Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EB is not a guarantee. It is based on your own state's unemployment rate. If it drops below a certain percentage, that is factored by last years unemployment rate and averages in past, then they notify you that you only have three weeks left and then it will be cut off. Hope this helps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt V.
Actually anyone collecting EB prior to Dec.4th, the federal govt. paid 100% of this through state funding. Anyone claiming EB after Dec.4th the federal govt. will fund 50% and your state will fund 50%. EB is allocated funding from the fed. to each state who's unemployment rate was high enough to permit this. EB is a state run program. The state only pays the EB for as long as the unemployment rate permits it to for a maximum of 20 weeks. If the unemployment rate drops below a certain percentage (each state is different) then they notify you that you have three weeks left before the state is dicontinuing the program. Hope this helps clarify
Actually, this is not completely true. Only ten states now continue to pay EB after the federal funding drops to 50% when they meet the unemployment rate triggers.
Most of the remaining states amended their state laws to add the requirement of 100% federal funding to the unemployment rate triggers. In those states both the triggers and the 100% federal funding must be met to pay EB now. So when the 100% federal funding expires -- those states do not pay EB, regardless of their unemployment rates.
A list of the EB phase-out dates for the states -- as well as a list of states that continue to pay EB at the split 50% federal/50% state funding -- can be found at: EB Expiration Dates by State
BTW, it is a state's most recent three-month average unemployment rate that triggers EB -- in most states, an average of at least 6% triggers EB (13 weeks), an average of 8% triggers High EB (additional 7 weeks).
"We will continue discussions with the President and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote," Pelosi said.
I wonder if anyone can shed some light on why they never considered adding a tier5?
Because all benefits are still unfunded (adding to the deficit) and the GOP wants offsets in spending to compensate. Actually, they want offsets (pay-go) for the entire EUC program, but so far have not got it.
Simple way to think of this new potential 13 months - it is merely an extension of eligibility to participate in the program. It does not add additional weeks or tiers. If one is a 99er, one remains a 99er.
Ditto. Do you we know the particulars of this bill? I dont even know its designation, do we know for sure it doesnt include those on EB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt V.
I just had to apply for EB, I contacted my unemployment office and they told me this is what happend in July as well. It is a seamless process where, if this passes through congress, they will automatically take you off of EB and put you back on whatever tier you are to start. If EB paid you any benefits, those benefits will be paid back with your current tier. When all tiers are exhausted you will then be eligible to go back onto EB if your states unemployment rate still permits this benefit.
Once again not completely true -- the availability of EB varies from state to state, as explained above in post #174.
If you exhaust an EUC Tier in a state that does not pay EB when the 100% federal funding expires -- you will not be transferred from a Tier to EB. If you are collecting EB in a state that does not pay EB when the 100% federal funding expires, your EB payments will be phased out.
At this time, we have been unable to confirm whether the reinstatement of 100% federal funding for EB is included in the plan proposed by the White House.
I wonder if anyone can shed some light on why they never considered adding a tier5?
This who have been following this issue for awhile will recall that two bills providing a Tier V were introduced in August 2010 -- one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives.
Both bills failed to pass due to the source of funding insisted upon by the Democrats -- "emergency spending," which adds to the deficit.
There has been no change in the position of either party on sources of funding since then -- nor has the deficit gotten any lower.
But still, tier V still should have been brought up again as part of this proposal as well as an unemployment tax exemption for 2011 like there was in 2009.
This would have given the Democrats who are objecting to the deal something more and it would have added extra bargaining chips on "our" side without having to actually start eroding away the 13 months of EUC extension. That's how bargaining works.
Maybe Obama and the Democrats are counting on some things like that actually getting added during congressional debate, but that still seems unlikely to me. They do kind of seem to be trying to set up for that, though.
But still, tier V still should have been brought up again as part of this proposal as well as an unemployment tax exemption for 2011 like there was in 2009.
This would have given the Democrats who are objecting to the deal something more and it would have added extra bargaining chips on "our" side without having to actually start eroding away the 13 months of EUC extension. That's how bargaining works.
Maybe Obama and the Democrats are counting on some things like that actually getting added during congressional debate, but that still seems unlikely to me. They do kind of seem to be trying to set up for that, though.
Given the lack of any public support for a Tier V by any member of Congress since August 2010 -- not during the mid-term election campaigns, nor on the lame-duck agenda, nor during these White house negotiations -- I don't see anyone raising it in congressional debate. The focus of the current opposition by Democrats appears to be on taking back some of the tax cuts the White House wants to extend, not on expanding unemployment benefits.
In a conference call with Iowa reporters, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that even without a deal on tax cuts, the Senate would have approved at least a 3-month extension of federal unemployment benefits.
Grassley said, "A Republican measure would have been offset with stimulus money, surplus stimulus money. And if that didn't get 60 votes, then it probably would have been not offset, and it would have been passed on a more partisan basis."
"We will continue discussions with the President and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote," Pelosi said.
In the same article linked above: "Democrats are as angry about how the deal was put together as they are about its substance. They see the White House as abandoning bipartisan talks with Republicans and Democrats to work out a deal just with Senate Republicans.
"[Vice President Joe Biden] basically said, 'Take it or leave it,'" Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said. "We left it. It's up to them." DeFazio was referring to a non-binding vote taken by the House Democrats in their caucus to reject the White House tax cut/unemployment extension plan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
