Debate Rages On - Generous UI Benefits Cause People Not To Work, Or Do They? (mortgages, taxes)

[mathjak107]

Basic unemployment is funded and paid for by the employer....they contribute on the employees behalf in to the state fund .....it is an actual account and every employee gets debited right out for every claim ....if there is not enough to cover your employee claims the state will loan you the money and raise your payments .....so employers pay for state ui for the most part

The way I look at it the money the fed kicks in like the 300 or 600 dollars is nothing compareD to what most of us paid in taxes over working decades ..... Some get to keep more of what they earned through creative tax planning , Some tax plan to get aca subsidies on health insurance, others get to keep more of what they earned via give backs from the 600 and now 300 dollars added to ui.

Anything that legally allows any of us to keep more of WHAT WE EARNED and less going away in tax , I am for.

Don’t forget our tax system is based on your fair share of taxes is the lowest you can get them using the tools and laws left in place for that reason .....

Any money anyone here can get back or not pay in when it comes to taxes more power to them .....I rather see us spend it then this awful govt.

That 600 or now 300 is but a fraction of our own tax money we paid in For as much as 40 years .

Remember , I am not talking welfare , where what you get is what others worked for and paid in .... I am talking keeping more or getting back more of the tax money you earned and paid in over possibly decades of working ...

People need to have the right perspective on this kind of stuff .

While I feel it is unethical for wealthy people to utilize welfare programs which are designed for the impoverished, there is never anything wrong qualifying for anything that lets you keep more of what you earned that you got the ability to get back ..

Don’t homeowners get back tax money they paid in ,on their real estate taxes and interest if they qualify ?

[Futuremauian]

In my 50+ years of working, this is the first time I've gotten any money directly from the government and I've paid a lot in taxes over the years. I don't need the UI money to survive but it means I am not spending my savings until work resumes.

I know many teenagers here in Maui for whom the $600 per week bonus was a godsend. Some of them missed months of payments simply because they didn't know how to jump through the hoops to enroll. One of them is a young lady with a child who was forced to move to a tent in her mother's yard when she and her boyfriend lost their jobs. I helped them get enrolled.

For others it has been an unexpected bonus. One boy I know has saved up some of the money to buy a vehicle to get him to work at a new job, since his previous employer is bankrupt.

Although I've worked most of my life I don't begrudge the young people who are currently catching a short-term break UNLESS THEY ARE OUT RIOTING!

Hopefully, a working vaccine will become available soon and life will return to normal.

[PamelaIamela]

It is axiomatic that insurance always increases the incidence of what it insures against.

Unemployment insurance is no exception.

The issue is to what extent it suppresses the demand for work AND whether the cost of that undesired consequence is worth the benefit.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

You Sir have pretty much nailed things down!

This covid-19 pandemic has largely produced a tale of two cities economy. White collar, professionals, tech, and other employment sectors largely dominated by those holding four year or post-graduate degrees are doing fine. That is unless persons work in sectors badly hurt by closings or whatever (hospitality, some retail, etc..).

My UPS guy is making money these past several months hand over fist. There is so much work he's banking mucho OT.

Yes, there is work out there for those wanting. Places like Lowes, Home Depot, restaurants doing take out only or dining outdoors were starving for help when that $600 was on table. First week of August when that was all over, applications shot up. Local moving company here in NYC said they couldn't get people from March through end of July, this while business was so booming guys were bringing home $1500 per week. Again once that $600 ended applications or responses to job adverts went up.

This may be a national thing, but at least in my low cost neck of the woods, Target is starting at $15/hr. Aldi is $16/hr. McDonalds is at least $10. Two people making $15 each is a decent living.

The big problem are the semi-skilled jobs like CNA or LPN that are making less to as much as the person scanning groceries at Aldi. I’d imagine it’s hard to keep an LPN for $13/hr or something in a COVID infected nursing home when Walmart and the grocery store need people hand over fist.

[TimAZ]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

This may be a national thing, but at least in my low cost neck of the woods, Target is starting at $15/hr. Aldi is $16/hr. McDonalds is at least $10. Two people making $15 each is a decent living.

A living yes, but decent? Hourly workers are fed this line of crappola by their tightwad employers. Inflation-adjusted “real wages” have been flat since the late ‘80s, and that is why so many people now work for under the table pay that avoids taxes and other payroll deductions.

[mathjak107]

wages were only flat if one stayed in the same job function from start to finish over 30-40 years .

most of us move up the ranks and don't stay in the same job function forever .

except for inflation adjusting why should the same job function be worth more ? it shouldn't . in fact many are worth less . at one time a good switch board operator was worth money being the face of a company .

today the job is likely a function of someone elses job.

there is no \reason any job should automatically be worth more other than maybe inflation adjusting ..

plus if the price increases are not monetary inflation but by shortages and demand then even those wages should not be automatically inflation adjusted

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by PamelaIamela

It is axiomatic that insurance always increases the incidence of what it insures against.

Hmm. I've had homeowner's insurance on my primary residences for over 30 years and none of them have caught fire yet.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by TimAZ

A living yes, but decent? Hourly workers are fed this line of crappola by their tightwad employers. Inflation-adjusted “real wages” have been flat since the late ‘80s, and that is why so many people now work for under the table pay that avoids taxes and other payroll deductions.

With 2 people at $15/hr, that is about $60K a year, that is right about the median household income in the US, not "crappola".

I am curious, why should inflation adjusted "real wages" be going up? There are many reasons that they should not like changing work patterns, changes in family makeup, increased automation that reduces skilled workers needed, globalization that pushes jobs overseas and aging population with more retiring push down overall median income, as more retire with significant lower income than when working. Most increase wages as age to higher position so the average household wage does not have to increase for the individual household to see growth in income.

The data doesn't really support your contention anyway - some data points

-The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year. This was the fourth consecutive year with a statistically significant increase by their measure.

-The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study in 2013 which shows that employer contributions to employee healthcare costs went up 78% from 2003 to 2013. The marketplace has made a trade-off: expanding benefits packages vs. increasing wages.

-According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%. However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.

So "tightwad" employers actually paid higher wages and better benefits for less skilled work.

BTW - if a significant amount of work is done under the table, those wages would not be in the statistics and average wages would be even higher. Also working under the table would reduce unemployment, Social Security, potentially insurance and other benefits - not such a good tradeoff if someone is in the 47% not paying income taxes.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Hmm. I've had homeowner's insurance on my primary residences for over 30 years and none of them have caught fire yet.

False equivalency - it is the pool of insured that matters mostly.

[skeddy]

don't blame anyone for taking what's being offered. I have friends with 6 figure government pensions that have seasonal jobs to stay busy and collect unemployment every winter. Been doing it for years.