Who gets more Welfare, The rich or the poor?

[boomerang]

I am guessing they don't even get a paycheck if they think employees pay for it.

Could be. I do very specifically recall that when I was an employer, I had to send in quarterly payments to the UIA for the state of Michigan. I also vividly recall not deducting any amount from the workers when I created their paychecks.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/uia_UC1017_76080_7.pdf

When I was working for others, I had no deduction from my pay for unemployment.

Really, I'm done with this. There is a level of ignorance that one must just walk away from.

 

[Matt1970]

Unemployment benefits are insurance, not public assistance. That's only 1/2 right.

People pay into it while they are working, WRONG
and claims are based off the amount paid in WRONG
and are denied if the claimant is unemployed through their own doing (i.e. they quit or were fired for cause).That part you got right.

This is the problem when you make shit up as you go along. A lot of the time you are wrong.

 

[Zaap]

I am guessing they don't even get a paycheck if they think employees pay for it.

I think you guys are splitting hairs a little bit on this one.

Unemployment is one of those things that the employee never sees, but to an employer its part of the overall cost of hiring that employee, and so technically can be seen as a part of their compensation.

I would say that it can be looked at as the employee being the reason the fund is paid into, therefore its paid in a sense by the employee. Otherwise its money an employer could use to either pay the employee more, a higher profit, or money toward more workers, etc. Since its put toward employee-specific insurance that the employee can collect, it seems to me splitting hairs just because the employee never sees the transaction personally that you can't call it their money that they paid into.

At any rate...

This thread subject is a much more complicated question than the simplistic way its presented here. There's a constant push mainly by the left to try and make everything the same, so one first has to reject the false premises and define things as they really are, on an individual (ie: real world) level. Is it really accurate to lump the person who works or runs a business etc and pays a lifetime worth of various taxes- who then recieves some return or benefit that they likely paid into- with the person who recieves welfare checks year after year who hasn't equally contributed to the pot? Of course not, but the leftists always want to define things this way.

It's funny to me, leftists attempt to redefine things like taxes as "investments" but its always in a one-sided way. Like people who are productive are supposed to "invest" in the non-productive as a way of keeping them all from becoming criminals, and other such logic leaps. But of course an actual investment has a pay off in personal financial gain. So why then shouldn't someone paying a lot of taxes expect to see a greater return on their "investment" than someone paying a lesser amount? (And see, just as with an actual investment, value of return is measured in reality, the actual amount put in, not make believe value such as what percentage of your income your contribution represents to you. That holds no real world value to anyone. Apple won't give you a higher return on your 400 shares that represent 30% of your net worth vs. someone else's 400,000 shares that represent 10% of theirs. The measure is fantasy- it holds no real value to *anyone*. No, not even precious govt.

So I notice when put in real world terms, the two way street, suddenly the "taxes as investments" attempt at redefinition gets dropped like a hot potato. Otherwise, someone who pays in more of course would logically expect to gain more of a return as well.

 

[Cozarkian]

Unemployment is one of those things that the employee never sees,

I'd like to see unemployment insurance as a privately purchased benefit. Then people could choose the amount they would like to receive if they lose their job and the length of time, and pay premiums accordingly.

Then, for example, if your spouse makes enough money to support the entire family and you are working just to keep from being bored, you could forego unemployment insurance and have a higher-take home pay, because companies could also afford to pay more if they are footing the cost of the insurance.

 

[Vic]

OK, here we go again. On a paystub, what does it appear as?

I don't see my employer's contribution to my health benefits on my paycheck either. Are you saying that means that contribution is not part of my total compensation package?
There's ignorance in this thread alright.. from you.

 

[ElFenix]

zaap posted something of substance

 

[Vic]

This is the problem when you make shit up as you go along. A lot of the time you are wrong.

Sorry but you're the one who's wrong here. The amount an unemployed person can claim in benefits is based directly off their income prior to being unemployed, up to a maximum amount. Likewise, the amounts paid into unemployment by the employer on the employee's behalf are based directly off the employer's payroll (and thus the employee's income).
Sorry you don't understand how it works, but unemployment benefits are insurance in every way.

 

[Matt1970]

Sorry but you're the one who's wrong here. The amount an unemployed person can claim in benefits is based directly off their income prior to being unemployed, up to a maximum amount. Likewise, the amounts paid into unemployment by the employer on the employee's behalf are based directly off the employer's payroll (and thus the employee's income).
Sorry you don't understand how it works, but unemployment benefits are insurance in every way.

That is not what you said. You said "claims are based off the amount paid in" which you now know is false and are trying to change your story. Even if you just barely qualified for Unemployment or whether your employer has been paying in for years on your behalf, the amount of your benefits would not change. It looks like maybe you finally educated yourself a little bit on it. Now stop saying I don't understand how it works when I have known for a long time and you just now found out.

 

[Fern]

I don't see my employer's contribution to my health benefits on my paycheck either. Are you saying that means that contribution is not part of my total compensation package?
There's ignorance in this thread alright.. from you.

That's either a poorly completed pay stub attached to your check (you actually get a check and not an auto deposit?) or you're not looking hard enough.

Employer contributions to employee HC are reported on your W-2 too.

Fern

 

[OCGuy]

Here in CA, the employee doesn't pay into the Unemployment Insurance fund, it is the employers.

Employees do pay into the State Disability Insurance fund, however.

 

[OCGuy]

That's either a poorly completed pay stub attached to your check (you actually get a check and not an auto deposit?) or you're not looking hard enough.

Employer contributions to employee HC are reported on your W-2 too.

Fern

I've never seen them on W-2s, and I look at hundreds per month. Health benefits are generally pre-tax if your employer knows what they are doing when setting up the plan...

 

[Fern]

I've never seen them on W-2s, and I look at hundreds per month. Health benefits are generally pre-tax if your employer knows what they are doing when setting up the plan...

Pre-tax employer sponsored HI goes in box 12. It's coded "DD".

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw2w3.pdf

Edit: I'll add other forms of nontaxable employer provided health care benefits (e.g., HSA) may go in other boxes and/or be coded differently.

Fern

 

[ElFenix]

Here in CA, the employee doesn't pay into the Unemployment Insurance fund, it is the employers.

Employees do pay into the State Disability Insurance fund, however.

all of this is just the accounting burden and says nothing about who is actually paying it.