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.
Companies in at least 35 states will have to fork over more in unemployment insurance taxes this year, according to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.
The median increase will be 27.5%. And employers in places such as Hawaii and Florida could see levies skyrocket more than ten-fold.
In Hawaii, taxes automatically increased from an average of $90 per worker in 2009 to $1,070 this year.
When you extend unemployment compensation, there indeed are consequences.. This will make it more difficult for companies to hire.
Companies in at least 35 states will have to fork over more in unemployment insurance taxes this year, according to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.
The median increase will be 27.5%. And employers in places such as Hawaii and Florida could see levies skyrocket more than ten-fold.
In Hawaii, taxes automatically increased from an average of $90 per worker in 2009 to $1,070 this year.
When you extend unemployment compensation, there indeed are consequences.. This will make it more difficult for companies to hire.
Yep, some states such as Hawaii practically quit collecting money into unemployment funds during good years, and now they have nothing to pay out. Bunch of morons.....now they are hiking the state unemployment tax from $90 to over a $1000.
When you extend unemployment compensation, there indeed are consequences.. This will make it more difficult for companies to hire.
Apparently you don't understand much about how the unemployment compensation system works. Employers pay taxes and the money goes into a fund to support the system. When unemployment is low the trust fund builds up a balance, and then the system has to pay out of the trust fund when unemployment goes up.
In Vermont, and probably in most states, even during times of low unemployment and a healthy economy, the tax rate, or the wage base on which taxes were collected, or both, was kept low. For instance, in Vermont the wage base has been held at $8,000 a year since 1983, even though the department of employment and training proposed an increase back in 2002. As you might guess, it wasn't the workers or their representatives who fought to keep the tax low, it was the employers.
Now, when the trust funds are drained and the states are having to go to the feds to borrow to pay benefits, the employers, who made out for all those years with their low taxes, are looking to put the burden on the workers by cutting benefits.
The program is a victim of short-term thinking and of the power of the employer lobby. This situation has not been caused by the provision of extended benefits.
Apparently you don't understand much about how the unemployment compensation system works. Employers pay taxes and the money goes into a fund to support the system. When unemployment is low the trust fund builds up a balance, and then the system has to pay out of the trust fund when unemployment goes up.
In Vermont, and probably in most states, even during times of low unemployment and a healthy economy, the tax rate, or the wage base on which taxes were collected, or both, was kept low. For instance, in Vermont the wage base has been held at $8,000 a year since 1983, even though the department of employment and training proposed an increase back in 2002. As you might guess, it wasn't the workers or their representatives who fought to keep the tax low, it was the employers.
Now, when the trust funds are drained and the states are having to go to the feds to borrow to pay benefits, the employers, who made out for all those years with their low taxes, are looking to put the burden on the workers by cutting benefits.
The program is a victim of short-term thinking and of the power of the employer lobby. This situation has not been caused by the provision of extended benefits.
All true, but... how is taxing the job producers 10 fold going to help anybody? Except a bunch of beurocrats holding onto their worthless jobs?
Apparently you don't understand much about how the unemployment compensation system works. Employers pay taxes and the money goes into a fund to support the system. When unemployment is low the trust fund builds up a balance, and then the system has to pay out of the trust fund when unemployment goes up.
In Vermont, and probably in most states, even during times of low unemployment and a healthy economy, the tax rate, or the wage base on which taxes were collected, or both, was kept low. For instance, in Vermont the wage base has been held at $8,000 a year since 1983, even though the department of employment and training proposed an increase back in 2002. As you might guess, it wasn't the workers or their representatives who fought to keep the tax low, it was the employers.
Now, when the trust funds are drained and the states are having to go to the feds to borrow to pay benefits, the employers, who made out for all those years with their low taxes, are looking to put the burden on the workers by cutting benefits.
The program is a victim of short-term thinking and of the power of the employer lobby. This situation has not been caused by the provision of extended benefits.
In West Virginia, the taxable wage base was $8000. The Legislature was asked to increase it, but lobbying held back the effort to double the wage base and only increased it to $10.000 IF the trust fund dropped below a trigger value. Obviously, the fund is low now, and the modest increase in taxes will take many years to replenish the fund.
Apparently you don't understand much about how the unemployment compensation system works. Employers pay taxes and the money goes into a fund to support the system. When unemployment is low the trust fund builds up a balance, and then the system has to pay out of the trust fund when unemployment goes up.
In Vermont, and probably in most states, even during times of low unemployment and a healthy economy, the tax rate, or the wage base on which taxes were collected, or both, was kept low. For instance, in Vermont the wage base has been held at $8,000 a year since 1983, even though the department of employment and training proposed an increase back in 2002. As you might guess, it wasn't the workers or their representatives who fought to keep the tax low, it was the employers.
Now, when the trust funds are drained and the states are having to go to the feds to borrow to pay benefits, the employers, who made out for all those years with their low taxes, are looking to put the burden on the workers by cutting benefits.
The program is a victim of short-term thinking and of the power of the employer lobby. This situation has not been caused by the provision of extended benefits.
What exactly did I say made you think I dont understand the system? If you extend unemployment, it pulls more money out of the fund setup to support the system and drains it to zero.
All you did was explain the system in details but I said nothing to state otherwise..
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.
