Millionaires On Unemployment

[BLAZER PROPHET]

When I worked for the state & feds there was a guy that lived in a huge river view house in Hood River. He did lighting for TV shows in Hollywood. The filming season was 6 months long and he made about $150,000 per season. Then he'd come home to Hood River, live the good life and collect unemployment benefits for 6 months before heading back to Hollywood. This article reminds me of him.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20121002&id=15624075

Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service.
_____

The 2,362 people in millionaire homes represent 0.02 percent of the 11.3 million U.S. tax filers who reported unemployment insurance income in 2009, according to the August report. Another 954,000 households earning more than $100,000 during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression also reported receiving unemployment benefits.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

nothing wrong with that, if the system is in place. I've had friends on unemployment jet across the world. you can apply for jobs from anywhere i guess?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think there needs to be a litmus test for collecting any sort of public assistance- to include social security.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I think there needs to be a litmus test for collecting any sort of public assistance- to include social security.

Why? So we continue to have a system of the wealthier subsidizing the poor even further? Look, we pay into unemployment and social security as we work. Pay in, pay out. Equality for all regardless of net worth or income level.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I think there needs to be a litmus test for collecting any sort of public assistance- to include social security.

I tend to agree, but where do you dtrawthe line?

The seasonal cannery worker?
The logger?
semi pro baseball player?
lighting guy for hollywierd?
Fishermen?

 

[RR7]

I tend to agree, but where do you dtrawthe line?

The seasonal cannery worker?
The logger?
semi pro baseball player?
lighting guy for hollywierd?
Fishermen?

income level?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

income level?

So if you make $100k a year and get fired, you shouldn't get unemployment?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

So if you make $100k a year and get fired, you shouldn't get unemployment?

so, why 100k ? everyone I listed can make that with the exception of a seasonal cannery worker, and my gut tells me that no matter where you set it, there are those that would game the system

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

It was just an arbitrary number. However, an employer pays into unemployment when they hire you and I think you get docked somewhat for it on your paychecks, i'm not sure. So if you get fired/laid off/whatever you should get those benefits.

there should be no cut off whatsoever if the system is in place. Should be a totally level playing field and everyone gets the same amount.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I tend to agree, but where do you dtrawthe line?

Net worth or earnings past 12 months are a couple of places to start.

Public assistance started based on the premise that those in need will receive a temporary helping hand. It was never intended to help those not in need. As to exactly where to place the 'cap', that is very subjective. President Obama has declared that individuals making $150,000 per year or couples making $250,000 per year are officially considered "wealthy", so maybe use that as a starting place.

To continue, if I retire with a net worth of $2 million why should I also collect social security, housing, food stamps, Medicare... when I can easily pay my own way? The theory behind public assistance isn't "I paid in, so I now get mine even though I don't need it", it's about the many paying into a system for the few who are less fortunate. In a way it's like insurance.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It was just an arbitrary number. However, an employer pays into unemployment when they hire you and I think you get docked somewhat for it on your paychecks, i'm not sure. So if you get fired/laid off/whatever you should get those benefits.

there should be no cut off whatsoever if the system is in place. Should be a totally level playing field and everyone gets the same amount.

yeah, while I would like to see some cap, you would have to exempt the employer and the employee as well. Also, the other thing to look at is that unemployment has a max benifit of somewhere around 435 or so per week. so its not like a guy used to pulling down good money is going to do anything other than pay cable and gas with that amount..

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Good post BP,

Nice to know that the prez knows who is and who is not "wealthy"...so...149999......

and yeah, most do view those programs as something they are owed

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Unemployment is public assistance?



{Poasted via palm pilot}

 

[Eastoff]

yeah, while I would like to see some cap, you would have to exempt the employer and the employee as well. Also, the other thing to look at is that unemployment has a max benifit of somewhere around 435 or so per week. so its not like a guy used to pulling down good money is going to do anything other than pay cable and gas with that amount..

Holy shit, 435$ a week to "pay cable and gas" ... I must be reading you wrong.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Net worth or earnings past 12 months are a couple of places to start.

Public assistance started based on the premise that those in need will receive a temporary helping hand. It was never intended to help those not in need. As to exactly where to place the 'cap', that is very subjective. President Obama has declared that individuals making $150,000 per year or couples making $250,000 per year are officially considered "wealthy", so maybe use that as a starting place.

To continue, if I retire with a net worth of $2 million why should I also collect social security, housing, food stamps, Medicare... when I can easily pay my own way? The theory behind public assistance isn't "I paid in, so I now get mine even though I don't need it", it's about the many paying into a system for the few who are less fortunate. In a way it's like insurance.

So basically the government should decide how people budget their money to decide whether or not they should "qualify" for unemployment. "Obviously", those that are high income earners don't "need" it because they have the same expenses as anyone else. So if someone making $150k year gets laid off, then can't find a job for 12 months...then they should get unemployment after the 12 month grace period (that will never happen because $150k a year jobs are quite easy to get :MARIS61: ). But basically they should eat into their "savings" (assuming they have any) and not get any unemployment assistance even though they may need it (however, Blazer Prophet and the government will decide that they do not).

Got it.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

yeah, while I would like to see some cap, you would have to exempt the employer and the employee as well. Also, the other thing to look at is that unemployment has a max benifit of somewhere around 435 or so per week. so its not like a guy used to pulling down good money is going to do anything other than pay cable and gas with that amount..

If you have no income even if you were making $150k, $1600k a month is better than $0.00 a month to pay for expenses such as housing, food, etc. But I'm sure that's just booze, cable and gas for the yacht money.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Holy shit, 435$ a week to "pay cable and gas" ... I must be reading you wrong.

being a bit flip, just thinking that gas for the boat at the marina is around 7 or 8 bucks a gallon..

 

[chris_in_pdx]

So if you make $100k a year and get fired, you shouldn't get unemployment?

Not if you have $400k in the bank, no. Part of the unemployment (and Social Security, for that matter) process should be a wealth check. And don't think the government doesn't have access to that information.

 

[julius]

Since they base how much you on your previous salary, I think it's fair for them to do the opposite for the process too.

Not that people should be denied unemployment but there is a cap (as DLJ said).

I don't know if you can make a blanket statement regarding who should or shouldn't get unemployment benefits (and I don't think the fraud in UE is nearly as high as people scare us into thinking it is), but I do think that if you're making 6 figures a year it's easier to be made into a (public) target for fraud claims.

just because you make 150K a year doesn't mean you have thousands upon thousands saved up. In theory you should, but it's not a set in stone thing.

If you're a millionaire (and not a fluke millionaire), I would hope you would've had some common sense and saved.

I had a point in there somewhere.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

This is too easy.

Leave it in place, blame Obama for this system.

Take it away, blame Obama for class-warfare.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Not if you have $400k in the bank, no. Part of the unemployment (and Social Security, for that matter) process should be a wealth check. And don't think the government doesn't have access to that information.

so, just eat into your savings. penalized for financial wisdom and frugality! :MARIS61:

great. meanwhile, the guy who made $50k a year, lives with his parents (with a faded Obama poster in his childhood bedroom), no expenses at all...should get funemployment for 99 weeks!

'murrica!

 

[MickZagger]

Don't hate the playa, hate the game!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So basically the government should decide how people budget their money to decide whether or not they should "qualify" for unemployment. "Obviously", those that are high income earners don't "need" it because they have the same expenses as anyone else. So if someone making $150k year gets laid off, then can't find a job for 12 months...then they should get unemployment after the 12 month grace period (that will never happen because $150k a year jobs are quite easy to get :MARIS61: ). But basically they should eat into their "savings" (assuming they have any) and not get any unemployment assistance even though they may need it (however, Blazer Prophet and the government will decide that they do not).

Got it.

HAHAHAHA!!!

I'm going to think that post is a joke.

But if not, how in the world do you assume I'm making some sort of statement that the government is supposed to tell us how to budget? All I'm saying is that certain public assistance should be based on true need and that there needs to be a method to determine that. I mean, if you think millionaires should get food stamps, unemployment, social security... then how are such programs expected to work when everyone gets more from them than they put in?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Its easy BP, we pay for all the social programs by barrowing a few trillion more from China..

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

HAHAHAHA!!!

I'm going to think that post is a joke.

But if not, how in the world do you assume I'm making some sort of statement that the government is supposed to tell us how to budget? All I'm saying is that certain public assistance should be based on true need and that there needs to be a method to determine that. I mean, if you think millionaires should get food stamps, unemployment, social security... then how are such programs expected to work when everyone gets more from them than they put in?

Because you assume that those who make $150k+ plus don't need it because they should have saved their money, which may or may not be true. You have to identify "true need" and that really can't be done across the board. Someone with zero income can't live other than to eat up their savings and sell their possessions. If they are paying into the unemployment system, why shouldn't they have these protections.

Unemployment is for people who are already working and if they suddenly get cut off provides temporary assistance to help pay bills. If you don't think there are people making $150k a year+ living paycheck to paycheck, you'd be wrong. Should we have qualifiers then? I mean it costs more to live in LA than in Oregon. Why not calculate a cost of living adjustment for each zip code then.

You're treating unemployment as a handout when it really isn't one.

 

[MickZagger]

Because you assume that those who make $150k+ plus don't need it because they should have saved their money, which may or may not be true. You have to identify "true need" and that really can't be done across the board. Someone with zero income can't live other than to eat up their savings and sell their possessions. If they are paying into the unemployment system, why shouldn't they have these protections.

Unemployment is for people who are already working and if they suddenly get cut off provides temporary assistance to help pay bills. If you don't think there are people making $150k a year+ living paycheck to paycheck, you'd be wrong.

Is living within your means so unreasonable? If you're working seasonally, you should understand how to spread it out, if not, get another job while idle. Getting government assistance when your making over $100k is a joke.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Is living within your means so unreasonable? If you're working seasonally, you should understand how to spread it out, if not, get another job while idle. Getting government assistance when your making over $100k is a joke.

When you make more, you spend more (mortgage, etc) and need that extra money to help out. Your car payment is higher for example as is your insurance and your taxes are higher as well. Should those that make more money that likely have six figures in student loan debt be forced to eat into their savings just because they make more money? I don't think so.

Unemployment is not government assistance in as so much as being insurance that you are paying into. Its a temporary benefit that does get abused along the entire spectrum.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

"yeah, you have too much money, you don't need the unemployment benefits because you should live like paupers and live as if you were making $25k a year".

 

[MickZagger]

When you make more, you spend more (mortgage, etc) and need that extra money to help out. Your car payment is higher for example as is your insurance and your taxes are higher as well. Should those that make more money that likely have six figures in student loan debt be forced to eat into their savings just because they make more money? I don't think so.

Unemployment is not government assistance in as so much as being insurance that you are paying into.

If you knowingly take a seasonal job where you're going to have no income for a good portion of time than you adjust, or find other ways to supplement your income. Its making a mockery of the system when you got people living off government assistance just to fund their lavish lifestyle. Sure, a week here and there, of unemployment? No biggie. My dad has done that, I've got friends that do that. A couple months to half a year? Thats bullshit.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If you knowingly take a seasonal job where you're going to have no income for a good portion of time than you adjust, or find other ways to supplement your income. Its making a mockery of the system when you got people living off government assistance just to fund their lavish lifestyle. Sure, a week here and there, of unemployment? No biggie. My dad has done that, I've got friends that do that. A couple months to half a year? Thats bullshit.

Well you are only working half the year. I don't see how they can really do this though, they would have to lay him off every year then he would have to be a new hire. He likely lied on his unemployment application.

Its really not that different than people who take the unemployment for 98 weeks and then start really looking for a job right before it runs out though. that happens more than you would think aka "Funemployment".