualify for benefits...and as was said earlier benefits are TAXED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 also, if you are self employed you don't qualify for benefits. edit: oops Grunge beat me to it Actually I didn't know that. I thought you had to pay in the FUTA and SUTA yourself and would receive benefits. I'm no tax accountant that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 FALSE! The first 2400 is tax free now. Plus that is an average of all recipients, not what everyone necessarily receives. Wrong and wrong. That is the MAX you can get (for Ill), I don't care if you made $1M/yr before losing your job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.