Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-01-2010, 10:32 AM
grant516
 
n/a posts

Advertisements

Any explanations how something like this can happen? ... and why they will pay out someone weeks 28 thru 42, before they pay out someone else Week 27.

 
Old 12-01-2010, 08:44 PM
 
7 posts, read 14,746 times
Reputation: 13
Politics - Repubs admitted that their TOP priority AFTER the election was making certain Obama wasn't re-elected. Keeping people unhappy contributes greatly to that goal, unless people start waking up. I'm very sorry to hear this affected you personally, it isn't fair... I don't have the supporting link right now but both parties always supported federal EMERGENCY extensions of UI once the national level rises above a certain %... now apparently they want to see how it's paid for first.... tax cuts for millionaires?? no need to justify how the federal budget can forgive their tax debt.
 
Old 12-01-2010, 09:44 PM
grant516
 
n/a posts
My question is not pertaining to my own needs, or that of party-line politics.

It's simply a question of how can a system say... okay, some of you can have 99 weeks, but we're now out of money... you can't have 27.

... but for those who are on Week 27, they can have another 19 more.
Even though those on 25 weeks can't have more than 1 more week.

For those terminated 18 months ago, they recieved nearly 2 years of funds, +25 dollars a week in FAC, +COBRA Reimbursment which could be valued at 400-600 a month (for 12 or so months).
That may total 50K or so, in the 99 weeks.

For those terminated 9 months ago, they will recieve nearly 1 year of funds, +25 dollars a week in FAC, +COBRA Reimbursment, which totals almost 8000 for the year.
This totals almost 30K for the year.

For those terminated 6 months ago, they will recieve 6 months of funds. Period.
Totaling $10530 for the 6 months.

The numbers hardly line up at all? Why is EB and EUC set up that you can't shut people already collecting off, meanwhile people at 24 weeks will be shut down?
 
Old 12-01-2010, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Here
2,887 posts, read 2,637,873 times
Reputation: 1981
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant516 View Post
My question is not pertaining to my own needs, or that of party-line politics. It's simply a question of how can a system say... okay, some of you can have 99 weeks, but we're now out of money... you can't have 27.
If the millionaire’s paid their tax obligation funds would be available for this. These cutbacks are how the tax cuts for the rich is “paid for” along with a myriad of other cutbacks. We all have to look after that 2% because God knows they need it in these hard economic times.
 
Old 12-02-2010, 03:26 AM
 
32 posts, read 54,488 times
Reputation: 19
EUC & EB were more stop-gap solutions that were not suppose to go on forever. However they have been extended longer than they were originally intended due to the crap economy. People normally would not get EUC or EB. Instead of adding on to peoples claims, they decided to use cut-off dates for determining eligibility. Essentially everyone who's initial claim or current tier ends before the cut off date is qualified for the next tier, anyone who's claim or tier ends after the cutoff date does not. It's definitely not the fairest way of doing things as someone filing a week later than someone else is probably in just as much need as someone filing the week before. I believe it's done this way so they can quantify the costs before hand. Definitely pinching pennies when it comes to the unemployed, but other stuff isn't put under as much scrutiny(bank bailout, war spending, tax cuts).
 
Old 12-02-2010, 08:05 AM
grant516
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie View Post
If the millionaire’s paid their tax obligation funds would be available for this. These cutbacks are how the tax cuts for the rich is “paid for” along with a myriad of other cutbacks. We all have to look after that 2% because God knows they need it in these hard economic times.
Your post isn't related to the question at hand.
If the government struck a giant oil well, we might now worry aboutit
... or if aliens beamed down 20 tons of solid gold, it might be paid for.

The issue at hand is the inequal distribution of what -is- available based on the day claims are issued.

If the emergency funds are OUT, why is it some continue to recieve 19 more weeks, while others may only recieve two more weeks.

Wouldn't a system that is fair to everyone, even if it meant at that point anyone past 26 weeks was completely cut off, make more sense?
 
Old 12-02-2010, 02:32 PM
 
141 posts, read 362,689 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant516 View Post
Your post isn't related to the question at hand.
If the government struck a giant oil well, we might now worry aboutit
... or if aliens beamed down 20 tons of solid gold, it might be paid for.

The issue at hand is the inequal distribution of what -is- available based on the day claims are issued.

If the emergency funds are OUT, why is it some continue to recieve 19 more weeks, while others may only recieve two more weeks.

Wouldn't a system that is fair to everyone, even if it meant at that point anyone past 26 weeks was completely cut off, make more sense?
Not everything in life is fair.
 
Old 12-02-2010, 02:42 PM
 
32 posts, read 54,488 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by plenewken View Post
Not everything in life is fair.
That's not really a valid excuse for something being unfair nor is it a valid explanation to someone who has a valid critique on how these tiers are setup.
 
Old 12-02-2010, 02:57 PM
 
141 posts, read 362,689 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unemployed2010 View Post
That's not really a valid excuse for something being unfair nor is it a valid explanation to someone who has a valid critique on how these tiers are setup.
There's no explanation other than cut-off dates are arbitrary and 1 day can make a big difference.
I'd rather be in my 20th week than my 36th week, believe me. I was making MUCH more when I was working.
 
Old 12-02-2010, 05:01 PM
grant516
 
n/a posts
The system is set up that someone could lose their job on a Friday, and start their claim that Monday, and another can lose their job that Monday and file their claim after waiting a week- and that second person could get shafted as much as 19-20 weeks of UI compensation.

(quoting another post I made)
Without acquiring employment, you can recieve max any one of these numbers but NONE of which fall in between.

MIN 26, 46, 60, 73, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 MAX

Seeing this as the system which awards not merit, only chance- those who will recieve 26 are very unlucky, and those who recieve 99 are the luckiest.

...and as for life being unfair, that's well and good- but it's a serious issue when you can easily point out huge disparities in 'fairness' within our own government.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > General Forums > Work and Employment > Unemployment

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