What should the maximum length of time be for UI benefits? (collect, extension)

[hnsq]

I am posting this looking for sincere answers. I am fortunate enough to not be unemployed and the purpose of this thread is for me to understand how long those who are currently unemployed think the government should provide UI benefits to Americans. Personally, I have always felt strongly that three months should be the limit for UI benefits, but that being said, I am not starting this thread for a debate. I am going to keep my opinion to myself for the duration of this thread so that I can try to understand other people's opinions a little better.

So essentially my question is this:

If another extension was passed, what time period do you think is too long for the government to provide UI benefits before people are cut off?

For simplicity's sake, each option in the poll, the time periods I have given are in three month increments starting at 99 weeks.

[I_Love_LI_but]

I don't think there is a way to determine a definitive amount of weeks as either "too much" or "not enough" without taking into account the availability/non-availability of jobs out there in the economy at the exact period in time when one is trying to determine the correct amount. Back in the boom times, 26 weeks was plenty; right now it seems that 99 weeks is not enough.

PS: I couldn't vote on your poll due to the way it was structured.

[Ariadne22]

Not a one-size fits all situation. People have been caught in a totally unprecedented financial meltdown. NO ONE expected two years ago that the unemployment situation would not turn around. For that reason, under these particular and unique circumstances, for the 99ers three more months is not enough nor will six months be. This joblessness will be around for years. It is only a matter of time before more and more will be on the streets. Yes, there are abusers and poor planners, etc., but there are many more caught in a vise whose entire lives are being dismantled month by month.

Fwiw, NYT had an article on Denmark no longer providing FOUR YEARS of unemployment coverage. They have to retrenched to TWO YEARS - this with a national unemployment rate of 4.2%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/bu...nted=1&_r=2&hp

I am a bit appalled, however, at the maximum benefit paid in Massachusetts, although I know this is a high cost of living state. Max benefit in Wisconsin is $363 - maybe a little on the low side, but $629/wk, or $2,725/mo for MA - that seems a bit steep. Does it really cost 73% more to live in MA as in Wisconsin? I would think the ability to stay home and collect over $2,700 for doing nothing would be pretty tempting. I know people have mortgages, need to run their cars, license fees are high in that state (my son lived there for a while), but still - $2,700/month? Were all these people clearing $7,000/mo that $2,700/mo is a hardship? Or is this my provincial Midwest mindset at work, here?

[I_Love_LI_but]

In very high cost New York, the maximum benefit is a paltry $405 a week!

Plus, remember that full INCOME TAXES are charged on unemployment benefits, which is a real crock! In New York, you are paying FULL Federal, State and Local (if you live in NYC or Yonkers) income taxes on your measly unemployment benefits! It didn't used to be that way. UI used to be income tax free.

[mamajay]

I thought unemployment was exempt from state and local taxes.

[C.C]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

In very high cost New York, the maximum benefit is a paltry $405 a week!

Plus, remember that full INCOME TAXES are charged on unemployment benefits, which is a real crock! In New York, you are paying FULL Federal, State and Local (if you live in NYC or Yonkers) income taxes on your measly unemployment benefits! It didn't used to be that way. UI used to be income tax free.

Surely you're not suggesting that a high income family should be able to collect UIC tax-free? If you're a union worker on a temporary layoff and have already earned $100K this year, you should be exempt from income tax on your UIC? Or you're the spouse of a high-income attorney you need tax-free UIC? No way!

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by mamajay

I thought unemployment was exempt from state and local taxes.

No Reagan changed that in the early 80s. Last year, Obama gave a 1-year reprieve where the first $2400 in UI "earned" was not taxed. Not extended this year though.

Truth is, it should be as long as is needed given the job situation of the time. Right now it is as bad as any time since the Depression, so it should be extended as long as necessary. Perhaps after 99 weeks, toughen the requirements for an extension somehow (but with no jobs, I'm not sure how), but as long as ending UI means homelessness and starvation, it should be extended.

Originally Posted by C.C

Surely you're not suggesting that a high income family should be able to collect UIC tax-free? If you're a union worker on a temporary layoff and have already earned $100K this year, you should be exempt from income tax on your UIC? Or you're the spouse of a high-income attorney you need tax-free UIC? No way!

Maybe like SSI how much you're taxed and what percent of your "full benefit" you get should depend on your "outside income".

[OHGreat]

It needs to go on as long as necessary until unemployment hits below 6 percent. If it truly is cutoff for all the people who got cut in 2008 things are just going to get worse. More defaults and more people in the streets doing what they have to do to survive.

And to be honest this poll is flawed in a huge way, I guarantee you the people that voted less than 99 weeks have a job.

[jghorton]

Originally Posted by hnsq

I am posting this looking for sincere answers. I am fortunate enough to not be unemployed and the purpose of this thread is for me to understand how long those who are currently unemployed think the government should provide UI benefits to Americans. Personally, I have always felt strongly that three months should be the limit for UI benefits, but that being said, I am not starting this thread for a debate. I am going to keep my opinion to myself for the duration of this thread so that I can try to understand other people's opinions a little better.

So essentially my question is this:

If another extension was passed, what time period do you think is too long for the government to provide UI benefits before people are cut off?

For simplicity's sake, each option in the poll, the time periods I have given are in three month increments starting at 99 weeks.

Having just read through a 99er forum (almost 2-years!?), Ive had a similar question. But, in light of the enormous impact on human lives, have been reluctant to challenge the seemingly prevailing notion that benefits should continue indefinitely ... or at least until any person who wants a job is fully employed. --- (Didn't benefits only last about 13 weeks a few years ago?) -- I'm not convinced that the benefit term should be longer or shorter --but, unless they never stop, somebody is going to be unhappy with the answer. (What about people who repeatedly 'milk the system' for as long as them can ... and then work only until they again qualify for benefits?)

[mamajay]

7 wishes,

The $2400 exemption for last year was on Federal income tax .

I am in NJ and we do not pay state and local income tax on unemployment benefits.