Two million Americans lose jobless benefits as holidays arrive
December 1, 2010 at 4:23 am in West Central Tribune
Extended unemployment benefits for nearly 2 million Americans begin to run out today, cutting off a steady stream of income and guaranteeing a dismal holiday season for people already struggling with bills they cannot pay. Continue Reading
Sell some GM stock to pay for extending these benefits.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
Having millionaires/billionaires pay fair taxes is a better way.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
17
What would you say is a “fair” percentage? I guess I don’t understand why the guy who lives next me should pay more since he makes more than I do. Hard work and initiative shouldn’t be penalized by higher taxes. Anyway, we need to sell that GM stock while it’s still worth something.
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
21
Harold – typically it is your favored party, the Republicans, who would prefer to end “entitlement” programs like this (unemployment), along with those other entitlement programs that you, yourself, have publicly spoken of needing to utilize (social security, medicaid, etc…). Republicans have stated, soemtimes even loudly, that extended unemployment beneifts do nothing more than encourage and enable laziness in American citizens. So, instead of riding the Republican train like you typically do, suddenly you are choosing to blame Democrats for having difficulty in overriding the preferences of the party you routinely and wholeheartedly support?? But you don’t want to add to the national debt, do you? So, how to extend UE benefits for people without having to pay for them…? (Can you have it both ways, somehow?)
Is this your passive-aggressive way of disagreeing with Republicans, Harold? (It’s ok – I won’t tell them…)
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
I believe we are enabling people to do nothing…kinda like buying alcohol for alcoholic. However, most Repubs are for extending this benefit, but without adding to the debt.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
17
There may be some people who prefer to sit on unemployment. However, that is NOT the case for most people collecting UE currently. The problem is that, while the job market is growing again, the jobs that are opening up are mostly entry-level… and many of the people who lost jobs, lost jobs that were higher up in the food chain, so to speak – so, an entry-level job will not even pay them weekly what they are already collecting in UE… it woudl be taking a step backwards. Unemployment benefits are not enabling people to do nothing – not in the majority of cases… that is a myth perpetuated by repeated talking points in the media… meant to allow us to feel better about cutting people off.
How would you propose extending UE without having to pay for it? Either we figure out how to accomplish that, or we accept that this is one of those things we need to hope we can figure out later, when the economy settles and prospers again. Cutting people off of the only life line they currently have is not a reasonable option, in my opinion.
UE is a system that everyone who has ever held a job has contributed to – the view that UE is an entitlement program is, in fact, in err – I contribute to UE every time I report to work and my payroll taxes are submitted weekly – and I’ve been doing so since Day 1 of my employment history. Allowing me to draw on the funds I’ve already contributed, should I have that need, does not make me lazy, or mean I am seeking a handout.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
15
Breezy- You make a good point i.e. entry level jobs. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
The employer pays 100% of the unemployment cost. The employee pays 0.
Like or Dislike:
12 
13
You may enjoy thumbing down the above fact but I pay 100% of my employees state and federal unemployment.
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
That’s not exactly how it works, rambo. Employers pay a percentage of a recipient’s UE benefits, based on the amount of base period wages paid to that employee – depending on the employee’s work history, there may be more than one employer responsible for paying UE during any given base period. What you are paying, rambo, is UE insurance… meaning, you pay a certain rate to the Dept of Labor, and your UE rate is calculated out of that “account” so to speak.
UE is one of the biggest costs an employer has – work comp typically comes in second. UE costs can be controlled… with good record keeping and consistant documentation regarding employee work performance, attendance, etc… however, most employers choose to just blindly pay out UE costs, without bothering to take the time to examine each case and determine if there is true liability or if the employer should be fighting the charges. UE is a semi-controllable cost, from an employer perspective.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
What part of the employer or employers pay 100% of the unemployment insurance don’t you understand.The people that collect do not pay into the fund the employer does. You stated in your 4:41 post that everyone collecting unemployment contributed to it and that is just plain b.s.. Extended unemployment benefits is just blue sky welfare. I have a couple of close relatives just sitting on their butts collecting the cash and not seriously looking for work because of the endless extensions. I hope to God I don’t get stuck with any of that type of freeloader in the future in my business.
Like or Dislike:
13 
10
Badapple – Yes, and all repubs are for extending the tax breaks for the richest in America, and thereby adding to the debt. How do they propose to do that? By increasing jobs, they say (in lockstep, of course). How many jobs did it increase during the Bush years?
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
14
gary- Most Repubs don’t want to raise taxes on anyone. When they say they don’t want to raise taxes on the rich, they’re including “Small Businesses” in that group. I’m not an economists by any means, but it seems to me, raising taxes on small business owners is not a good idea. Do you want to raise taxes on the job creators? As far as paying for leaving the tax rates as they are goes, something will have to be cut. What is cut is up to our elected officials. I would support a 1% raise in the SS tax to make that solvent, as long as our elected officials keep their hands off it from now on.
Like or Dislike:
16 
11
First, I think we need to take a look at how we define “small business” – there are a large amount of loopholes in the current definition that allow for large businesses to fall into a small business catagory in terms of tax levels.
I have a question for everyone: what are your thoughts about a flat tax?
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
G. Not here in Minn. thanks to Gov Tim. Minnesotans still unemployed can now get there unemployment checks. for next 3-4 months, and if ‘A big IF indeed’ Gov Mark Dayton doesn’t veto it, I’m ready to bet big bucks, that the checks will still keep coming after the next 3-4 months, any takers?
Like or Dislike:
7 
15
Flat tax? I’m for it. Get rid of all deductions for individuals and tighten the ones for business. Make it 5% for everyone making over 25K (this amount is debateable)…in addition to SS and Medicare. We’d have money coming out of our ears if everyone/business had to pay. Too many that make good money don’t pay anything because of deductions/loop holes in our current system.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9
I’d actually like to see that minimum amount raised just a touch… $25K seems to be a bit low when considering overall cost of living expenses – how about a $30K minimum? $14.42/hr total hourly income per household to get to $30K gross… two income earners in a household, working a crappy entry-level job at $8 or $8.50 per hour at 40 hrs per week don’t even hit the $30K mark per year…
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
b.b. – Flat tax sounds good in theory but seems discrimatory in practice. Household earns 50K, pays 8.5K in taxes, has 41.5 remaining for necessary (food, housing, insurance, automobile, utlilities, etc.) and discretionary spending. Household earns 500K, pays 85K in taxes, has 41.5K remaining for necessary (probably somewhat similar to those of the 50K earner) and discretionary spending.
Badapple – Regarding a 1% increase in SS taxes, you and I pay SS taxes on earnings of up to (I believe) 108K. Warren Buffett pays SS taxes on earning up to 108K. Nothing against WB, for go figure. I do agree that politicians of all ilks should keep their greedy hands off of whatever it is.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
Oops, re my earlier, 500K earner has 415K vice 41l5K remaining for necessary and discretionary spending.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
I’m no expert, that’s for sure – maybe you can tell me, Gary – what’s the average current percent of income tax paid for middle class folks?
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
gary- I’m not against paying SS & Medicare tax on all our income. As far as the flat tax goes, whatever percent is good should be the same for everyone. I’m totally against penalizing people for success.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
BB – I’m no expert either, nor am I sure of he income levels of “middle class folks.” I’m a retired home owner who has a CPA do my taxes and while I don’t have my 2009 file at hand I recall me effecttive rate being in the 12-13% range. I don’t consider that a high tax rate. For real, Americans pay much lower taxes than do our counterparts in other industrialized democratic countries.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Thanks, Gary – I seemed to recall you might have a bit of “advanced knowledge” about this kind of stuff…
As far as a flat tax seeming discriminatory… maybe I’m not entirely understanding what you are saying to me, but – wouldn’t a flat tax (let’s assume the 5% example that badapple suggested) allow for an equal percentage contribution from everyone? That way, regardless of your income, you know that you would be responsible for contributing 5%… and for those who’s incomes are higher than others, it’s still 5% so no one would really be paying an exorbitant amount, nor would they being paying a proportionately smaller amount of their earnings… 5% is 5%, no?
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
I’m certainly no expert either. I would think that if everyone above a certain income level (tbd) paid taxes, it would generate more money than what is generated now, with many not paying. There’s too many people who should pay income tax, but don’t because of BS deductions and loop holes…businesses included.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
BB – I’m uncertain where may, why or how o understand that u learned that I have/had “advanced knowledge” of anything, much less economic conditions. OK, maybe the opening day of duck season, but even that can be a crap shoot in MN until late August. Regarding the 5% is 5% argument, I’ve not heard anyone in positions of authority propose flat tax of less than 11-12%. In any event, I don’t mind paying more than my less fortunate brothers and sisters because much of my ability to accumulate more was based on their support of my efforts. I believe the same holds true for the mega-rich who, whether they’ve inherited their wealth or been succcessful in whatever business they’re in, owe that inheritence or success in great part to the people who came before or have worked or are working hard for them. That thinking may be difficult for some to understand, but it’s easy for me.
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
I was just saying that I thought I remembered you mentioning the CPA previously gary, in the past, on the WCTrib board… wasn’t trying to infer something beyond that.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Why am I not surprised? Here’s gary telling his customers to give it all to the government.Someone else was responsible for their success. gary, the next time you do your taxes, send in a bunch for me too,ok. You really are a funny guy.
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
Rambone – you don’t need anything from me – you’re obviously a self-made man. Bet your employees love working for you, what with you paying their UE and all. Salaries probably suck and their employer is a (enter pejorative adjective), but hey, they oughta be mighthy thankful they have a job.
Like or Dislike:
9 
11
How about that, more false assumptions. Now that was a surprise. I treat my employees with respect, pay them a decent wage and they like me. So I don’t live in my own little Marxist fantasy land, three out of four isn’t bad.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
B.B – Whew!! You had me thinking that I might have blown my cover!!
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Your secret is safe with… well, you…!
I know nothing…
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Good one Sgt. Schultz.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
I’ve told you that many times Breezy Belle.
Like or Dislike:
9 
9
Gosh, rambo, and here I thought maybe you and I had reached an understanding…
Oh, my – hahahahaha – aren’t I just amusing this evening!
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
Well, I think we have.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
BB – Go easy on Rambone. Poor guy is stuck with paying all that UE stuff for his employees. Course he doesn’t say that their salaries are reduced so he can do so without changing his bottom line.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
My employees salaries aren’t reduced by my paying for unemployment insurance. It’s a cost of doing business and I don’t have a problem with it. I have to pay a high enough wage to attract the good employees that I have. Before I started my own business I worked harder than required for my employers and was never without a job through economic ups and downs. One of my relatives was offered a good paying job. He didn’t take it because he wanted a supervisory job and was unwilling to move. He likes the unemployment better I guess. All that are unemployed aren’t lazy but for the most part you make your own luck in life. Some are just better at it than others.
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
What a business man trying to make a profit so he can have employees and help our econmy? How can you live with yourself rambo. How dare you live the american dream while all these lazy people don’t want to take a job. Entry level or not a job is a job. You have to roll with the punches sometimes. My mom worked 2-3 jobs working at least 16 hours a day because she didn’t want us on the government payroll.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
I admire your mother greatly already for instilling a good work ethic in her children. When I was a kid we were dirt poor but my parents wouldn’t even think of any kind of public assistance.We didn’t sit around and lament our lot in life. We got off our butts and made ourselves better.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
I really wonder if we will ever have a real discussion about taxes in government. With all the partisan bickering and drawing lines in the sand I highly doubt a reasonable discussion will take place. The Horner campaign brought forward the first decent discussion about taxes in a long time but too many people were too worried about partisan politics to give their support even though I found many people who agreed with it. Just my opinion but if we have any hope of seeing the needed changes to our tax system it is going to need to start first with bothsides agreeing that there is a need for taxes and then set aside the desire to spend more than we can offered and the desire to give breaks to those who don’t need them. I am intrigued by the flat tax idea and would love to see it discussed in both Minnesota and Washington political bodies.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
So unless the rich get breaks the poor get nothing? Nice!
If you want to help the poor and unemployed drop the breaks for people over 250k unless they can prove on paper they are keeping and creating jobs here in the United States!! Possibly if we punished companies that save billions and get billions in tax breaks all while they move jobs off shore we would have all the money we need!
Or better yet why punish those that have worked hard and are now in hard times and start to punish those on the welfare system who are more eligible for entry level jobs that most Unemployed Americans cannot get due to being over qualified?
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Tim there is a difference between and hand up and a hand out don’t you think? Also many of the unemployed aren’t willing to take entry level jobs, some but not all.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Rambo sorry if you took my position as partisan, I am curious as to which party you feel that I support. FYI neither of the men I voted for are the ones in the middle of the recount for Governor. Your attack Rambo is exactly the point that I was trying to make, we will never be able to have a reasonable discussion about taxes or other polices because we have allowed the partisan bickering to reach levels that have not been seen in the country. Neither party has the ability of putting Country or State first, because too often the easy route is taken and the discussion turns into a tear down of the ones who think differently. Rambo I have never voted a straight party ticket, and like many I voted this year for people that I felt could stop the partisan bickering, but if they don’t get it done I won’t hesitate to vote differently in 2012. Believe what you want but I certainly don’t think your comment was deserved. I sure hope as a business owner you don’t treat customers this way.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
The basic premise of eliminating partisanship is ridiculous. It means abandoning your principles and accepting what you believe to be wrong. Liberalism is wrong and I will fight it with every legal means at my disposal. Railing about partisan bickering is used in reference to conservatives almost exclusively. I reject the premise that liberalism of today has anything useful to offer.
Like or Dislike:
8 
11
Rambo there is by all means a need for differing opinions in Government, that is what makes democracy great. The point that I was attempting to make is that things have changed and the partisan bickering has moved from challenging the opposition in order to pass policies for the good of the Country and State. It seems that today we have too many who forget that they are elected to represent the Country or State and not their political party. Rambo you have to admit that things have certainly changed with regards to those who are elected to serve. You say railing against partisan bickering is used in reference to conservatives almost exlusively, but Rambo was not the stalemate of partisanship also one of the many principles behind the Tea Party Movement? I think perhaps we might agree on this issue, but you are making assumptions based on the terms that I have used.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
Stalemate is far preferrable to the out of control liberalism of today. The idea that correct policy is somewhere between conservatism and the left wing radicalism of our current government is bizarre. The biggest change I’ve seen in the last twenty years is liberalism becoming more and more vicious in their march to their nanny state utopia. The work of the people isn’t liberalism or some watered down version unless your looking for a handout. The Tea Party movement is a reactionary phenomenon to the current out of control liberalism and attempted control by our government of every detail of our lives. It’s not a plea for more government. Representatives to our government are elected because of their views, not their ability to compomise their views.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
Rambo the true focus and purpose of Government is to be policymakers, we even use that term in talking about Representatives and Senators. Our problem though is that policies are being set based on political party ideology and not for the good of the Country and State. JMHO but I guess I expect those who hold office to do so and represent all the people and not just the party that they are under. Compromise for the good of the Country/State is what government does, but where has there been any true political compromise like that in recent years? We have seen that policies and laws get passed on party lines with the party in control being victorious. I don’t consider that governing, at least not governing in the same sense as what occured years ago where you would find policies and laws passed with more bi-partisan support because the compromises made were done in hopes of helping the common good of the Country/State.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Your false assumption is that the left wing liberal Democrat ideology has some redeeming qualities. I’ll admit I don’t understand your line of thinking at all. It makes not a lick of sense to me. Compromise isn’t necessarily and usually isn’t for the common good.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
My interpretation of what you’re saying Mike1 is that we need to accept crap for the sake of bipartisanship.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Not at all what I mean Rambo. But I don’t think this is the forum to explain to you the point that I am raising. I would encourage you and those who disagree with what I am saying to go back and read some American History and take note of the many examples where bi-partisanship, i.e. compromise, is present not only in the founding of our Country but also in moments of our history where we all together have faced challenging times. Best of luck to you and have a Merry Christimas.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Marxists weren’t part of the equation for most of our history as they are now. Merry Christmas to you too Mike1.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Might work for you, too, Rambone
Like or Dislike:
9 
9
I don’t expect much to work for you gary. You call me rambone because I continually mop the floor with you. You have my permission to continue.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
Right on topic again, ‘nake.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Dsiamond, neither you nor Rambone have done any mopping. Now just get back down in the grass with the other snakes!
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Haven’t noted you mopping the floor with anyone, Rambone. Unless you have the mop in hand and looking in the mirror.
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
The most fair tax system is for each taxpayer to pay the same amount as everyone shares equally in the benefits. That would reward the rich people, as you say they worked for it. An equal tax works out to $12,000 for each person in the US. So if you are a family of four, the government would keep the first $48,000 that you make and then the rest is yours. That would reward those who work hard and make lots of money. They would keep it. There would not be any business taxes. That should make the Republicans happy because they want tax breaks for the rich and they want the poor to pay to. It would also encourage people not to have children because they would pay more for them as opposed to the discounts they get now. Some of you might say this discriminates against certain religions and certain ethnic groups but that is their choice so is not discrimination. It would also eliminate all of the deduction and make accounting much more simple. People that don’t pay, we simply cut off their ears.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6