473
This is a BS title.
The bill prevents people with more than $1mil income from receiving unemployment. Far more reasonable considering everything I see says that you need a million or two to retire comfortably these days.
Someone in their 50s could easily have $1M in assets if their house appreciated a lot since they bought it and they gave a decent retirement account. Yet they could have been earning $50k a year and have no liquid assets.
Exactly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Edited description
Is this actually anything anyone in this income bracket has ever done? This seems like a pointless bill to me
"IRS data shows thousands of millionaires are gaming this system to receive unemployment insurance," [Utah Republican Rep. John Curtis] said.
Would just like to pop in here and say that terms like “millionaires” and “billionaires” typically refer to net worth/wealth, not income. This is why Jeff Bezos was able to claim some of the federal COVID aide because, despite being a multi-billionaire, his income in that year was below the threshold (I think it was sub-$100k) as income from investments didn’t qualify under the structure of the plan.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment of people whose net worths are upwards of a million being able to claim unemployment, actually calculating net worth is extremely difficult to do, especially among the wealthy. That would put an unreasonable burden on the unemployment benefit system that would probably end up costing more in administrative costs than the money saved by not including to the ultra-wealthy in the benefit. Preventing the latter is the main benefit of universal programs
actually calculating net worth is extremely difficult to do, especially among the wealthy.
Even among the non-wealthy. For example, you might have some guy who has essentially no savings but who worked for an auto manufacturer and has a pension coming, compared to another guy who has a million dollars in his 401K but the annual income from that would be less than the first guy's pension.
In the 90s, I didn't qualify for food stamps. I had a minimum wage job, but the house I lived in had a washer and a dryer, which meant I was too rich for food stamps.
Were* those literally criteria that were used?
Yes.
That's bonkers. I'm sorry you had to endure that.
That's Indiana for you. And I survived despite it, so it all worked out, but thanks.
Not exactly related, I was a college kid looking to move out of my parents' house back in 2007. I applied for Section 8 housing as my minimum wage job at the time technically met all the qualifications for it. I wasn't allowed to receive it because I was in school at the time. You can't be poor and go to college at the same time if you wanted a place to live, apparently.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Honestly, after a day to mull it over, I'm concerned that it could be used to make the argument that they shouldn't have to pay into it.
You think these people are paying their fair share of taxes?
Why should someone pay into employment insurance if they won't get employment insurance?
It's capped, it's not like they are getting copious amounts.
If you wanna tax them more tax them more other ways with an actual tax.
Remember, its not a tax. It's insurance. They paid for it.
Edit: in Canada anyway... it's a separate deduction from taxes, specifically for EI.
Edit: another way to think about it is in Canada we have the CPP (canada pension plan) which is also not a tax that comes off each cheque. It pays into our pension, and we get a set amount back when we retire based off what we put in. You can't just say oh if you made this much you don't get your cpp. It's not a tax, it's something they've paid into and it's rightfully theirs.
In the US, it’s just another payroll tax, not something you can choose.
Right, you can't choose it, but is it another line that says employment insurance? I doubt it says EI Tax.
That's not a tax then, it's buying into something. If you pay part of your benefits on your payroll it also isn't a tax but comes off it.
My payroll slip actually says federal tax on the taxes.
Edit: clarity and Mandatory insurance isn't a tax
If it’s just the name’s that different and it goes to the state, it is a state tax. The arguments for not paying it and not paying for, say, medicare are about the same.
load more comments
(4 replies)
And the concern is giving them justification.
A bunch of attention seekers making lots of noise about a complete non-issue, while doing nothing about real corporate welfare.
It's not a lot of noise either
notwithstanding "any other provision of law," federal funds would be barred from being paid out "in a year to an individual whose adjusted gross income is equal to or greater than $1,000,000."
I am surprised that in the USA you can make a million income in a year and still get payed welfare. But then again I really shouldn't be.
Who cares if they get it? It's peanuts for most people anyways, especially nowadays.
I wouldn't have cared if the distribution of wealth hadn't become so incredibly lopsided. The last thing rich people need is more money.
Plus it adds up:
"IRS data shows thousands of millionaires are gaming this system to receive unemployment insurance," [Utah Republican Rep. John Curtis] said.
People in charge of making laws are upset when people follow the laws they pass...
?
A couple hundred dollars per week saved is a couple hundred dollars per week saved.
Something is way better than nothing in most cases.
I’m fine with them drawing on (and contributing to) unemployment insurance the same everyone else!
As am I, particularly because inflation happens and these means checks are a long-term bombshell. If the means test isn't indexed to inflation then in 50 years you are looking at a limit that starts cutting support to people that need it.
Never means test, there's too few rich people "abusing" the system for any means test to meaningfully reduce social program budgets.
The bill won't prevent them from contributing to it.
This is exactly the kind of inane rule that feels good, doesn't do any good, but needlessly complicates a system that should be simple, and only will work well for the poor if it's simple.
load more comments
(12 replies)
I’m fine with laws applying equally across the board
If they are paying into it they should be able to claim it. It is capped at a pretty low amount anyway. If we say they can't claim it they will be able to say they shouldn't pay into it.
334 people upvoted Fox News? It's never appropriate to link to that site.
Seems like a pretty simple fix really. Just adjust the law to make sure passive income is accounted for instead of just salary. That seems to take care of the problem.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
473 points (96.6% liked)
Not The Onion
11899 readers
262 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS