Are you freakin' kiddin' me? 3,000 millionaires collect unemployment benes

[Nuclear Unicorn]

After the economy slipped into recession in 2008, millions of Americans received unemployment benefits to make ends meet -- including almost 3,000 millionaires.

According to U.S. Internal Revenue Service data, 2,840 households reporting at least $1 million in income on their tax returns that year also collected a total of $18.6 million in jobless aid. They included 806 taxpayers with incomes over $2 million and 17 with incomes in excess of $10 million. In all, multimillionaires reported receiving $5.2 million in jobless benefits.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html

I'm not Jewish but if this doesn't call for an "Oy Vey" I don't know what does.

[Obamanaut]

1. If they had jobs with salaries, and paid into the system, why should they not

collect?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. I can't say your statement is unfair but...

...what about actual need?

Shouldn't that be part of the criteria for collecting benefits?

And can't they fund their own unemployment insurance ala disability insurance?

just sayin'

[Obamanaut]

6. They paid. it's their money. Give it to them. Just replyin'. nt

[Ineeda]

7. As outrageous as this may seem...

if they meet the existing requirements, they should be able to collect. What criteria, otherwise? What if you have some savings that you worked hard to accumulate? What if you own a home? What if you have a 401k? Should that eliminate your eligibility? Of course, these rich people could simply not file for unemployment, which would be the moral thing to do. But they have the right receive it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. If it becomes a "need based" service then it can be attacked as welfare.

No. It's insurance everyone is forced to purchase so everyone should get to use it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. You guys are all very fair and reasonable, no denying that.

But aren't lots of benefits means-tested, i.e. home-heating, food stamps, etc? IIRC my co-worker lamented getting a raise because then her kids would no longer be eligible for subsidized medical coverage through the state.

just askin'

Thanks again for you thoughtful replies.

[Ineeda]

29. Apples and oranges.

The examples you give are welfare-type benefits, means-based. Unemployment benefits are not.

[DURHAM D]

13. More than likely they (employees) did not pay into the system.

At the federal level only the employer pays the tab for unemployment coverage. The employees zero.

As regards state unemployment charges - in 47 states the employer pays the entire tab for unemployment coverage. The employees zero.

So it is highly unlikely that the burden has been on anyone other than the employer to fund the account.

In most states the employers pay into the state fund based on usage by their former employees. IOWs the employers are now paying a higher monthly amount for unemployment to the state.

[Obamanaut]

15. They are none the less entitled to these benefits by virtue of having

been employed if they are no longer employed through no fault of their own.

Even self employed.

[DURHAM D]

17. I agree. nt

[Rex]

2. Oy.

Dam welfare cheats! I'm sure THAT kind of welfare cheat will never get mentioned by the GOPukers on their hatefest radio channels.

[quinnox]

3. They have no shame, they are multi millionaires

and collecting a few hundred dollars every week in unemployment benefits. Probably using it to buy the weekly champagne or cavier shipments into their mansions. And they are getting a big chuckle over it too I bet.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. It's insurance. If they paid in...

...and their employers paid in, and they're not working, and they qualify, then let them collect.

The fastest way to destroy a social provision is to means-test it, because then you can stigmatize it as welfare, de-fund it, and kill it off.

This is what's been attempted for years with SS.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. So you think it should be means tested?

I sure don't. It is Insurance, paid for. If you do not take yours, it does not pass on to another, but to the State.
If you become a millionaire, and you qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, please take the time to gather them, and pass them on to those who need them. I have known many who do so. Many.
In addition, 'household' does not mean 'mine' it means 'ours'. I have also know people with spouses who made tons, who made much less, and in one case needed it to escape he who made more.

[emilyg]

9. They paid. End of story.

[DURHAM D]

16. No they didn't.

Employers pay it entirely in all but three states.

[KansasVoter]

11. A person could be 55 and have a million in a 401k and still be laid off and need the money.

Wow, lets attack all the millionaires also.

[prolesunited]

12. If we called for means testing, it would change the nature of the program

It's an insurance program, not an entitlement program. Do you complain if a millionaire collects on a property insurance claim?

And I don't think we want to change the nature of the program. Look what's happened over the years to other entitlement programs.

[BlueCheese]

14. If they paid unemployment insurance...

... then they're entitled to it. If a tree limb falls on someone's car, that person's insurance will cover it, rich or poor.

[DURHAM D]

18. Employees don't pay it - employers do.

However, I believe that they are entitled to the benefits.

[Gaedel]

20. Semantics

Like health insurance, life insurance and the employers share of SS and medicare, the amount the employer pays into the unemployment insurance fund is a part of "total employee compensation".


In theory, this "benefit" is calculated into the mix when the employer establishes the wage or salary schedule.

If you accept this, the employee has a "vested interest" in the unemployment pot.

[closeupready]

27. Then I guess employees don't pay into social security - employers do.

Right?

[Codeine]

19. It's not a means-tested benefit.

They have every right to collect the payment.

[proteus_lives]

21. +1

[stray cat]

22. Why shouldn't they -they pay in for it just like the rest of us

Unemployment is not welfare

[Brickbat]

24. Everyone else said it, but I'll pile on too -- it's not a welfare program and turning it into a

means-based program would be a nightmare. We lived in a $225,000 home on 10 gorgeous acres, had three cars (two brand new!), an excellent family support system I could have tapped for cash, and some savings when Mr. Brickbat and I lost our jobs within six months of each other. Should we have received unemployment?

[closeupready]

25. It's not a means-based insurance benefit scheme. I have no problem with this.

Esp. because these millionaires apparently paid premiums (in the form of payroll taxes).

[Romulox]

26. If unemployment isn't welfare, why does it require public subsidies?

I reject the this frame that the rich paying their fair share (which means a HIGHER proportion than the poor) makes every government endeavor "welfare". Especially since the program in question is not self-supporting, but rather requires taxpayer funding to make these payments. In short, no, the rich did not "earn" this money. :hi:

[LoZoccolo]

28. That would average out to around $1830.99 each.

That doesn't seem like much at all. Even if they took the full 99 weeks, they might not have gotten back what they paid in, but I don't know what's paid in.