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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should the unemployment insurance coverage extend beyond 6 months?
Yes it should 3 42.86%
No it shouldn't 2 28.57%
I'm undecided 2 28.57%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-11-2016, 06:27 PM
 
432 posts, read 285,810 times
Reputation: 164

Advertisements

First I think the way unemployment insurance works now is you can normally collect unemployment insurance for up to 6 months unless extended by legislation during times where the country is going through financial hardship.

My idea is to automatically extend the unemployment insurance period of coverage beyond 6 months. In return, a higher amount is deducted from the employee's paycheck to put more into the fund. The employee will have the right to go with a 6-month election, or go for a longer term of unemployment insurance coverage in return for having a higher amount deducted from the employee's paycheck.

Do you like the idea?

EdX
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2016, 08:54 PM
 
11,573 posts, read 16,606,472 times
Reputation: 17505
Quote:
Originally Posted by education explorer View Post
First I think the way unemployment insurance works now is you can normally collect unemployment insurance for up to 6 months unless extended by legislation during times where the country is going through financial hardship.

My idea is to automatically extend the unemployment insurance period of coverage beyond 6 months. In return, a higher amount is deducted from the employee's paycheck to put more into the fund. The employee will have the right to go with a 6-month election, or go for a longer term of unemployment insurance coverage in return for having a higher amount deducted from the employee's paycheck.

Do you like the idea?

EdX
Ahhh, 99.6% of the unemployment tax burden is paid by the EMPLOYER! It will require every state to amend their own laws to reflect this change in policy. NO legislator anywhere would even consider introducing a bill that would add or increase employee payment into unemployment, that is political suicide!

Personally, as an employer, I feel it's the employee who should be paying at least 50% of the cost of unemployment taxes. I'm still confused why I'm saddled with the full cost. So, I agree, tax the employee for a change. let them see the money disappear from their paycheck to fund this benefit; at least it may prompt a whole bunch to start using the fraud reporting hotline when they see people not out looking for or accepting work.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 09:18 PM
 
432 posts, read 285,810 times
Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
Ahhh, 99.6% of the unemployment tax burden is paid by the EMPLOYER! It will require every state to amend their own laws to reflect this change in policy. NO legislator anywhere would even consider introducing a bill that would add or increase employee payment into unemployment, that is political suicide!

Personally, as an employer, I feel it's the employee who should be paying at least 50% of the cost of unemployment taxes. I'm still confused why I'm saddled with the full cost. So, I agree, tax the employee for a change. let them see the money disappear from their paycheck to fund this benefit; at least it may prompt a whole bunch to start using the fraud reporting hotline when they see people not out looking for or accepting work.
My understanding was it was 50/50 already.

Let's proceed on the basis of 50/50. Would you like the idea?

EdX
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 10:12 PM
 
11,573 posts, read 16,606,472 times
Reputation: 17505
Quote:
Originally Posted by education explorer View Post
My understanding was it was 50/50 already.

Let's proceed on the basis of 50/50. Would you like the idea?

EdX
No, in the three states that do tax the employee for part of the benefit, they pay maybe .2% of the individual tax burden on that employee and the employer pays the remaining 99.8%. For the other 47 states, we pay 100% of the tax.

As for a new 50/50 split; I have a hard time putting my head around that since you're talking something that will just never, ever happen. But, if it would happen, sure why not. Honestly, I would rather see employees assume 10% of base unemployment taxes (not even company specific) but maintain the current level of employer contributions for 7 years. During that period, the states need to use the excess money to eliminate waste and mismanagement from within their own ranks, improve processes, and increase claimant fraud detection and prosecution.

As a business owner, I have no issue with paying more if the end result is an improvement in the system that ultimately saves money. But, if there is no improvements, all this does is shift wasteful spending from one group to another.

Last edited by Rabrrita; 12-11-2016 at 10:18 PM.. Reason: fix contribution amounts
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
24,000 posts, read 51,822,420 times
Reputation: 19244
Quote:
Originally Posted by education explorer View Post
My understanding was it was 50/50 already.

Let's proceed on the basis of 50/50. Would you like the idea?
No. Only three states deduct a MINUSCULE amount from employee - Alaska, NJ, PA - not enough over a 25-year period, should the employee be there that long, to pay four weeks' benefits. Employers, otoh, pay at least 10x the amount charged to the employees in these states and are hit with rising taxes over and above that should their claims history warrant.

Fyi, many southern states over the past three years have reduced number of weeks paid to as few as 13.

There is NO WAY any state - especially a GOP-governed state - which is most of them - would agree to increase weeks paid. And, to ask employees to contribute their "fair share" would be very regressive and hard on the employee - especially those working for low wages.

Further, the UI offices work FOR the employer. These offices are in the business of DENYING and delaying payment of benefits whenever possible. They are not in the business of providing "satisfactory customer service" to the claimant. PA has just cut its call center staff by 600 people and closed 40% of its offices. The entire political paradigm in every state would need to change to pro-employee for a burden-sharing tax on the employee to be even remotely fair. How realistic in today's anti-worker/labor political climate do you believe that is?

So, no, it's not a realistic or workable proposal in today's world.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 10:18 PM
 
14,508 posts, read 27,799,171 times
Reputation: 2562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
we pay 100% of the tax.
Considering how good you are at this stuff, aren't your rates the lowest possible? However, even that might still be a lot of money. I always went with the theory that so many were working or getting disqualified for numerous reasons that the actual cost for those actually receiving was a manageable burden.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 10:29 PM
 
432 posts, read 285,810 times
Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
Ahhh, 99.6% of the unemployment tax burden is paid by the EMPLOYER! It will require every state to amend their own laws to reflect this change in policy. NO legislator anywhere would even consider introducing a bill that would add or increase employee payment into unemployment, that is political suicide!

Personally, as an employer, I feel it's the employee who should be paying at least 50% of the cost of unemployment taxes. I'm still confused why I'm saddled with the full cost. So, I agree, tax the employee for a change. let them see the money disappear from their paycheck to fund this benefit; at least it may prompt a whole bunch to start using the fraud reporting hotline when they see people not out looking for or accepting work.
I don't don't buy that the employer pays most of the burden to fund unemployment.

According to this:

Introduction to Unemployment Insurance | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

it says "States provide most of the funding and pay for the actual benefits provided to workers..."

I would like to see more responsive answers than what I've been seeing. On a 50/50 basis between employers and employees for funding, do you like the idea I've put forth to extend the coverage period for unemployment benefits from 26 weeks for the employees?

EdX
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 10:52 PM
 
11,573 posts, read 16,606,472 times
Reputation: 17505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chyvan View Post
Considering how good you are at this stuff, aren't your rates the lowest possible? However, even that might still be a lot of money. I always went with the theory that so many were working or getting disqualified for numerous reasons that the actual cost for those actually receiving was a manageable burden.
Yes, I pay one of the lowest rates and in some states, my contributions are only essential base taxes, no claims increases. However, due to the wages I pay, 85% of my employees are capped out. So the amount I pay high unemployment taxes based solely on wages being paid and that everyone is at maximum benefit levels. The base rate is standardized, the claims history adjustments is zero, but the wage factor is the highest. And, I am penalized for hiring a new employee. The base rate may have a surcharge for all employees who are under 6 months of employment with the company. Heck, in some states, they even asses a surcharge if I hire a person in certain SOC's because they are prone to unemployment claims.

I currently show a 99% retention rate, but penalized because I dare to pay my people well.

And, to dare discuss the 50,000 lb monster in the room, as Ariadne mentioned, there is a whole lot of political finagling going on that increases unemployment on some employers while denying legitimate benefits to many just so the politicians can garner favors with certain businesses by letting them tap the state's corporate welfare system.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 10:59 PM
 
11,573 posts, read 16,606,472 times
Reputation: 17505
Quote:
Originally Posted by education explorer View Post
I don't don't buy that the employer pays most of the burden to fund unemployment.
Personally, I don't give a rat's rear what you buy, But, but think of this, who do you think pays the state's portion of the funds? It's not coming out of thin air, they don't hold bake sales to raise money, they don't pass the hat at the state legislature and their isn't some donation jar at the state's Treasurer's Office to drop in some coins. NO, they TAX BUSINESSES through an UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

So, if you want an intelligent meaningful discussion, we are all willing to participate. But if this is some fantasy, ignore reality post, see ya......
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2016, 11:06 PM
 
432 posts, read 285,810 times
Reputation: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
Personally, I don't give a rat's rear what you buy, But, but think of this, who do you think pays the state's portion of the funds? It's not coming out of thin air, they don't hold bake sales to raise money, they don't pass the hat at the state legislature and their isn't some donation jar at the state's Treasurer's Office to drop in some coins. NO, they TAX BUSINESSES through an UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

So, if you want an intelligent meaningful discussion, we are all willing to participate. But if this is some fantasy, ignore reality post, see ya......
I never ignore reality if it's reality. I did a search for who funds unemployment and that's part of what came back. So I'll have to ask you to cite sources.

EdX
Rate this post positively 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 $104,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top