Unemployment benefits for 1.3 Million Expire... Today

[Flagg]

I'm in favor of a minimum income system like the Swiss are setting up.

While I do like a strong social state that seems excessive. You redefine welfare from something that's supposed to help temporarily until they can help themselves to something that's permanent.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Will there be freeloaders? Sure. But I'd rather deal with that issue than starving children living in cars.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The thing to remember is that it isn't just about "Starving homeless children"
A permanent safety net acts as a HUGE pressure release for a lot of social issues.

People without a job and without money get desperate.
Desperate people do desperate things.

I wonder how many people out there ruined there lives because they gave up hope on work? No home, no money, no life to think about.
You hit the street, and your despair becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You get sick, don't eat right, loose your skills. And after a relatively short time, someone who, with a little help might have got back on their feet, may now be homeless and considered unemployable by everyone accept a soup kitchen.

[energiewende]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments. That's not a bad salary with 365 days/year of paid vacation. Would those defending this system argue that this woman's payments should extend indefinitely?

Depends on the persons needs, don't you think?

Perhaps but this payment is not need tested.

Also, where do you get the numbers from?

"She started collecting $624 each week in New Jersey unemployment benefits, but the state benefits ran out after 26 weeks. When federal benefits kicked in, she collected $521."

624*52 is 32k, and 521*52 is $27k.

Hey, dumbshit, unemployment insurance is not "welfare". You don't get it based on need, you get it based on past employment. It's based on your salary while employed, with an ultimate cap.

And unemployment insurance expires for obvious reasons! A permanent unearned income of $30k is equivalent to a lump sum of about $1m, which is obviously much less than the contributions (which, given this was introduced during the recession as per the article, are likely to be in the region of zero).

When unemployment is high it can take longer to find a job with a living wage so for many these benefits can be the difference between having a place to live and sleeping in a car. Any more stupid questions, fuckface?

One not so stupid one: can you answer the question I actually asked, rather than ducking it like a politician?

[Thanas]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments. That's not a bad salary with 365 days/year of paid vacation. Would those defending this system argue that this woman's payments should extend indefinitely?

Depends on the persons needs, don't you think?

Perhaps but this payment is not need tested.

It is based on her job income, is it not?

[energiewende]

It is based on her job income, is it not?

Is having previously received an income proof that one needs that income?

[Thanas]

It is based on her job income, is it not?

Is having previously received an income proof that one needs that income?

Yes, in most cases people tend to spend about close to what they earn. Very rarely you will see people earning millions living in single apartments.

[Broomstick]

This person seems to have been receiving $30,000/year in welfare payments.

Depends on the persons needs, don't you think?

Perhaps but this payment is not need tested.

Just a tip for you, dumbshit – in the US “welfare” pretty much involves needs testing. If there is no needs testing it's not welfare. Learn to fucking understand American if you want to discuss US issues.

Thanas is absolutely correct – the amount of unemployment benefit a person receives is based on the income of his or her former job. There is also an absolute cap on the amount, so past a certain point earning more will not increase the size of your benefit, but then, the higher paid people are assumed to have more resources to survive an interruption in employment.

Hey, dumbshit, unemployment insurance is not "welfare". You don't get it based on need, you get it based on past employment. It's based on your salary while employed, with an ultimate cap.

And unemployment insurance expires for obvious reasons! A permanent unearned income of $30k is equivalent to a lump sum of about $1m, which is obviously much less than the contributions (which, given this was introduced during the recession as per the article, are likely to be in the region of zero).

Hey, fuckface – it's not unearned. If you never worked you can never collect unemployment. For that matter, certain types of employment won't even let you qualify – freelancers and the self-employed are not eligible for unemployment benefits. She fucking earned them by WORKING. Once again you demonstrate appalling ignorance on the topic. Now, if you were asking questions rather than making pronouncements that would be a different matter but you don't. You act like you're an authority and you are fucking ignorant.

Unemployment benefits are funded by a tax of 0.6% of the first $7,000 of a worker's income. As the vast majority of eligible workers are earning more than $7,000 per year most of the time the maximum levy of $42 is paid on each worker. $42 fucking dollars per year. Does that sound like an impossible burden to you? I'm officially under the US poverty line and I can scrape up $42 on short notice. The right wing is acting like this is bankrupting society right and left when in actuality it's a trivial amount compared to other tax and funding burdens imposed on society.

When unemployment is high it can take longer to find a job with a living wage so for many these benefits can be the difference between having a place to live and sleeping in a car. Any more stupid questions, fuckface?

One not so stupid one: can you answer the question I actually asked, rather than ducking it like a politician?

I just told you the answer. I can't help it if you're so fucking mentally deficient you can't understand the answer.

[Civil War Man]

It is based on her job income, is it not?

Is having previously received an income proof that one needs that income?

Income is influenced by cost of living. Compare NYC, the most expensive place to live in the US, with Harlingen, Texas, the cheapest place to live.

Cheapest US Cities
Most Expensive US Cities

Median income in NYC is almost $20,000 higher, but it has to be because food and housing is so much more expensive.

I'm also willing to bet that just basing unemployment payments off income is cheaper. Needs testing requires time and money. At the very least you're going to require multiple interviews and audits to match up the applicants spending with the amount of money they had coming in. Overall, it'd probably end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to save tens of thousands at best. Similar to how Florida's attempts to save money by drug testing welfare recipients ended up putting the state tens of thousands of dollars deeper in the red. It only makes sense if the goal is to punish people for being poor/unemployed.

[Zaune]

*sigh* This is all beside the point, because there are not enough jobs to go around. And 'less eligiblity' does not create job openings out of thin air.

[aerius]

If un employment benefits were based on whether we're in a recession or not that may be a decent point, but it's my understanding that the benefits and their length are based on employment numbers, and that since their introduction to this country have never been withdrawn while the rate of unemployment was 7% or greater. Which it is.

I don't know how the extended unemployment benefits program works, but that's not important.

The really fucked up part is that the current recession has completely broken the unemployment numbers stats. The official unemployment number isn't pretty but it gets a lot worse since people have been out of work for so long that they're no longer counted in the stats. If we look at the percentage of working age people who are employed, well, that's when you go "jobs? what fucking jobs? There ain't no fucking recovery"

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

[Flagg]

If un employment benefits were based on whether we're in a recession or not that may be a decent point, but it's my understanding that the benefits and their length are based on employment numbers, and that since their introduction to this country have never been withdrawn while the rate of unemployment was 7% or greater. Which it is.

I don't know how the extended unemployment benefits program works, but that's not important.

The really fucked up part is that the current recession has completely broken the unemployment numbers stats. The official unemployment number isn't pretty but it gets a lot worse since people have been out of work for so long that they're no longer counted in the stats. If we look at the percentage of working age people who are employed, well, that's when you go "jobs? what fucking jobs? There ain't no fucking recovery"

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Oh I know this all too well. My mom got Lupus and a couple of years ago before being diagnosed she was essentially fired for it and couldn't get a job anywhere else because of her age and ended up just not looking anymore when the unemployment ran out and luckily got put on permanent disability. But yeah, the stats are juked as they said on The Wire.

[energiewende]

It is based on her job income, is it not?

Is having previously received an income proof that one needs that income?

Yes, in most cases people tend to spend about close to what they earn. Very rarely you will see people earning millions living in single apartments.

In the first place many people don't do this, which is certainly a far cry from that everyone must do this, and I certainly think this sort of irresponsible behaviour should not be further encouraged by public policy.

In the second case I think you have made my point for me: a millionaire doesn't need his mansion, and certainly could move into a small apartment if he wanted, likely releasing a lot of equity in the process which would take him off the welfare rolls entirely.

Just a tip for you, dumbshit – in the US “welfare” pretty much involves needs testing.

Hey, dumbshit, unemployment insurance is not "welfare".

Hey, dumbshit...

Unemployment benefits are funded by a tax of 0.6% of the first $7,000 of a worker's income.

Let me know when your $42/year saving plan hits $1,000,000, thereby earning you indefinite payments of $30,000/year. Otherwise, this person having worked for 40 years (about the longest possible) would have earned three weeks of continued payments, perhaps ten with compounding if the didn't gov't forgo that in order to maximise current-year spending. In a more realistic case, maybe three to four days or so.

I'm also willing to bet that just basing unemployment payments off income is cheaper. Needs testing requires time and money. At the very least you're going to require multiple interviews and audits to match up the applicants spending with the amount of money they had coming in. Overall, it'd probably end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to save tens of thousands at best. Similar to how Florida's attempts to save money by drug testing welfare recipients ended up putting the state tens of thousands of dollars deeper in the red. It only makes sense if the goal is to punish people for being poor/unemployed.

You need to "punish being unemployed" if you are offering indefinite payments that are comparable to a salary. Now a needs tested system still gives you the money if you have a real need and satisfy whatever requirement that you really can't find a job, but it being difficult to continue receiving the payments otherwise is intentional. An alternative is for the payments to cut out automatically after 6-12 months so that long term dependency just isn't an issue, but that's exactly what's happening here and people think it is unreasonable. So, pay your money and take your choice.

[Magis]

She fucking earned them by WORKING.

She didn't earn an unemployment insurance benefit - she purchased it, just like with any insurance policy. She purchased a certain benefit by paying a certain premium according to a predetermined formula that prescribed the amount of her benefit. When her unemployment insurance "expires" it means that the benefit that she purchased has been fully paid to her. So... what's the story here? She should get a larger benefit than what she purchased merely because she could really use the cash? If her car is stolen should she get a million dollar payout from her insurance? I mean, she could really use the cash, right?

Employment insurance is not welfare, it is insurance - a distribution of risk which needs to be self-funded. If you think this lady needs help, then you should be pushing for a change to the welfare system, not by advocating that people get bigger insurance benefits than what they paid for.

[Magis]

Long ago, my Dad summed up the philosophy of the right in regards to the poor with the following.

"I've got mine, Fuck everyone else."

To so completely misunderstand an opposing view isn't helpful to anyone in any way. Your statement is equivalent to Romney's 47% remarks in terms of its ignorance.

The conservative view is that financially responsible people should not have to subsidize financially irresponsible people just because those people were irresponsible. Naturally there are some people on the right who really do feel the way you described, but they are a tiny minority, in the same way that the "kill the rich" group on the left is a tiny minority.

Yes, in most cases people tend to spend about close to what they earn. Very rarely you will see people earning millions living in single apartments.

I want to see your source for this.

Multitudes of people I know, including myself, live a lifestyle that most people would consider to be below our means. In fact, what I observe is a pattern where higher earning individuals live more modestly than lower earning individuals. I can use myself as an example. I earn multiple times what the woman in the article earned at her job, but I do live in a small apartment. I drive an inexpensive, "boring" old car. I do not have an expensive phone. I do not take expensive vacations. As a result, if I were to be out of work for whatever reason, I could survive for probably a decade.

I'm always amazed to see that, among my colleagues and peers, the same sort who are cheering for a bigger welfare system and who complain the most about how hard it is to make a "living wage" have larger residences and more expensive gadgets than I've ever had.

So my feeling is that if someone loses their job and can't afford their house, they should sell it. I don't particularly care for the idea that I need to pay for someone else to live in a house when I can't even enjoy a house myself because I'm being responsible. And as a high-earner, I'm exactly the type of person that the left says should be paying more taxes to pay for the lifestyle of everyone else.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Long ago, my Dad summed up the philosophy of the right in regards to the poor with the following.

"I've got mine, Fuck everyone else."

To so completely misunderstand an opposing view isn't helpful to anyone in any way. Your statement is equivalent to Romney's 47% remarks in terms of its ignorance.

The conservative view is that financially responsible people should not have to subsidize financially irresponsible people just because those people were irresponsible. Naturally there are some people on the right who really do feel the way you described, but they are a tiny minority, in the same way that the "kill the rich" group on the left is tiny.

Please provide evidence that the majority of those unemployed are in any way ""financially irresponsible""
Please provide evidence of any on the left who want to "kill the rich"
Tax? Yes, kill no.

In a way the tone of your response just drives home my point.

[Civil War Man]

So my feeling is that if someone loses their job and can't afford their house, they should sell it. I don't particularly care for the idea that I need to pay for someone else to live in a house when I can't even enjoy a house myself because I'm being responsible. And as a high-earner, I'm exactly the type of person that the left says should be paying more taxes to pay for the lifestyle of everyone else.

Are you willing to give them assistance on their rent or mortgage until they successfully sell it? Are you willing to give them assistance on the real estate agent, house listing, inspection, appraisal, and other ancillary costs of selling a house if they can't afford the initial investment? How about moving costs? If someone can't afford to live in NYC, yet can't afford the investment required to move somewhere cheaper, are you willing to give them assistance on the various relocation costs? Selling a house is not like pawning a piece of jewelry. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to do it.

You need to "punish being unemployed" if you are offering indefinite payments that are comparable to a salary. Now a needs tested system still gives you the money if you have a real need and satisfy whatever requirement that you really can't find a job, but it being difficult to continue receiving the payments otherwise is intentional. An alternative is for the payments to cut out automatically after 6-12 months so that long term dependency just isn't an issue, but that's exactly what's happening here and people think it is unreasonable. So, pay your money and take your choice.

Here's one of the special little insanities of our current system: You can't spend less money until you have more money to spend.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but it is very well documented. Not having money leaves you unable to afford options that save you money in the long run

Terry Pratchett called it the Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice runs thus:
At the time of Men at Arms, Samuel Vimes earned thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. This was beyond his pocket and the most he could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars.
Therefore over a period of ten years, he might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet.

We don't need to punish someone for being unemployed because being unemployed is already a punishment.

[Magis]

Long ago, my Dad summed up the philosophy of the right in regards to the poor with the following.

"I've got mine, Fuck everyone else."

To so completely misunderstand an opposing view isn't helpful to anyone in any way. Your statement is equivalent to Romney's 47% remarks in terms of its ignorance.

The conservative view is that financially responsible people should not have to subsidize financially irresponsible people just because those people were irresponsible. Naturally there are some people on the right who really do feel the way you described, but they are a tiny minority, in the same way that the "kill the rich" group on the left is tiny.

Please provide evidence that the majority of those unemployed are in any way ""financially irresponsible""

I never made any such claim, and if you were better at reading you would have realized that. But some unemployed/poor people clearly are financially irresponsible. And sometimes being responsible involves doing things that are unpleasant, like switching careers or relocating. As for the rest, who are in a bad situation because of unfortunate circumstance and not irresponsibility, then I am in favor of certain social assistance programs. But those programs should be limited to people who are trying to be productive by doing things like actively searching for work, willing to learn new skills, willing to relocate, and willing to give up their own luxuries before taking mine - that could include selling some assets, including a house, depending on the circumstances.

Please provide evidence of any on the left who want to "kill the rich"

If you've never encountered someone with that attitude, then good for you. But I have. Even people on this board have expressed wishes of inflicting violence on rich people.
i.e., from here

I have to say if anything remotely like the scenario in the latest Batman movie with a Bane having rich people being beaten in the streets went down in real life I'd be all fucking over that.

In a way the tone of your response just drives home my point.

Hearing only what you want to hear is probably not a good way to confirm your beliefs.

Are you willing to give them assistance on their rent or mortgage until they successfully sell it?

I am willing to give them reasonable assistance to have a functional life until they can have their unfortunate situation resolved. In reality, many or most people should have enough savings to get by a few months anyway. If they don't have such savings, they should never have bought a house in the first place, or should have sold it long ago. Naturally, in the event of a housing crisis like in the USA in 2008, social assistance for housing/mortgages is more reasonable than in other times.

Are you willing to give them assistance on the real estate agent, house listing, inspection, appraisal, and other ancillary costs of selling a house if they can't afford the initial investment?

Many of the fees associated with selling a house are not made up-front, but are paid once the house is sold.

How about moving costs? If someone can't afford to live in NYC, yet can't afford the investment required to move somewhere cheaper, are you willing to give them assistance on the various relocation costs?

Yes. At the very least by offering loans.

Selling a house is not like pawning a piece of jewelry. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to do it.

Which is precisely why people shouldn't be buying them unless they have a very high degree of financial security.

[Thanas]

In the first place many people don't do this, which is certainly a far cry from that everyone must do this, and I certainly think this sort of irresponsible behaviour should not be further encouraged by public policy.

I concede that I cannot prove everybody will spend "close" to what they have. I do however maintain that people spend about what their means allow. Thus slashing their means to a percentage when all they did was become unemployed (something which very few can control) is not something that is fair or even productive. You don't want to destroy whole lives and savings just because the people are unable to find work for some months. Which can easily happen, even to the most qualified people.

In the second case I think you have made my point for me: a millionaire doesn't need his mansion, and certainly could move into a small apartment if he wanted, likely releasing a lot of equity in the process which would take him off the welfare rolls entirely.

Did you miss the part where it was already stated there is a cap to unemployment? No millionaire will finance his mansion via unemployment benefits (unless he bought private insurance on top of it).

Let me know when your $42/year saving plan hits $1,000,000, thereby earning you indefinite payments of $30,000/year. Otherwise, this person having worked for 40 years (about the longest possible) would have earned three weeks of continued payments, perhaps ten with compounding if the didn't gov't forgo that in order to maximise current-year spending. In a more realistic case, maybe three to four days or so.

.....That is not how insurance works.

Really, how old are you? Because your concept of insurance does not seem to be one an adult with several years working would have.

[energiewende]

In the first place many people don't do this, which is certainly a far cry from that everyone must do this, and I certainly think this sort of irresponsible behaviour should not be further encouraged by public policy.

I concede that I cannot prove everybody will spend "close" to what they have. I do however maintain that people spend about what their means allow. Thus slashing their means to a percentage when all they did was become unemployed (something which very few can control) is not something that is fair or even productive. You don't want to destroy whole lives and savings just because the people are unable to find work for some months. Which can easily happen, even to the most qualified people.

People do not need all money they spend, let alone money they chose to spend in the past instead of saving, in the knowledge it might hurt them financially later (eg. taking out the most expensive possible mortgage, paying for cars on credit, holidays, etc.). Peoples' needs include food, water, heat, and the minimal shelter required for a bed and cooking facilities. That is a small proportion of what most people spend. Moreover those costs largely do not increase with income.

In the second case I think you have made my point for me: a millionaire doesn't need his mansion, and certainly could move into a small apartment if he wanted, likely releasing a lot of equity in the process which would take him off the welfare rolls entirely.

Did you miss the part where it was already stated there is a cap to unemployment? No millionaire will finance his mansion via unemployment benefits (unless he bought private insurance on top of it).

But a 3 person family may well finance their 4 bedroom house in a desirable area, while all they really need is a 2 room flat in a cheap area.

Let me know when your $42/year saving plan hits $1,000,000, thereby earning you indefinite payments of $30,000/year. Otherwise, this person having worked for 40 years (about the longest possible) would have earned three weeks of continued payments, perhaps ten with compounding if the didn't gov't forgo that in order to maximise current-year spending. In a more realistic case, maybe three to four days or so.

.....That is not how insurance works.

Really, how old are you? Because your concept of insurance does not seem to be one an adult with several years working would have.

It's not an insurance scheme; the premiums are not based on actuarial risk. It's a welfare benefit rhetorically attached to a tax that adds to the general revenue, with no requirement that the tax take cover all the costs of the welfare benefit.

Moreover, insurance would have a defined payment and a defined term. The complaint here is that the payments are not being made indefinitely. If you see it as insurance then the deal is already better than the market would give - what's the problem?

[Welf]

It's not an insurance scheme; the premiums are not based on actuarial risk. It's a welfare benefit rhetorically attached to a tax that adds to the general revenue, with no requirement that the tax take cover all the costs of the welfare benefit.

Moreover, insurance would have a defined payment and a defined term. The complaint here is that the payments are not being made indefinitely. If you see it as insurance then the deal is already better than the market would give - what's the problem?

I can't speak for other countries but in Germany it works as insurance. You percentage of your wage and get in case if unemployment money for a certain time. The percentage depends on the benefits.

Put it that way: unemployment insurance is not unemployment insurance, but rather income insurance. You pay a certain amount of your income to secure level of income. And it's enforced by the government because it increases general welfare if people are insured.

[energiewende]

In most countries it's presented as insurance, but this is purely rhetorical. Think about it this way: if all the state did was offer the market rate for insurance that accounted for actuarial risk, why wouldn't people just self-insure like they insure their cars?

[Thanas]

People do not need all money they spend, let alone money they chose to spend in the past instead of saving, in the knowledge it might hurt them financially later (eg. taking out the most expensive possible mortgage, paying for cars on credit, holidays, etc.). Peoples' needs include food, water, heat, and the minimal shelter required for a bed and cooking facilities. That is a small proportion of what most people spend. Moreover those costs largely do not increase with income.

Needs are what allows you to partake in society and live a normal life. This is much more than just "minimal shelter". It is insurance that your life will not go to shit just because you are out of work, that what you have build decades on is not suddenly taken away just because you are out of work for a year. That is what I expect from a society and what I consider humane treatment.

But a 3 person family may well finance their 4 bedroom house in a desirable area, while all they really need is a 2 room flat in a cheap area.

So your idea is to take away all they have gained just because they are out of work for a few months? How is that even proportional? Under your system somebody who has worked hard 30 years loses everything due to forces out of his control.

It's not an insurance scheme; the premiums are not based on actuarial risk.

So? Doesn't make it any less of an insurance. State-run insurance, but the basic premise is still to insure people against a sudden loss of quality of life due to unforeseeable circumstances.

It's a welfare benefit rhetorically attached to a tax that adds to the general revenue, with no requirement that the tax take cover all the costs of the welfare benefit.

Moreover, insurance would have a defined payment

It is called taxes. It is defined. Or is not a percentage of your paycheck taken away to pay for insurance?

and a defined term. The complaint here is that the payments are not being made indefinitely. If you see it as insurance then the deal is already better than the market would give - what's the problem?

I don't know how it works in the USA with regards to term assessment, but over here in Germany the longer you work, the longer you get the insurance money.

[Broomstick]

Unemployment benefits are funded by a tax of 0.6% of the first $7,000 of a worker's income.

Let me know when your $42/year saving plan hits $1,000,000, thereby earning you indefinite payments of $30,000/year.

As has been repeatedly stated, but you are too stupid to comprehend, unemployment insurance IS NOT A SAVINGS PROGRAM. It is an insurance program. The tax functions as a premium. Come back when you understand the difference.

Otherwise, this person having worked for 40 years (about the longest possible) would have earned three weeks of continued payments, perhaps ten with compounding if the didn't gov't forgo that in order to maximise current-year spending.

Fuckhead, if you purchase a million-dollar liability policy your premiums aren't expected to add up to $1,000,000 - after all, if you had that much there would be little need to purchase insurance. Insurance works by everyone paying in a certain amount, creating a pool from which claims can be paid. As long as sufficient money enters to offset that going out you're good - you don't have to have everyone paying in maximum liability amounts.

I'm also willing to bet that just basing unemployment payments off income is cheaper. Needs testing requires time and money. At the very least you're going to require multiple interviews and audits to match up the applicants spending with the amount of money they had coming in. Overall, it'd probably end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to save tens of thousands at best. Similar to how Florida's attempts to save money by drug testing welfare recipients ended up putting the state tens of thousands of dollars deeper in the red. It only makes sense if the goal is to punish people for being poor/unemployed.

You need to "punish being unemployed" if you are offering indefinite payments that are comparable to a salary.

The biggest flaw in your answer is that NO ONE GETS INDEFINITE PAYMENTS. The maximum under any circumstances is 99 weeks and that's it.

Now a needs tested system still gives you the money if you have a real need and satisfy whatever requirement that you really can't find a job, but it being difficult to continue receiving the payments otherwise is intentional.

Hey, dumbshit, here's the requirement to receive the benefits:

1) work a certain amount of time to qualify. The rules on that are here
2) demonstrate you are actively looking for work.

That's how the program is set up. Fuck you if you don't like it.

Needs testing? Really? When you purchase a health insurance policy do you have demonstrate financial need before it will pay out on a covered procedure. Fucking hell even health insurance in the US doesn't require that. If you have car insurance, make your premiums, then file a claim do you expect the insurance company to examine your finances to find out if you really "need" that payout, or do you expect them to cough up as agreed to? It's insurance. If you have paid your premiums and certain conditions apply you get a payout. What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't understand that?

An alternative is for the payments to cut out automatically after 6-12 months so that long term dependency just isn't an issue, but that's exactly what's happening here and people think it is unreasonable. So, pay your money and take your choice.

AS I ALREADY SAID: you CAN NOT received unemployment benefits longer than 99 weeks under any circumstances. So shut the fuck up about this bullshit notion it's "unlimited" it's not. It never has been. What the fuck is required to get that through the vacuum occupying the volume where you should have a brain?

[Broomstick]

She fucking earned them by WORKING.

She didn't earn an unemployment insurance benefit - she purchased it, just like with any insurance policy. She purchased a certain benefit by paying a certain premium according to a predetermined formula that prescribed the amount of her benefit.

Employees do not directly pay the premium. You "pay" it by working a qualifying amount of time in the previous five fiscal quarters. That is how you "pay" the premium. Nonetheless, it is referred to as insurance, and when you go to collect it your request is called a claim and the money your benefit.

When her unemployment insurance "expires" it means that the benefit that she purchased has been fully paid to her. So... what's the story here? She should get a larger benefit than what she purchased merely because she could really use the cash?

It's energiewende who has this notion that it's an unlimited payout. It's not. It never has been. There is no needs testing involved and never has been. Other than that, what do you not understand?

Employment insurance is not welfare, it is insurance - a distribution of risk which needs to be self-funded. If you think this lady needs help, then you should be pushing for a change to the welfare system, not by advocating that people get bigger insurance benefits than what they paid for.

Oh, abosolutely I do agitate for a better social safety net in my country but regrettably I have not had much success.

[Broomstick]

But some unemployed/poor people clearly are financially irresponsible.

Since being eligible for unemployment insurance (which I am henceforth going to abbreviate as UI because I'm tired of typing the whole thing out) requires steady work for a period of time prior to making a claim the people collecting it are, on the whole, more likely to have at least average fiscal responsibility than not.

And sometimes being responsible involves doing things that are unpleasant, like switching careers or relocating. As for the rest, who are in a bad situation because of unfortunate circumstance and not irresponsibility, then I am in favor of certain social assistance programs. But those programs should be limited to people who are trying to be productive by doing things like actively searching for work, willing to learn new skills, willing to relocate, and willing to give up their own luxuries before taking mine - that could include selling some assets, including a house, depending on the circumstances.

As has been repeatedly stated you have demonstrate you are looking for work to receive UI. You have to do this every single week. If, hypothetically, you wanted to visit relatives in another state for a week and told your case manager that, you would skip that week and simply not receive benefits for it (or you could do a little job hunting while you're spending time with the family – I've actually done it both ways).

I have been told by some former factory workers that sometimes you can collect UI while you are enrolled in a retraining program but I have not been involved in those.

Thus, it would seem some of your objections have already been long answered. Perhaps you should stop listening to the likes of energiewende who knows precisely jackshit about the matter.

The maximum UI benefit for Illinois is something like $320 something (I don't feel like digging back 4-5 years through my financial records to find out). That's under $16,500/year and not this “$30,000” figure being bandied about. In Indiana it's in the 200's. The notion that anyone is making out like a bandit at that level is beyond ludicrous. Now, there probably are states with a higher maximum, but they're the exception, not the rule. It's basically just enough to keep the lights on, food on the table, and maybe buy some new deodorant while you look for more work.

Are you willing to give them assistance on their rent or mortgage until they successfully sell it?

I am willing to give them reasonable assistance to have a functional life until they can have their unfortunate situation resolved.

And that's what UI is – a modicum of assistance to aid in a search for a new job.

Naturally, in the event of a housing crisis like in the USA in 2008, social assistance for housing/mortgages is more reasonable than in other times.

For your information there is no mortgage assistance in the US in response to the Great Recession.

There is, in theory, Section 8 or subsidized public housing. I say “in theory” because in reality it's almost impossible to get it if you don't already have it. In my area the waiting list is TEN YEARS LONG. Where the fuck people are supposed to live in the meanwhile I have no idea.

Anyone you cut off UI has no other assistance for housing costs.

How about moving costs? If someone can't afford to live in NYC, yet can't afford the investment required to move somewhere cheaper, are you willing to give them assistance on the various relocation costs?

Yes. At the very least by offering loans.

You can't qualify for a loan if you don't have a job.

Selling a house is not like pawning a piece of jewelry. It takes a lot of time and a lot of money to do it.

Which is precisely why people shouldn't be buying them unless they have a very high degree of financial security.

Yes, just ignore that during the housing crisis instead of taking a couple months to sell a house it took as couple of years.