View Poll Results: In hindsight, should we have had this regulation?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    34 53.13%
  • No.

    30 46.88%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

  1. #1
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Should those who have received unemployment benefits have to pay back the funds they received?

    I know we can't go back and ask them for something we told them they would get for nothing. But in hindsight, is this a regulation we should have had in place before all the extensions happened?

    So the exact question is: In hindsight, should we have had a law to force each participant in the unemployment program to pay back their proportionate amount of unemployment benefit they received beyond the amount the national government had alotted for this program?

    I mean, basically, it would be a gov't backed, non-interest loan with no credit-check - that cannot be 'forgiven' even in bankruptcy. You owe your nation a debt. That seems generous in itself... why would they ask for more? Free money? give me a break (obviously no bias in this poll!).

  2. #2
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    No. Unemployment benefits are supposed to be funded by either employers, employees or, in some states, a combination of both, through payroll taxes. The last thing an unemployed worker needs is another loan to pay off.

    I think unemployment benefit recipients often abuse and system. But for every one who abuses it, I'm sure there are 5 (?) who don't. We don't know the statistics on abuse because I don't think it's tracked, publicly anyway. It would be very interesting to know (and it could be easily determined) how quicky people get jobs when their unemployment runs out.

    Welfare sometimes needs to be paid back, so there is some precedence. I see where you're coming from; but basically, unemployment checks should be paid through employer/employee deductions.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #3
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Absolutely not, the recipient has already paid for it through payroll deductions while they were employed.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #4
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Unemployment should only provide whatever the worker pays into it. Almost like a HSA ... in this case it might be called an Unemployment Savings Account, where, the person pays into it over a period of years. When unemployed - that money (hopefully it collected a little interest as well) now is used to sustain the person while they are looking for work, when that runs out - they have to take ANY job not just the ones that they feel they deserve, are entitled to, or "in their field". Unemployment as supported by the government should only supply at most, a month or two of benefits which are static meaning - these benefits don't go down or up depending on the pay of your last job. It's always $400 a week even if the person only got paid originally $200 a week.

    A UESA would then be setup to pay into an unemployment account say 5%-20% of their net, which would not be taxed again and exempt from the death tax.

    If 10% for 7 years was pulled out of a person making an average of $3,000 a month, it would be $25K (without interest)

    $400 week of unemployment benefits for 2 years provided by the government equals $41K.

    The difference is, my solution is THEIR money (not taxpayers) and the governments solution is welfare based on the backs of those still working. Which one's more fiscally responsible? Hmm...
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  5. #5
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,748

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Should those who have received unemployment benefits have to pay back the funds they received?

    I know we can't go back and ask them for something we told them they would get for nothing. But in hindsight, is this a regulation we should have had in place before all the extensions happened?

    So the exact question is: In hindsight, should we have had a law to force each participant in the unemployment program to pay back their proportionate amount of unemployment benefit they received beyond the amount the national government had alotted for this program?

    I mean, basically, it would be a gov't backed, non-interest loan with no credit-check - that cannot be 'forgiven' even in bankruptcy. You owe your nation a debt. That seems generous in itself... why would they ask for more? Free money? give me a break (obviously no bias in this poll!).
    1) I owe my nation a debt? On the contrary. My nation owes me a debt. I have been paying into the unemployment fund for more than 4 decades without getting a penny of that back.

    2) Free money? You are right on that. The government has been getting free money from my pocket for more than 4 decades.

    3) That seems generous in itself? Seems that I am the one who has been forced to be generous, not the government.

    Only a politician could have come up with an idea like this. If you are not a politician, then you have truly missed your calling in life.
    Last edited by danarhea; 07-12-10 at 12:04 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #6
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) I owe my nation a debt? On the contrary. My nation owes me a debt. I have been paying into the unemployment fund for more than 2 decades without getting a penny of that back.

    2) Free money? You are right on that. The government has been getting free money from my pocket for more than 2 decades.

    3) That seems generous in itself? Seems that I am the one who has been forced to be generous, not the government.

    Only a politician could have come up with an idea like this. If you are not a politician, then you have truly missed your calling in life.
    Forgive me for being unclear - but there seems to be some misunderstandings.

    1) When I wrote "you" owe your nation a debt, the "you" was referring to you the recipient of unemployment benefits. The US gave the recipient money which had not yet been paid - a debt - and in terms of fairness, I believe the recipient should be the only one who should be paying that debt back.

    3) To clarify what I mean when I said that it 'seems generous' in my statement: The fact that my proposition offers a loan called 'extended unemployment benefits' - this loan is a zero-interest loan. To be paid back when you, the recipient (not the tax payer) has a job. If this were to actually become law, then yes, the gov't would be quite generous in giving away such loans to somebody who, at the time, doesn't have a way to even pay it back. If you want to argue that this is too generous, I may even support that!

    It seems like we agree, but I was unclear initially. I hope this makes more sense!

  7. #7
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Unemployment should only provide whatever the worker pays into it. Almost like a HSA ... in this case it might be called an Unemployment Savings Account, where, the person pays into it over a period of years. When unemployed - that money (hopefully it collected a little interest as well) now is used to sustain the person while they are looking for work, when that runs out - they have to take ANY job not just the ones that they feel they deserve, are entitled to, or "in their field". Unemployment as supported by the government should only supply at most, a month or two of benefits which are static meaning - these benefits don't go down or up depending on the pay of your last job. It's always $400 a week even if the person only got paid originally $200 a week.

    A UESA would then be setup to pay into an unemployment account say 5%-20% of their net, which would not be taxed again and exempt from the death tax.

    If 10% for 7 years was pulled out of a person making an average of $3,000 a month, it would be $25K (without interest)

    $400 week of unemployment benefits for 2 years provided by the government equals $41K.

    The difference is, my solution is THEIR money (not taxpayers) and the governments solution is welfare based on the backs of those still working. Which one's more fiscally responsible? Hmm...
    unemployment is funded by employers and employees........

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  8. #8
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Unemployment should only provide whatever the worker pays into it. Almost like a HSA ... in this case it might be called an Unemployment Savings Account, where, the person pays into it over a period of years. When unemployed - that money (hopefully it collected a little interest as well) now is used to sustain the person while they are looking for work, when that runs out - they have to take ANY job not just the ones that they feel they deserve, are entitled to, or "in their field". Unemployment as supported by the government should only supply at most, a month or two of benefits which are static meaning - these benefits don't go down or up depending on the pay of your last job. It's always $400 a week even if the person only got paid originally $200 a week.

    A UESA would then be setup to pay into an unemployment account say 5%-20% of their net, which would not be taxed again and exempt from the death tax.

    If 10% for 7 years was pulled out of a person making an average of $3,000 a month, it would be $25K (without interest)

    $400 week of unemployment benefits for 2 years provided by the government equals $41K.

    The difference is, my solution is THEIR money (not taxpayers) and the governments solution is welfare based on the backs of those still working. Which one's more fiscally responsible? Hmm...
    You, as a gov't, force me as a citizen to put away an emergency fund (in essence) in case of unemployment? No way would I support that. It's my money. If I don't want an emergency fund, that's my choice. I'll suffer if the time comes and I'm unemployed (playing devil's advocate because I do have such a reserve, but I'm against the gov't forcing me to have it). So I vote no to your UESA plan.

  9. #9
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    unemployment is funded by employers and employees........
    He wrote 'should' - he's not explaining the current system, but rather what the system 'should' be in his ideals.

  10. #10
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,748

    Re: Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    Forgive me for being unclear - but there seems to be some misunderstandings.

    1) When I wrote "you" owe your nation a debt, the "you" was referring to you the recipient of unemployment benefits. The US gave the recipient money which had not yet been paid - a debt - and in terms of fairness, I believe the recipient should be the only one who should be paying that debt back.

    3) To clarify what I mean when I said that it 'seems generous' in my statement: The fact that my proposition offers a loan called 'extended unemployment benefits' - this loan is a zero-interest loan. To be paid back when you, the recipient (not the tax payer) has a job. If this were to actually become law, then yes, the gov't would be quite generous in giving away such loans to somebody who, at the time, doesn't have a way to even pay it back. If you want to argue that this is too generous, I may even support that!

    It seems like we agree, but I was unclear initially. I hope this makes more sense!
    The government is already taking money from employees through deductions, which go into the unemployment fund. The debt is already owed by the government, not the employee who collects what he has already paid into.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •