Watching WalMart

Actually I think you can usually get away with simply walking out on a lease and the worst you might lose is a security deposit. That's certainly what I would do if I were in that desperate situation.

I see we've now moved on to the notion that someone doesn't deserve unemployment because the employer pays it?

I've had unemployment benefits paid for me since I was 15 and have never used them. However, in the event that I did need them the state would only look back at my last 6 months of employment to determine eligibility. Where's the logic in that?

A perfect example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/us/26stimulus.html?_r=1&hp

It sounds really great at first, people who are unemployed get "jobs" subsidized by the government. However under normal conditions these jobs wouldn't exist. So all the government accomplishes in doing really is to push the inevitable down the road a year.

I wonder how many folks in this program might have attained real employment by now had the government avoided creating make work for them to do? Did the government really help these people over the long run, or did it hurt them?

I wonder how many of you shopkeepers who feel so victimized by these people who are in need of help refuse to take their money.

What's your point?

My performance has made every one of my employers a ton of money- a tiny portion of which they are required by law to pay into the unemployment system.

And when I was self employed I too paid into it.

Actually, I was trying to understand your position. I thought it was your position that you were just collecting that which you had paid.

Probably, also, you have received some bad advise in the past--self employed aren't eligible for unemployment nor are they required to pay into unemployment.

Noone has questioned your work contribution.

I wonder how many of you shopkeepers who feel so victimized by these people who are in need of help refuse to take their money.

Who's money? Also I haven't been victimized. The people in this program, they've been victimized - the federal government brushed them under a rug for a year.

I see we've now moved on to the notion that someone doesn't deserve unemployment because the employer pays it?

I've had unemployment benefits paid for me since I was 15 and have never used them. However, in the event that I did need them the state would only look back at my last 6 months of employment to determine eligibility. Where's the logic in that?

The unemployment tax is a tax placed on an employer for having an employee. It accrues to no-one in specific.
The government determines who receives benefits (not necessarily based on who deserves it)
When the fund is depleted the government raises the employment tax rate making the cost of an employee more expensive. There will be a trend toward "contract employees" or "temp employees" as cost rise.

It's a bigger issue:

The Florida unemployment fund ran out of money in August 2009, so any payments made since then are from a federal loan - that has to be paid back and starts accruing interest in January of 2011.

More than 30 states have no money left in their unemployment funds and have borrowed more than $40 billion so they can keep making payments.

And it certainly didn't help that less the 20 states had the necessary reserves on hand pre-recession - preferring to keep taxes and fund payments low.

Yet more billions of dollars we are spending and borrowing - regardless of who is paying into the fund, all of the benefits being paid out in the last year = deficit spending.

Actually, I was trying to understand your position. I thought it was your position that you were just collecting that which you had paid.

Probably, also, you have received some bad advise in the past--self employed aren't eligible for unemployment nor are they required to pay into unemployment.

Noone has questioned your work contribution.

RTC, In 2004 I owned retail stores in St. Louis and Minnesota and I'm pretty certain I was paying unemployment taxes for my employees. Clearly you are sharp enough to point out all these semantics. So I have a feeling you get my points on the issue of unemployment.

The unemployment tax is a tax placed on an employer for having an employee. It accrues to no-one in specific.
The government determines who receives benefits (not necessarily based on who deserves it)
When the fund is depleted the government raises the employment tax rate making the cost of an employee more expensive. There will be a trend toward "contract employees" or "temp employees" as cost rise.

That's where your wrong. Each employer has an account with the state. A friend of mine was HR Director for a company with anywhere from 200-400 employees depending on season. He specifically fought unemployment claims that were bogus (i.e. employee quit, was fired for good reason, etc.) specifically so that when the season ended and employees were getting unemployment benefits the company did not have to pay into the fund once the fund was depleted.

Why does the employer pay into unemployment? They pay it because it's a safe guard for the employee in case said employer goes out of business. Lets not turn this into a "business's are taxed unfairly" argument.

RTC, In 2004 I owned retail stores in St. Louis and Minnesota and I'm pretty certain I was paying unemployment taxes for my employees. Clearly you are sharp enough to point out all these semantics. So I have a feeling you get my points on the issue of unemployment.

I believe I addressed that in response to SWGB.

That's where your wrong. Each employer has an account with the state. A friend of mine was HR Director for a company with anywhere from 200-400 employees depending on season. He specifically fought unemployment claims that were bogus (i.e. employee quit, was fired for good reason, etc.) specifically so that when the season ended and employees were getting unemployment benefits the company did not have to pay into the fund once the fund was depleted.

Why does the employer pay into unemployment? They pay it because it's a safe guard for the employee in case said employer goes out of business. Lets not turn this into a "business's are taxed unfairly" argument.

A company's tax rate is adjusted based on "experience", if the company contributions are insufficient to cover claims-the claims are paid from the general fund and the rate is increased.

There are many reasons unemployment compensation exists in the current form not just to protect from going out of business.

I didn't speak to fairness (or unfairness) of any taxation.

You pay a penalty, default and take the hit, transfer the lease, renegotiate .........

Ideally you have deficiency insurance that allows you to cancel a lease in event of financial hardship or major health problems. ........." no one carries deficiency insurance, you are responsible for the remaining payments until disposition. you cannot transfer a lease unless you find a highly qualified idiot willing to make you a charity case. paying a penalty is for condition/miles. You cannot cancel a lease. you can walk away after the dealer laughs at your renegotiation request......"



Or the fact that anything over 27 weeks is atypical and considered long term. Which is why 26-39 weeks has been the legal maximum for years.

..would you consider our unemployment rates and current economic stagnation atypical?