Unemployed in FL may have to volunteer to get benefit checks

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Is this a good idea?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Firstly - It's part of the Taxes the Government levys on all Businesses/employers. It does not come from your paycheck, and therefore it is not part of "your" compensation.

legally, no, but the economic burden is certainly on the employee.

this is economics 101.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
But I did pay for 26 weeks. They want to require community service after 12 weeks.

It's part of overall compensation. That money was paid on behalf of the individual. If your employer pays for your health benefits, should you have to do community service to see a doctor too?

You didn't pay a goddamn cent. Whatever cost the employer pays is passed on in the increased cost of goods, not a decrease in your salary. You are completely incapable of assimilating that basic point, which is literally spelled out in FL regulations, and you base your whole argument on your false premise.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
But I did pay for 26 weeks. They want to require community service after 12 weeks.

So you would have no trouble if the law stated that "Starting with week 27, you must perform community service in order to earn the extended benefits"?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
legally, no, but the economic burden is certainly on the employee.

this is economics 101.


Actually, the economic burden is on the general public since that public pays for the Tax in the form of higher prices on goods.


Econ 101... etc etc etc..
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
legally, no, but the economic burden is certainly on the employee.

this is economics 101.

Read above. It's specifically spelled out several times in FL regulation... the cost is borne by the employer alone, and it passed on in the increased cost of goods or services sold to consumers. It IS NOT IN ANY WAY DEDUCTED from or PAID FOR BY the employee. Eliminating it WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY INCREASE YOUR SALARY.

If I am paying you minimum wage, and we get rid of UE insurance, I'm not going to give you a raise.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
I've been saying this for at least 20 years now. Bring back the CCC and the WPA and those that are collecting unemployment must work for one of those agencies in order to get a check.

It's ironic how things have changed since the 30s. Back then it was considered extremely hard core liberal to run government projects just to get people back to work. The military was like that too. If you need a job, here's your government issued shovel.

Now it's considered radical hard core right wing politics to run those exact same programs. Work for welfare? That's hardcore right wing. Saying people can always join the army if they need a job? That's as hard core right wing as it gets.

The modern liberal policy doesn't even make sense. Instead of expecting people to get private sector jobs or expecting people to work for the government, people simply are not expected to work at all. You have no job? Here's some money; we'll wire it directly to your account so you don't even need to come down to the office for a check!
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Read above. It's specifically spelled out several times in FL regulation... the cost is borne by the employer alone, and it passed on in the increased cost of goods or services sold to consumers. It IS NOT IN ANY WAY DEDUCTED from or PAID FOR BY the employee. Eliminating it WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY INCREASE YOUR SALARY.

If I am paying you minimum wage, and we get rid of UE insurance, I'm not going to give you a raise.

You might a little. But only because you got rid of expensive paper work and other taxes. 1099's get paid more than regular employees doing same work for this reason.

But he would get paid less because now he has to pay 14% SS, UE and anything else he wanted. It's either a wash or he gets less. Point stands.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
What are you talking about? they are already getting paid for sitting at home. i.e. the "large gov't workforce" is already there. Lets make them do something for it now.

As far as grand schema of things, I already said 100000x since we don't produce what we consume and instead put food on Chinese tables we are creating a dependency class. This is the price for free trade religion. You have three choices. Let them Starve. Pay them to sit at home. Pay them to do make work.

and when they unionize?

Get hurt and are collecting workmans comp?

Have a heart attack because they sat in a cubicle for 30 years and now you have them on a ladder scrubbing paint?

Who scrubs the paint now? I guess they will keep doing the same job but now as part of the unemployed army.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
who oversees the unemployed army?

Maybe we could have people who used to be middle management be the overseer.

People who used to process paychecks could process the unemployment checks.

People who used to own liquor stores could now run the state owned liquor stores

People who cut sound effects for the movie industry could now cut sound effects for the state owned movie industry (that only makes state sanctioned films of course)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Actually, the economic burden is on the general public since that public pays for the Tax in the form of higher prices on goods.


Econ 101... etc etc etc..

the "public" pays deadweight loss. purchasers may lose some of their benefit, producers may lose some of their benefit, and employees may lose some of their benefit.



Read above. It's specifically spelled out several times in FL regulation... the cost is borne by the employer alone, and it passed on in the increased cost of goods or services sold to consumers. It IS NOT IN ANY WAY DEDUCTED from or PAID FOR BY the employee. Eliminating it WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY INCREASE YOUR SALARY.

If I am paying you minimum wage, and we get rid of UE insurance, I'm not going to give you a raise.
the FL reg can say what it wants, it doesn't change the economic burden.

and you're going to lose employees when everyone else starts paying $5.50 and you're still paying $5.25.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It's ironic how things have changed since the 30s. Back then it was considered extremely hard core liberal to run government projects just to get people back to work. The military was like that too. If you need a job, here's your government issued shovel.

Now it's considered radical hard core right wing politics to run those exact same programs. Work for welfare? That's hardcore right wing. Saying people can always join the army if they need a job? That's as hard core right wing as it gets.

The modern liberal policy doesn't even make sense. Instead of expecting people to get private sector jobs or expecting people to work for the government, people simply are not expected to work at all. You have no job? Here's some money; we'll wire it directly to your account so you don't even need to come down to the office for a check!

Left does not believe in honest money. They bail out crooked banksters, put them in charge of reform, send money to people to do nothing, bascially reward sloth, criminality, incompetence, and so forth and penalize independence and money makers.

I'm pretty left as things go, like an Eisenhower republican who would be called a socialist today for his tax, trade and union policies but not that left to vote democrat.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
In many cases, we do exactly that: Just Over Half Of The Prison Population Works WHile Incarcerated Whether in prison, or on work release.

Those are mostly institution based jobs. This helps the private prison industry as they dont have to pay anyone to mop the floor and clean bathrooms.



And why can't local/state governments implement similar programs for the unemployed??


*hint* No reason they can't. :) As pointed out already: These people are already on the payroll.
 

Chocu1a

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2009
1,386
79
91
the "public" pays deadweight loss. purchasers may lose some of their benefit, producers may lose some of their benefit, and employees may lose some of their benefit.




the FL reg can say what it wants, it doesn't change the economic burden.

and you're going to lose employees when everyone else starts paying $5.50 and you're still paying $5.25.
& so you are completely fine with the fact that you & I are paying more because some dead beat lazy ass doesn't want to take a job slinging fries over at Mickey D's because they can just file an extension & sit at home cry over their over-inflated self worth?

btw, extreme ironing is too cool.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
What are you talking about? they are already getting paid for sitting at home. i.e. the "large gov't workforce" is already there. Lets make them do something for it now.

As far as grand schema of things, I already said 100000x since we don't produce what we consume and instead put food on Chinese tables we are creating a dependency class. This is the price for free trade religion. You have three choices. Let them Starve. Pay them to sit at home. Pay them to do make work.

Don't bother trying to explain anything too complicated to Jstorm, I think he's autistic. Apparently very skilled in one thing, while functionally retarded when it comes to everything else.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
who oversees the unemployed army?

Maybe we could have people who used to be middle management be the overseer.

People who used to process paychecks could process the unemployment checks.

People who used to own liquor stores could now run the state owned liquor stores

People who cut sound effects for the movie industry could now cut sound effects for the state owned movie industry (that only makes state sanctioned films of course)

You're not really familiar with the concept of volunteering are you? How do you suppose that the millions of people who volunteer yearly are managed right now?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Gotcha, every 40 hours of community service equals another person unemployed. What a great idea to increase the rolls! Works just like illegal immigrants working American jobs and putting Real Red Blooded Americans out of work. Now don't it?
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,619
4,675
136
Employees pay for unemployment insurance and should not have to work for the benefits.

Completely wrong. The Employer pays. Not the employee.

Costs are Truly Shared by Federal and State Government
Operating as a federal-state partnership, UC is based on federal law, but administered by the states. The UC program is unique among U.S. social insurance programs in that it is funded almost totally by either federal or state taxes paid by employers.

Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
and when they unionize?

Get hurt and are collecting workmans comp?

Have a heart attack because they sat in a cubicle for 30 years and now you have them on a ladder scrubbing paint?

Who scrubs the paint now? I guess they will keep doing the same job but now as part of the unemployed army.

Worker just fine before like Shiner eluded to. No reason to complicate things and dream up new way of doing things.

And not only scrub graffiti, but every city street you should be able to eat off, all those people now need baby sitters, or get this - build iPhones instead of paying chinese to build them AND pay our people to sit at home.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Worker just fine before like Shiner eluded to. No reason to complicate things and dream up new way of doing things.

And not only scrub graffiti, but every city street you should be able to eat off, all those people now need baby sitters, or get this - build iPhones instead of paying chinese to build them AND pay our people to sit at home.

cleaning the streets in la is a actual job. They drive by and brush them down. I think its more so they can ticket the cars that are in the way then actually cleaning the street though.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
As someone who lives in Central Florida, I think all they should do is drug test. If its positive for anything (including alcohol, if you can't afford to live and are unemployed you don't need to be wasting money on booze) you don't get benefits for 6 months, after which you take another test, if you fail three times you are never allowed government assistance.

Oh, when I come to power...

What if I went to a friends house to watch the game, because I cut my cable off, and he shared his beer with me?

While I disagree with the legality issue concerning drugs I do agree with the drug testing for those over the original timeframe they paid for (actually EVERYONE receiving tax dollars). If I gotta take a drug test to make money and pay taxes you should have to take one to get my tax dollars.