When I worked for the state & feds there was a guy that lived in a huge river view house in Hood River. He did lighting for TV shows in Hollywood. The filming season was 6 months long and he made about $150,000 per season. Then he'd come home to Hood River, live the good life and collect unemployment benefits for 6 months before heading back to Hollywood. This article reminds me of him. http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20121002&id=15624075 Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service. _____ The 2,362 people in millionaire homes represent 0.02 percent of the 11.3 million U.S. tax filers who reported unemployment insurance income in 2009, according to the August report. Another 954,000 households earning more than $100,000 during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression also reported receiving unemployment benefits.
nothing wrong with that, if the system is in place. I've had friends on unemployment jet across the world. you can apply for jobs from anywhere i guess?
I think there needs to be a litmus test for collecting any sort of public assistance- to include social security.
Why? So we continue to have a system of the wealthier subsidizing the poor even further? Look, we pay into unemployment and social security as we work. Pay in, pay out. Equality for all regardless of net worth or income level.
I tend to agree, but where do you dtrawthe line? The seasonal cannery worker? The logger? semi pro baseball player? lighting guy for hollywierd? Fishermen?
so, why 100k ? everyone I listed can make that with the exception of a seasonal cannery worker, and my gut tells me that no matter where you set it, there are those that would game the system
It was just an arbitrary number. However, an employer pays into unemployment when they hire you and I think you get docked somewhat for it on your paychecks, i'm not sure. So if you get fired/laid off/whatever you should get those benefits. there should be no cut off whatsoever if the system is in place. Should be a totally level playing field and everyone gets the same amount.
Net worth or earnings past 12 months are a couple of places to start. Public assistance started based on the premise that those in need will receive a temporary helping hand. It was never intended to help those not in need. As to exactly where to place the 'cap', that is very subjective. President Obama has declared that individuals making $150,000 per year or couples making $250,000 per year are officially considered "wealthy", so maybe use that as a starting place. To continue, if I retire with a net worth of $2 million why should I also collect social security, housing, food stamps, Medicare... when I can easily pay my own way? The theory behind public assistance isn't "I paid in, so I now get mine even though I don't need it", it's about the many paying into a system for the few who are less fortunate. In a way it's like insurance.
yeah, while I would like to see some cap, you would have to exempt the employer and the employee as well. Also, the other thing to look at is that unemployment has a max benifit of somewhere around 435 or so per week. so its not like a guy used to pulling down good money is going to do anything other than pay cable and gas with that amount..
Good post BP, Nice to know that the prez knows who is and who is not "wealthy"...so...149999...... and yeah, most do view those programs as something they are owed
So basically the government should decide how people budget their money to decide whether or not they should "qualify" for unemployment. "Obviously", those that are high income earners don't "need" it because they have the same expenses as anyone else. So if someone making $150k year gets laid off, then can't find a job for 12 months...then they should get unemployment after the 12 month grace period (that will never happen because $150k a year jobs are quite easy to get :MARIS61: ). But basically they should eat into their "savings" (assuming they have any) and not get any unemployment assistance even though they may need it (however, Blazer Prophet and the government will decide that they do not). Got it.
If you have no income even if you were making $150k, $1600k a month is better than $0.00 a month to pay for expenses such as housing, food, etc. But I'm sure that's just booze, cable and gas for the yacht money.
being a bit flip, just thinking that gas for the boat at the marina is around 7 or 8 bucks a gallon..
Not if you have $400k in the bank, no. Part of the unemployment (and Social Security, for that matter) process should be a wealth check. And don't think the government doesn't have access to that information.
Since they base how much you on your previous salary, I think it's fair for them to do the opposite for the process too. Not that people should be denied unemployment but there is a cap (as DLJ said). I don't know if you can make a blanket statement regarding who should or shouldn't get unemployment benefits (and I don't think the fraud in UE is nearly as high as people scare us into thinking it is), but I do think that if you're making 6 figures a year it's easier to be made into a (public) target for fraud claims. just because you make 150K a year doesn't mean you have thousands upon thousands saved up. In theory you should, but it's not a set in stone thing. If you're a millionaire (and not a fluke millionaire), I would hope you would've had some common sense and saved. I had a point in there somewhere.
This is too easy. Leave it in place, blame Obama for this system. Take it away, blame Obama for class-warfare.
