• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should unemployment benefits be paid back by the recipients?

In hindsight, should we have had this regulation?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 27 90.0%

  • Total voters
    30
It is the responnsibility of every civilized country to help those less fortunate...for the "haves" to give to the "have nots." The problem doesn't lie there....it lies with the inevitable abuses.

Yes, that's called "charity" and as we all know, it starts at "home" - not in forced government handouts. We agree to give to the less fortunate - the METHOD in which that giving takes place is where the discussion occurs.
 
Why would people have to pay back something that they already pay into? That makes as much sense as making people pay back the costs of the medical care they receive that is covered by insurance.:doh
 
We pay WAAAY more than is ever used. Where does that money go? I would assume that the extension of benefits would come from the pool of unused funds. Unless they've gone into some black hole somewhere.

According to this:

The Unemployment Insurance Crisis — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

in 30 states, unemployment payments have exceeded the amount paid out and they are now borrowing from the federal gov't.

As an employee and taxpayer, I've already paid in my fair share. The unemployed have taken more than what was originally alotted to them. Who pays for the balance?
 
Why would people have to pay back something that they already pay into? That makes as much sense as making people pay back the costs of the medical care they receive that is covered by insurance.:doh

Is nobody reading the question I asked? They are paying out MORE than we paid in. That is a debt that needs to be paid. I asked about the amount paid "beyond the amount the national government had alotted for this program".

So to follow your example, it woudl be like you reaching the max the insurance company will pay. And then the gov't forces the insurance company to pay more than it has received from all of it's customers. Because the sick's situation is unfortunate and not fair. And so the insurance company has to go bankrupt.
 
According to this:

The Unemployment Insurance Crisis — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

in 30 states, unemployment payments have exceeded the amount paid out and they are now borrowing from the federal gov't.

As an employee and taxpayer, I've already paid in my fair share. The unemployed have taken more than what was originally alotted to them. Who pays for the balance?

It'll be paid back the way the funds were built initially: By employers and employees.
 
It'll be paid back the way the funds were built initially: By employers and employees.

That's a nice way of saying it'll be paid back by all income earners... i.e. another tax. So we the taxpayer will pay the debt, literally because we haven't already paid enough already. This seems off to me.
 
That's a nice way of saying it'll be paid back by all income earners... i.e. another tax. So we the taxpayer will pay the debt, literally because we haven't already paid enough already. This seems off to me.

Not another tax. The same tax. Nothing changes
 
No, I dont think they should have to pay it back. It is difficult enough being unemployed, without the added stress of getting into more and more debt, and not knowing when you will be in a position to start paying it back.
 
As others have said, employees and employers already pay for unemployment. This is why don't have an issue with unemployment per se. You actually have to have worked in order to receive it.

My problem with it is that even if you worked to receive it, you can be ineligible to receive it no matter how much money you put into the system previously. One of my friends works for a company that openly says they fight all unemployment claims, regardless. If they lay you off, they will still fight your unemployment even if they lose. They estimate that they win in about 75% of cases. So you put into the system, you do nothing wrong, you get laid off and you still get nothing back in return.

Where is the fairness in that?
 
I'd say yes, if not the whole thing, at least a portion of it. It should be paid back without interest unless after a certain amount of time it hasn't been paid back, then interest can accumulate.
 
Clicking the thanks button was not enough, this time. I've worked most of my entire adult life as well, but unemployment was only based on the earnings of my last job, which I only held for five months. I've been without unemployment (or a job outside the home) since August of last year.

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. :mrgreen:
 
My problem with it is that even if you worked to receive it, you can be ineligible to receive it no matter how much money you put into the system previously. One of my friends works for a company that openly says they fight all unemployment claims, regardless. If they lay you off, they will still fight your unemployment even if they lose. They estimate that they win in about 75% of cases. So you put into the system, you do nothing wrong, you get laid off and you still get nothing back in return.

Where is the fairness in that?

There is no fairness in that, and it doesn't benefit the company either unless they have a ****load of people drawing unemployment. Makes no sense from any perspective. However, if they are doing it legally, then it's those laws that need to be changed.
 
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!).

No. Unemployment is already paid for upfront so its there in case you need it for a short time.
 
No, unemployment benefits should not be paid back. People were told they would be receiving these benefits, and now they are. They can't go back onto them and force them to pay back something that was not agreed on.
 
There is no fairness in that, and it doesn't benefit the company either unless they have a ****load of people drawing unemployment. Makes no sense from any perspective. However, if they are doing it legally, then it's those laws that need to be changed.

Sure it does. It basically costs them nothing to fight all unemployment claims and lots of people won't appeal it after it comes back denied. The company saves money on every person they're not paying unemployment to and they let everyone know so that people don't figure they can quit or be fired and get paid for it. I agree it's a slimy thing to do, but it's entirely legal.
 
Sure it does. It basically costs them nothing to fight all unemployment claims and lots of people won't appeal it after it comes back denied. The company saves money on every person they're not paying unemployment to and they let everyone know so that people don't figure they can quit or be fired and get paid for it. I agree it's a slimy thing to do, but it's entirely legal.

No, they pay the unemployment insurance money regardless. Even if zero people claim it, they still have to pay the insurance money. Now, if a multitude of people claim it from them, their yearly costs will increase, just like most insurances. Like auto... you keep getting into accidents, your costs go up. But whether or not you ever USE the insurance, you still have to pay it. Same with unemployment insurance. Employees and employers pay into it regardless.
 
I think we need to get the government out of the unemployment racket (including the taxes connected) and allow the people do handle such situations by themselves. For example, a person could take the money and invest it into his/hers own unemployment fund or just like benefits offered at jobs, such company could offer an unemployment fund you pay into and get back if you leave and or get fired from the job as an incentive to take the job.
 
Back
Top Bottom