Unemployment benefits story (sympathy or sob)

So I see you're the person I mentioned in my first post that takes glee in the suffering of others. Enjoy it, there sure is a lot of it to go around.

 

how the fuck am i taking glee in anything. the only point was that there is a big disparity on what is rich depending on where you live. to you that means i take glee in others' suffering. not sure how you get to that conclusion.

 

As previously stated, my opinion is that backing a tax cut for people making $250,000 while at the same time denying unemployment benefits to people making nothing is an example of taking glee in the misfortune of others. It is a logical inconsistency because the reason given for not extending unemployment is deficit reduction, yet the deficit will grow by a far greater amount if those tax cuts for the rich are extended.

You care more about people making $250,000 ending up with $175,000 to "get by" on than you do about people who are scraping to come up with mortgage and car payments. That to me is not an admirable trait.

 

It's not logically inconsistent.

They believe that the tax cut will ultimately spur economic growth that will alleviate the need for unemployment (good for the unemployed) and cause tax receipts to rise (good for the deficit).

It's interesting how many rich people advocate the idea that giving to the rich is better for the economy, and how many middle class people believe that giving money to the middle class is better for the economy. It's kind of like asking SportsJournalists.com how important sports is to a newspaper.

 

no actually i don't care more about people $250,000 ending up with $175,000 to "get by" on than you do about people who are scraping to come up with mortgage and car payments. since what wrote was that the marginal tax rate for $190,201 - $372,950 is a big disparity depending on where you live. you can argue that. you can also draw your bullshit conclusions about me taking glee in other's suffering but that wouldn't be true.

 

good point Rick, but again being rich is a different number depending on where you are.

 

This happened to me in my recent unemployment stint. I was out of full-time permanent work for 18 months. 14 weeks were burned by my severance agreement, then I got a temporary job for five weeks that paid more than the unemployment I would receive. I got my first unemployment check on my birthday. In September, I started working part-time at one paper answering phones and picking up occasional freelance gigs at another, knowing full well that I'd wouldn't get that part of the benefit that week, but also being worried that I might run out of benefit at some point, so better to take a partial check and make it last longer.

Hindsight being what it is, I would have not bothered with the work and spent the time doing something else. It gave me something to do a few nights, but it was totally grunt work, and didn't do anything for getting a real job. And since I eventually got a job, I didn't get any more money than I would have had I not worked (with the exception of the temp job, which paid a couple dollars an hour more).

It's tricky, becuase on the one hand, you want to encourage people to work, even if it's doing part-time/temp stuff. On the other hand, if you don't change their benefit (or only take a small portion out) while they're PT/freelancing, then they might end up making enough money between the two that it isn't worth their while to do anything other than make the appearance of trying to get a real job, since the pay may not be much better, if at all.

All I know is the next time I'm unemployed is the last time I'm unemployed.

 

Actually, that's not quite accurate. They believe that raising tax rates on certain brackets (which is what will happen if that top rate "cut" expires) will slow or reverse economic growth. This would increase unemployment and cause overall tax receipts to decline.

It kinda bugs me, the way these cuts were initially labeled and passed. They were intended to be permanent -- but honestly, what political act is permanent? -- but they were given an expiration date simply to get past certain procedural rules.

 

Despite what the lame duck Congress is trying to do, I think we can have an intelligent discussion about unemployment benefits without talking about the tax cuts.

 

They are completely interconnected. From ABC News blog:

One option seen as an increasingly likely outcome is both parties agreeing on a temporary three-year extension of all the cuts in exchange for key Democratic priorities like an unemployment insurance extension and other possible measures.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/12/the-tax-men-meeteth-white-house-congress-tax-meetings-kick-off.html

That's just the easiest I could find on Google of what every outlet of every political persuasion is saying. So discussing one without the other is not really discussing the issue.

 

With an unemployment rate that has consistently over the past year or more hovered around 1 in 10 people being out of work, I'd rather provide the benefit for the majority who do need it than try and withhold it from the minority who abuse the system.

If you're collecting unemployment, it means you've worked in the past. In general, you have a penchant for working and contributing and aren't wont to be a full-time freeloader.

The job market is tough out there right now--getter better than a year ago, but still pretty slim. I have several people I work with who have children who graduated this year from college--big time colleges, some with strong degrees like engineering, and they're still looking for work.

Unemployment is imperative to helping people while they are between jobs.

 

60 hours a week to hover at or below the poverty line? Where do I sign?