Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-25-2010, 11:33 AM
 
835 posts, read 1,183,055 times
Reputation: 186

Advertisements

Gov. Chris Christie warns N.J. companies of tax hike to cover unemployment fund | New Jersey Real-Time News - - NJ.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2010, 02:23 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,609 posts, read 17,294,097 times
Reputation: 17662
Default just to be clear

"Business taxes are increased by law when the fund's balance dips below a certain level as measured every March"

Existing law determines tax increases. As opposed to any suggestion CC decided to raise the taxes.

Carry on.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2010, 09:49 PM
 
20,365 posts, read 19,978,257 times
Reputation: 13485
Is the money that's paid into the fund used exclusively for unemployment payouts (by law, preferably) or do our politicians have some latitude with regards to getting their hands on it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2010, 01:32 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 11,983,843 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1 View Post
Is the money that's paid into the fund used exclusively for unemployment payouts (by law, preferably) or do our politicians have some latitude with regards to getting their hands on it?
In December 2009, nj.com reported that the state's unemployment insurance fund has traditionally been the victim of "a bipartisan practice of using taxes intended for the fund to pay for other budget needs, such as Charity Care, or health care for the poor."

Over the course of 15 years, it has been estimated that $4.7 billion was diverted to these "other budget needs." When the unemployment insurance fund dips below a certain level, businesses are taxed to make up the shortfall -- which is the current situation.

Also in December, the State Assembly passed a bill that would add amend the state constitution to prohibit politicians from diverting these funds in the future. That amendment is scheduled to be on the ballot this year.

Last edited by diorgirl; 01-26-2010 at 02:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:01 PM
 
20,365 posts, read 19,978,257 times
Reputation: 13485
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
In December 2009, nj.com reported that the state's unemployment insurance fund has traditionally been the victim of "a bipartisan practice of using taxes intended for the fund to pay for other budget needs, such as Charity Care, or health care for the poor."

Over the course of 15 years, it has been estimated that $4.7 billion was diverted to these "other budget needs." When the unemployment insurance fund dips below a certain level, businesses are taxed to make up the shortfall -- which is the current situation.

Also in December, the State Assembly passed a bill that would add amend the state constitution to prohibit politicians from diverting these funds in the future. That amendment is scheduled to be on the ballot this year.
Thanks for the information.

We've got to make all of the various funds unavailable to our politicans and their friends if we're to get NJ moving forward financially.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:52 PM
 
11,337 posts, read 11,068,092 times
Reputation: 14993
Another solution is to stop the endless extensions. It is supposed to be a temporary stopgap, not a source of income in and of itself. It should only be for 3 or 4 months, then that's it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2010, 11:01 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
3,814 posts, read 11,983,843 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Another solution is to stop the endless extensions. It is supposed to be a temporary stopgap, not a source of income in and of itself. It should only be for 3 or 4 months, then that's it.
Just FYI -- Stopping extended UI benefits would have no effect on NJ's unemployment insurance fund.

A this time, the money paid into the state unemployment insurance fund covers only the 26 weeks of regular unemployment insurance for each claimnant.

The federal government has funded 100% of the four levels of EUC Tiers (for up to a total of 53 weeks).

And since February 2009, the federal government has supplied 100% of the funding of states' EB and High EB benefits (up to another 20 weeks). Previously, funding for States' respective EB benefits was shared: 50% from the feds, 50% from the state.

So currently, NJ's unemployment insurance funds pays 100% of 26 weeks for each claimant; the federal government funds 100% of the 73 weeks of extended benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 02:17 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
4,085 posts, read 8,801,071 times
Reputation: 2692
Quote:
Originally Posted by diorgirl View Post
Just FYI -- Stopping extended UI benefits would have no effect on NJ's unemployment insurance fund.

A this time, the money paid into the state unemployment insurance fund covers only the 26 weeks of regular unemployment insurance for each claimnant.

The federal government has funded 100% of the four levels of EUC Tiers (for up to a total of 53 weeks).

And since February 2009, the federal government has supplied 100% of the funding of states' EB and High EB benefits (up to another 20 weeks). Previously, funding for States' respective EB benefits was shared: 50% from the feds, 50% from the state.

So currently, NJ's unemployment insurance funds pays 100% of 26 weeks for each claimant; the federal government funds 100% of the 73 weeks of extended benefits.
Furthermore, stopping unemployment benefits would have no effect on the whining and moaning that so many do as they pin the blame for their high taxation woes on unemployment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 07:41 PM
 
4,174 posts, read 4,191,424 times
Reputation: 2083
This is nothing new. The more people a company lay off, the higher their premium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top