Federal Unemployment set to expire July 31? (5 Viewers)

Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
961
Reaction score
1,243
Location
Formally Texas
Offline
Sticky Post
Folks. The government needs to extend this till November at least. I’m afraid America will go to a very dark place if we do not. The Economists all agree it needs to be extended. I’m not going to get political on this board but if we don’t help those that are still in need it is going to get really bad. High crime, riots, more protests, even a major stock market crash could happen. Pray Congress does the right thing and extends unemployment.
 

B4YOU

All-Pro
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
4,206
Offline
This would actually be a decent compromise, but it will only work IMO if it’s a blanket 70% of the original $600 , rather than having each state trying to figure out what 70% of each one of the 52 million currently unemployed people’s salary was prior to the pandemic.. there’s just no way with The current systems and manpower that that could be done efficiently enough to get Unemployment checks to people in a year, much less within the next few weeks... As i mentioned earlier in the thread, what’s ’fair’ should be a component , but the rule of the day moving forward needs to be simplicity.
The issue isn't that 70% is too complicated for states to figure out. States are 4-5 months into the initial crush of claims and adding one formula to a state UI system shouldn't break it. However, systems always find a way to fail and will need weeks to months to implement. The benefit of a 70% number is that it should somewhat account for cost of living differences.

The issue is the federal government shouldn't subsidize low UI states. If you make $40K, median US wage, then 70% of that breaks down to a weekly of $538. If you live in a state with $550+ UI, then you would get nothing from the feds. If you live in a sub $300 max benefit UI state, then the feds will make up the difference.

Just offer a flat $250-350 federal benefit. If they still want to do a 70%, then do it over the combined state UI and federal base amount. Most people will be covered by the lower federal flat amount that is already in place with less chance of system failures. States could even run the %-over checks as a separate issuance a month or two later if needed.

Edit: remove some text
 
Last edited:

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***ed at Yoko
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
23,279
Reaction score
11,692
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Online
The issue isn't that 70% is too complicated for states to figure out. States are 4-5 months into the initial crush of claims and adding one formula to a state UI system shouldn't break it. However, systems always find a way to fail and will need weeks to months to implement. The benefit of a 70% number is that it should somewhat account for cost of living differences.

The issue is the federal government shouldn't subsidize low UI states. If you make $40K, median US wage, then 70% of that breaks down to a weekly of $538. If you live in a state with $550+ UI, then you would get nothing from the feds. If you live in a sub $300 max benefit UI state, then the feds will make up the difference.

Just offer a flat $250-350 federal benefit. If they still want to do a 70%, then do it over the combined state UI and federal base amount. Most people will be covered by the lower federal flat amount that is already in place with less chance of system failures. States could even run the %-over checks as a separate issuance a month or two later if needed.

Edit: remove some text


I see what you’re saying, but i think the crux of the issue is that i will always, always error on the side of making sure people have enough money to pay their bills.. versus what some think (not directed at you) , which is that it’s tantamount to a mortal sin for someone To receive even one cent more than they would’ve made had there not been a global pandemic.. meanwhile the country’s Wealthiest families have added an estimated $150 billion to their coffers during this shutdown, and almost no one complains about that.. at the end of the day, ain’t nobody ever got rich off an extra $600 a week.
 
Last edited:

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
21,978
Reaction score
19,532
Age
49
Location
Between here and there
Offline
So in reading the article just posted. It’s too much to provide an extra 400 in unemployment, yet that’s only a small part Of the money of that bill.
It simply gives me a bad taste in my mouth is all. Why is it ok to flood money to the small part of the population which already has it, yet it causes so much debate and anger that someone might possibly get a couple hundred extra during a pandemic? A time where the prices of almost everything I’ve seen have risen, sometimes dramatically.
 

Saint Greg

SR is my life!
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
15,855
Reaction score
14,286
Location
USA
Online
I see what you’re saying, but i think the crux of the issue is that i will always, always error on the side of making sure people have enough money to pay their bills.. versus what some think (not directed at you) , which is that it’s tantamount to a mortal sin for someone To receive even one cent more than they would’ve made had there not been a global pandemic.. meanwhile the country’s Wealthiest families have added an estimated $150 billion to their coffers during this shutdown, and almost no one complains about that.. at the end of the day, ain’t nobody ever got rich off an extra $600 a month.
That’s an additional $600 a week. I collected it for six weeks during my furlough. The problem is I know people who are turning down their jobs because they make as much or more from unemployment now. I think it needs to be adjusted.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
21,978
Reaction score
19,532
Age
49
Location
Between here and there
Offline
That’s an additional $600 a week. I collected it for six weeks during my furlough. The problem is I know people who are turning down their jobs because they make as much or more from unemployment now. I think it needs to be adjusted.
So you are saying to those people as yourself who needed it, received it, probably helped greatly during this time should suffer with lower payments because a small portion would rather not work? Are we really as a country that bad off that we can’t say, ok chill for a bit while this continues? If they don’t want their job back, someone else will find that job and take it. It’s not like that job is at a net loss. Then, say in January they will be looking for a job. Oh well. Why does everything in this country always have to fall under a person being worthless if they are not working? How much of this time has become family time? Clean up house, yard, improvements to them keeping that portion of the economy going? It’s not a one thing only benefit.
I’ve had friends who work in the state welfare department. It costs more to root out the waste and people taking advantage of the situation than it ever would to spend the money to end it. Yes the few get publicity. But the vast majority are good honest people who simply do the best they can.
Let’s step back from that attitude and look instead at the millions this has helped, for less than what has been wasted by Brady, Kanye, and all the others who have vastly abused the system with a far greater money pot.
 

Mr. Blue Sky

Still P***ed at Yoko
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
23,279
Reaction score
11,692
Location
Between the Moon and New York City
Online
That’s an additional $600 a week. I collected it for six weeks during my furlough. The problem is I know people who are turning down their jobs because they make as much or more from unemployment now. I think it needs to be adjusted.


You’re right, and i was aware that it was weekly, despite what i typed.. i went ahead and edited it.. My point stands.

And in re to your take that people are turning down jobs because of it, as i mentioned earlier in the thread- i think those people are outliers.. i think the vast majority of people would rather be productive while earning a decent wage.
 

B4YOU

All-Pro
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
4,206
Offline
I see what you’re saying, but i think the crux of the issue is that i will always, always error on the side of making sure people have enough money to pay their bills.. versus what some think (not directed at you) , which is that it’s tantamount to a mortal sin for someone To receive even one cent more than they would’ve made had there not been a global pandemic.. meanwhile the country’s Wealthiest families have added an estimated $150 billion to their coffers during this shutdown, and almost no one complains about that.. at the end of the day, ain’t nobody ever got rich off an extra $600 a month.
I agree with you. I'm offering what I expect as a compromise - $250-350 flat - and should have made that clearer. I personally think the best and easiest solution right now is a flat $400-600 benefit with federal UI extended until Jan 31 until better systems can be put in place. Leaders had months to come up with creative plans and wasted it. If we see a benefits gap of more than 3-4 weeks, then we could see some serious societal problems.

Long-term an 80% wage replacement with a minimum combined federal/state of $7.25/hr or $290/wk would be ideal. I would require states to provide a minimum of $250/wk benefit for fully unemployed with a max of at least $400/wk to participate in the federal program.

PPP was a massive payout to the wealthy yet people have said little about it. I've posted an example awhile back of a $100k sole-proprietor getting $18k compared to the general population getting only $1200 or the unemployed getting $1200 plus UI of $2400/mo. Small companies made out like bandits on PPP. I would much rather see people collecting federal UI than businesses getting fat checks.
 

efil4stnias

one lonely Beastie i be...
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
32,466
Reaction score
30,996
Location
Covington
Offline
I agree with you. I'm offering what I expect as a compromise - $250-350 flat - and should have made that clearer. I personally think the best and easiest solution right now is a flat $400-600 benefit with federal UI extended until Jan 31 until better systems can be put in place. Leaders had months to come up with creative plans and wasted it. If we see a benefits gap of more than 3-4 weeks, then we could see some serious societal problems.

Long-term an 80% wage replacement with a minimum combined federal/state of $7.25/hr or $290/wk would be ideal. I would require states to provide a minimum of $250/wk benefit for fully unemployed with a max of at least $400/wk to participate in the federal program.

PPP was a massive payout to the wealthy yet people have said little about it. I've posted an example awhile back of a $100k sole-proprietor getting $18k compared to the general population getting only $1200 or the unemployed getting $1200 plus UI of $2400/mo. Small companies made out like bandits on PPP. I would much rather see people collecting federal UI than businesses getting fat checks.
So the Republican Senate plan is out....$200 of federal help.

Along with a second round of stimulus checks to individuals ( no amount given )

As for PPP, it was ripe for corruption. No oversight, no double checking to verify the numbers. Shoot, you went thru YOUR BANK - you think a bank handling $10mm in deposits are going to tell the client "sorry these papers dont seem to be adding up?" and delay payment?

Again, it was the expedient way. Now, we have had MONTHS to arrive at a better plan and here we are in the 9th hour cobbling stuff together because well....Murica.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
31,335
Reaction score
19,107
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
So the Republican Senate plan is out....$200 of federal help.

Along with a second round of stimulus checks to individuals ( no amount given )

As for PPP, it was ripe for corruption. No oversight, no double checking to verify the numbers. Shoot, you went thru YOUR BANK - you think a bank handling $10mm in deposits are going to tell the client "sorry these papers dont seem to be adding up?" and delay payment?

Again, it was the expedient way. Now, we have had MONTHS to arrive at a better plan and here we are in the 9th hour cobbling stuff together because well....Murica.
According to McConnell from the Senate floor, the individual stimulus checks will be a repeat of the last round, same amounts and same limits.
 

Grandadmiral

Infinite Power is da ****
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
21,400
Reaction score
12,139
Age
44
Offline
So the Republican Senate plan is out....$200 of federal help.
Damn shame really. Got it wrong the first time (benefits should've been up to the individual's salary IMHO, but I also understand wanting to avoid the extra work in figuring that out...

Along with a second round of stimulus checks to individuals ( no amount given )
Gotta do something to try to shut us up when they throw the billions at corporations...

As for PPP, it was ripe for corruption. No oversight, no double checking to verify the numbers. Shoot, you went thru YOUR BANK - you think a bank handling $10mm in deposits are going to tell the client "sorry these papers dont seem to be adding up?" and delay payment?
Ironically, ours did... three times before we got final approval. Guess we should've gone the route and ask for the world like we were Shake Shack or somehing...

Again, it was the expedient way. Now, we have had MONTHS to arrive at a better plan and here we are in the 9th hour cobbling stuff together because well....Murica.
Yep
 

Eeyore

Flucifer
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
16,812
Reaction score
8,912
Age
49
Location
Ersetu
Offline
there’s just no way with The current systems and manpower that that could be done efficiently enough to get Unemployment checks to people in a year, much less within the next few weeks...
That's the point.

Make it look like something is being done but still getting all of that sweet sweet suffering.
 
Last edited:

Eeyore

Flucifer
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
16,812
Reaction score
8,912
Age
49
Location
Ersetu
Offline
That’s an additional $600 a week. I collected it for six weeks during my furlough. The problem is I know people who are turning down their jobs because they make as much or more from unemployment now. I think it needs to be adjusted.
How does that work?

When we get laid off in Indiana, Workforce One calls my employer and verifies that we were laid off. If my employer says that we refused work we don't get unemployment.
 

B4YOU

All-Pro
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
4,206
Offline

The offer is a flat $200/wk until October when the 70% of income up to $500 would take effect. A second $1200 at the same income limits plus $500/dependent. More PPP for companies with 50% revenue lost.

People would see a $400/wk reduction for 8 weeks or $3200. But if you are a couple with two kids you will get a flat $3400. I think this comes down to a timing issue. Lots of filers took weeks if not months to get the first $1200. If families see big gaps in funds, then there will be issues.
 

efil4stnias

one lonely Beastie i be...
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
32,466
Reaction score
30,996
Location
Covington
Offline

The offer is a flat $200/wk until October when the 70% of income up to $500 would take effect. A second $1200 at the same income limits plus $500/dependent. More PPP for companies with 50% revenue lost.

People would see a $400/wk reduction for 8 weeks or $3200. But if you are a couple with two kids you will get a flat $3400. I think this comes down to a timing issue. Lots of filers took weeks if not months to get the first $1200. If families see big gaps in funds, then there will be issues.
House wants 1200 per person capped at 6k per family.

Same qualifications as first round
 

Saint Greg

SR is my life!
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
15,855
Reaction score
14,286
Location
USA
Online
How does that work?

When we get laid off in Indiana, Workforce One calls my employer and verifies that we were laid off. If my employer says that we refused work we don't get unemployment.
Yeah the unemployment office called my work to verify that I was furloughed in April. Did they call back every week to make sure I hadn’t been offered a job? I doubt it. I had to log in each week I was unemployed and answer questions before I got paid. But we had a guy in my department that refused the job a month ago but started back today. I’m guessing he wanted that extra month of government checks.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)



Headlines

Top Bottom