U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-14-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in TN
709 posts, read 1,212,711 times
Reputation: 760

Advertisements

UPDATE: Now we know that in 47 of the 50 states, this is true. However, there are three states who impose a "minimal" unemployment tax on their employees. These three states are reported to be: PA, NJ, and _____. I am so unnecessarily delighted to have learned this bit of trivia that I think I need to take a pill.
-------------------------

Somebody (I think more than one somebody) keeps correcting me about that, says that it depends from state to state. Every so often I try to find an instance of that and I just can't. It's distributed differently from state to state, but it's collected from the employer in all 50 states.

I just keep reading stuff like "we pay into this as employees" and I don't know why, but it's driving me nuts.

So unless somebody can prove me wrong, EMPLOYERS PAY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, NOT EMPLOYEES.

I'm not saying I begrudge anyone for filing for unemployment; I think it's perfectly fine, what it's there for, and nobody should be ashamed to do it. I really don't get the stigma of being ashamed to file for unemployment, as if it is welfare. It is not welfare.

Anyway, I don't even know why I am posting this, and as I type I keep trying to tell my fingers to go over to the backspace key, or even to pick up the mouse and hit the little X, but I can't make them do it.

I am:
Not an employer.
Not on unemployment.
Not unemployed or married to someone who is unemployed.

I have, however, been all of the above!

So I actually am sort of hoping somebody can prove me wrong on this because I seem to have some need that cannot be denied--to know one way or the other. But I kind of don't think I am wrong. At least, I couldn't find it anywhere. Could there maybe also be state unemployment insurance in a few states that is paid for by the employee and that is on top of the federal unemployment system?

I feel better now. Thank you for reading my strange post.

Last edited by Wordy; 04-14-2009 at 01:42 PM.. Reason: Clarify somethin'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2009, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Durham, NC
1,048 posts, read 2,345,539 times
Reputation: 687
You're right as far as i can tell. Found this online.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federa.../ucprogram.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 12:52 PM
 
2,365 posts, read 7,866,818 times
Reputation: 666
[quote=Wordy;8337317]Anyway, I don't even know why I am posting this,quote]

Well, woody, you are not the only one who gets frustrated with others on this blog and their insistence to believe one thing over another. It is just life.

But, I am sorry, but I am not going to research this subject for this post.

But I will say, that Yes, based on reading this argument in previous posts, and doing a little research plus my own experience....My opinion is that Yes, employers pay 100 percent of the unemployment insurance to federal governement , HOWEVER States do collect unemployment insurance from both employees and employers. If and when they collect from employees, depends on the State's Unemployment Insurance Reserves.

Hope this helps answer this perennial question!

p.s. why do people know this? Because it is on their checks. It was on mine when i worked for the American Red Cross in the 1990's, in black and white. So, not an old wives tale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in TN
709 posts, read 1,212,711 times
Reputation: 760
Ooooh! What state did you live in at the time? I want to find one and see what the rules are. I have never lived in a state where it was deducted--but I think I have only been paid wages in four or five states. Do you remember what it was called on your paystub? I could do a search for that acronym (and it's always an acronym, isn't it?). I know the federal part is FUTA. Maybe like MUTA (if say, Minnesota is one of these states--I know Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Florida, Tennessee, Delaware, Texas do not because I either worked in those states or checked recently).

Maybe we can close in on the mystery! OK, maybe I can close in on the mystery. It's times like these that I wonder why I was never tested for OCD....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:15 PM
 
2,365 posts, read 7,866,818 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordy View Post
Ooooh! What state did you live in at the time? I want to find one and see what the rules are. I have never lived in a state where it was deducted--but I think I have only been paid wages in four or five states. Do you remember what it was called on your paystub? I could do a search for that acronym (and it's always an acronym, isn't it?). I know the federal part is FUTA. Maybe like MUTA (if say, Minnesota is one of these states--I know Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Florida, Tennessee, Delaware, Texas do not because I either worked in those states or checked recently).

Maybe we can close in on the mystery! OK, maybe I can close in on the mystery. It's times like these that I wonder why I was never tested for OCD....

*** Pennsylvania!! ;-)

http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp (it says 3 states impose on employees.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:22 PM
 
23,991 posts, read 32,322,325 times
Reputation: 10942
NJ deducts 0.3825% from the employees paycheck to fund unemployment insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:22 PM
 
7,038 posts, read 9,733,740 times
Reputation: 7301
Well yes and no. If the employee didn't have a mandate by the government to pay unemployment insurance, then he would be free to give you a higher salary. You pay for it - in terms of a lower salary. Doesn't matter if it's shown on your paycheck or not.

Unemployment insurance is covered under the same P&L line for your company - payroll costs, along with salaries and benifits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in TN
709 posts, read 1,212,711 times
Reputation: 760
Yay now we are getting somewhere. Yay!!!

I'm afraid I have to reject the argument about how people would be paid more if FUTA was not a part of the employer's burden. I am pretty sure the logic doesn't work on that one (like a logical fallacy) but I can't remember which one that is. I know it's not the strawman one and that's the only one I ever remember. I think it might work if we were comparing working 'under the table' with paying legal wages, but not as an across the board thing.

OK, I am off to check out the links. I was born and raised in PA but I left before I was old enough to have a job, go figure!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:33 PM
 
2,365 posts, read 7,866,818 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordy View Post
Yay now we are getting somewhere. Yay!!!

I'm afraid I have to reject the argument about how people would be paid more if FUTA was not a part of the employer's burden. I am pretty sure the logic doesn't work on that one (like a logical fallacy) but I can't remember which one that is. I know it's not the strawman one and that's the only one I ever remember. I think it might work if we were comparing working 'under the table' with paying legal wages, but not as an across the board thing.

OK, I am off to check out the links. I was born and raised in PA but I left before I was old enough to have a job, go figure!

See, Wordy... you were wrong and right! Just like you were before you started this question...hmmm

and yes, it is not a strawman's fallacy, it is a point of view. Just like business absorb taxes into the price of goods, employers absorb taxes into what they do not pay their employees. It is the economic reality of the price of doing business...this is not a figment of imagination, but a definite figure that determines salaries and profits, etc!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2009, 01:40 PM
 
7,038 posts, read 9,733,740 times
Reputation: 7301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wordy View Post
I'm afraid I have to reject the argument about how people would be paid more if FUTA was not a part of the employer's burden.
Well, the logic works this way in the macroeconomic world. A company budgets for payroll costs, that includes the ENTIRE cost of an employee which includes salaries and benifits and taxes. They don't care what is what at this stage. If one goes up (more taxes), another has to give (a salary freeze, no vacation, maybe layoffs). If taxes go down, the opposite occurs. An argument could be made that the company will just retain these extra funds for themeseles but, eventually, the laws of supply and demand will take effect and employees will leave to go with a company that DOESN"T just pocket the extra money and this company will be forced to match.

You can really extend the same logic accross the board - the economy is tanking, company lower the budget for payroll, people get layed off or get salary cuts. Economy improves - salaries increase, jobs are created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top