Gary, even if it is paid out only by the employer (and yes I know it varies by state), that doesn't make it an 'entitlement' -- as an employer, the cost of paying into FUTA is figured into its cost of doing business -- just like wages. Wages are not an entitlement either.

For the sake of keeping things simple. We pay taxes weekly (or per pay period) both state and federal. Part of those taxes translates into paying into unemployment.

---

#resist

I pay into it, And I have to pay taxes on it, so why is that an entitlement?

Then you must be in a state where the program is different than most. FUTA is paid by the employer, not the employee. So you do not pay into it, at least the federal portion. Your state may make you pay into the state portion. In my state the rate paid is based on the employer's experience, which I would argue indicates it is not individual based. If it isn't individual based it is hard to say the program is really insurance. If it isn't insurance, then isn't it a handout? At least an argument can be made that it is. If your state does make you pay into it, then an argument can be made it is insurance and that portion is not a handout.

In case you wonder, twice a month I prepare payroll. For the most part I do let the computer do the calculations, but there are the occasions, e.g. garnishment or non-cash bonus, where I may have to drag out Circular E and do something by hand. So I do really know of what I speak.

---

But the real question on our discussion persists, is the first impulse to grab for unemployment or to ask the acquaintance network if they know of any openings.

I don't see what's wrong with doing BOTH.

I already admitted to you, my step one would be to file the claim. Then, I start the job hunt. A person could do both of these things in a matter of a couple hours, however finding a job can take anywhere from weeks to months depending on what you do, what your qualifications are, and what your needs are.


As to your comment about a union guy sitting around waiting for a union job and collecting unemployment, that kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed to go on for prolonged periods. . . I'm pro union, but that's another example of a union worker not putting their fare share into our system.

Back in 04 when my job was offshored. I did both. I was laid off for 2 weeks shy of two years. Because my job was offshored I was eleigible for that extra year of U.I. I had to look for work every week and asked around socially for where there was work. I finaly took the first job that was offerd. And it was a crappy job with nasty bosses to boot. I stayed long enough to get the job I have now.

Unemployment is not a handout. I pay into it, And I have to pay taxes on it, so why is that an entitlement?

---

[/quote]

Old James

Gary, we 'progressed' that far by the 19th century. It brought us robber barons and some pretty ugly social and political issues.

I like to think we've progressed from there. I realize you think we may have regressed from there. Guess that makes you something of a regressive <smile>

Regarding pass judgments on individual programs -- given your philosophical position you don't have to -- they are all bad. As I noted, we'll agree to disagree on that.

But the real question on our discussion persists, is the first impulse to grab for unemployment or to ask the acquaintance network if they know of any openings.

I don't see what's wrong with doing BOTH.

I already admitted to you, my step one would be to file the claim. Then, I start the job hunt. A person could do both of these things in a matter of a couple hours, however finding a job can take anywhere from weeks to months depending on what you do, what your qualifications are, and what your needs are.


As to your comment about a union guy sitting around waiting for a union job and collecting unemployment, that kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed to go on for prolonged periods. . . I'm pro union, but that's another example of a union worker not putting their fare share into our system.

---

#resist

Gary, I feel it's pretty extreme to make that comparison (programs= lords and serfs). But I'll keep an open mind.

The logical conclusion; far from the intention I'll admit, but perverting government is a sport.

I'll argue that if you did away with the governments control of these programs, some corporation would step in and start TRULY owning people... This is the evil that true libertarianism would breed IMHO.

I don't think there is a way to turn a profit on a give away, but, perhaps there is, such as a church.

---

We did have a discussion. Some people their first thought will be to run to collect a check. Others will run to get the resume out the door.

I have a good friend who falls into the latter category now. Mind you only because of IRS meddling. He is what anyone but the IRS would say is self employed. He works for about 20 to 30 different companies per year. Fifteen years ago they all paid him by invoice and 1099. The IRS had a hissy fit over it as his job function didn't pass their 30 part independent contractor test. So today all these jobs put him on payroll and give him a W-2. The jobs may be from 1/2 day to a week in length. In the between times, now he is unemployed and can collect. Too damn much hassle as he frequently gets another job before the minimum time to get the first check goes by.

I have another friend who is in the first category. He is a union man. He will only take a job through the union hall. There are too many doing his job and it is an artistic type of job to boot. He will sit unemployed waiting for the call from the union hall for months to a couple of years. At one point I offered him cash for his particular service, but he declined because it wasn't a union job. As long as he visits the hall on occasion then he stays eligible for that unemployment check.

I willing to admit a third class, someone who has been through the system and who knows that getting in a claim quick gets another check.

But the real question on our discussion persists, is the first impulse to grab for unemployment or to ask the acquaintance network if they know of any openings.

---

Gary, I feel it's pretty extreme to make that comparison (programs= lords and serfs). But I'll keep an open mind.

I'll argue that if you did away with the governments control of these programs, some corporation would step in and start TRULY owning people... This is the evil that true libertarianism would breed IMHO.

---

#resist

Gary, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive.

Regarding the entitlements you reject as not being the task of government -- I suspect we'll simply end up disagreeing.

I have a strong philosophical aversion to all entitlements. It creates the climate as we had back in the old days where the serfs (everyone) owed their allegiance to the Lord (government). Where the Lord decided what functions everyone did and owned all the land, labor, goods and profit; then decided which serf got how much of what. Seems like slavery to me. Entitlements are just a more sophisticated version. I would like to think human kind has progressed beyond the need of such systems.

Problems with welfare handling in the US -- certainly. Eliminate it? Not in my book. Reform it further -- definitely.

Food stamps -- handled properly (and by and large I believe it is), it can something of a win-win. The reason it has gotten much bigger in the past years is largely the economy.

Pell grants -- I've no major problem with them, aside from the inclination of universities to simply suck up the funding by raising tuition prices.

I haven't passed judgement on individual programs, many are indeed worthy, but the issue is that if any are government functions, then it is all to easy to argue in another program under a similar exception; suddenly you have everything in and we easily could end up back with serfs and the government elite in total control.

Heck, we don't need entitlements if we simply outlaw recessions and unemployment <smile>.

Considering the CO2 issue and the need to reduce world population to prevent tripping points being reached you get 90 days to support yourself or else. ;)

Tax policy issues -- we probably don't disagree that much -- though 'social policy via tax code' and 'entitlements' sometimes don't have all that much to distinguish them.

Except which side of the equation the money comes from, before government collection or post government collection. Some may think this a non-issue, but it isn't. It is a major distinction. Does the government own everything and thus is free to take it all and do with it as it wishes, or do you own it and simply pay a fee for shared (common good) functions of the government such as military, police, fire, water, sewer, roads, ... ? How government chooses to calculate the fee then is another matter.

---

I think a lot of posters here express themselves reasonably well. It is the small minority that can't or won't agree to disagree, that can cause unnecessary friction. But now and again they pack their bucket and spade for a well earned holiday and hopefully relax a while.

It's all pretty good really :-))

Dave, there are times that Gary has a Dickensian Scrooge before the visitations mode about him. But he does express himself reasonably well. <smile>

What caused this? Obama dropped the requirement the do 20 hours training to get a job per week.

Left the decision of what requirements to make to state and local governments? If correct, then I would think a Libertarian would be happy.

The State's Rights part is very happy. The anti-entitlement part is disgusted. It is never the function of the Government to have entitlement programs. If a private entity wants to do entitlement fine, but no citizen should be forced at gunpoint to provide entitlements. An entitlement is for the good of one, not the common good, and not a function of government.

I imagine you find Unemployment Insurance an entitlement, and probably the worst one of all. Suppose someone takes it for ONE MONTH? Finds another job in the same field, thus continuing to provide a much needed service and contributing to society (and the economy) in other ways?

Myself and Gary have already had the discussion about unemployment benefits. I really am bothered by his take on it. I'm all for reforming the system into something that does a better job of making sure receivers are out looking for a job, but I have said it before and will say it again, if I ever loose my job the first thing I would do is file for UI, I pay into it weekly and that's what it's there for. I also would have a new job in less than a month as my trade is somewhat useful in my city, but I do NOT think unemployment is an entitlement, I think it's a protection.

---

#resist

Gary, my list wasn't intended to be exhaustive.

Regarding the entitlements you reject as not being the task of government -- I suspect we'll simply end up disagreeing.

Problems with welfare handling in the US -- certainly. Eliminate it? Not in my book. Reform it further -- definitely.

Food stamps -- handled properly (and by and large I believe it is), it can something of a win-win. The reason it has gotten much bigger in the past years is largely the economy.

Pell grants -- I've no major problem with them, aside from the inclination of universities to simply suck up the funding by raising tuition prices.

Heck, we don't need entitlements if we simply outlaw recessions and unemployment <smile>.

Tax policy issues -- we probably don't disagree that much -- though 'social policy via tax code' and 'entitlements' sometimes don't have all that much to distinguish them.

What caused this? Obama dropped the requirement the do 20 hours training to get a job per week.

Left the decision of what requirements to make to state and local governments? If correct, then I would think a Libertarian would be happy.

The State's Rights part is very happy. The anti-entitlement part is disgusted. It is never the function of the Government to have entitlement programs. If a private entity wants to do entitlement fine, but no citizen should be forced at gunpoint to provide entitlements. An entitlement is for the good of one, not the common good, and not a function of government.

I imagine you find Unemployment Insurance an entitlement, and probably the worst one of all. Suppose someone takes it for ONE MONTH? Finds another job in the same field, thus continuing to provide a much needed service and contributing to society (and the economy) in other ways?

Insurance, including annuities, are not an entitlement as they are paid for by the people who are eligible for the benefit. If Social Security and Medicare were properly funded from this source they could not be entitlements. I believe that was the original idea. That the spends in Washington raided their funding source, is another matter. In any case insurance products an actuary can figure out the correct funding rate so as they are not an entitlement. I'm not happy with them being run public, but I would listen to an argument that the risk pool is too large for any but a monopoly to undertake. I notice you did not lost Worker's Compensation Insurance.

As to the rest of you list of programs, yes they are entitlements.

As to the tax issues, that is a very slippery slope. There may be some common good issue in what is trying to be accomplished, frequently however such social policy through the tax code simply results in perversion that is worse than doing nothing.

I'm off to a meeting ...

---

Gary,

I'd say that up to the early 20th century it was never the virtually function of the US Government to have entitlement programs. Since then, for various reasons, and I believe many of them good, we have seen increasing use of them.

Social Security is an entitlement program
Food stamps
Medicare
Medicaid
Welfare
Pell Grants
Farm aid
Ethanol payments

Then there are the entitlements written into the tax code

Home mortgage interest deductions
Health insurance deductions
Medical expense deductions
Contributions
Accelerated depreciation
Lowered rates on capital gains and dividends
Favored tax status for retirement plans
Education deductions

All of these (and many more I suspect) can be defined, in one way or another as 'entitlements'.

Some of them reflect social program 'goods' that might fit under 'the common good'. Some of them reflect tax policy that might fit under 'the common good'.

Some of them might simply be well meaning but misguided.

I'm disinclined to make a blanket statement that all entitlements are not a function of government.

It is never the function of the Government to have entitlement programs. If a private entity wants to do entitlement fine, but no citizen should be forced at gunpoint to provide entitlements. An entitlement is for the good of one, not the common good, and not a function of government.

What caused this? Obama dropped the requirement the do 20 hours training to get a job per week.

Left the decision of what requirements to make to state and local governments? If correct, then I would think a Libertarian would be happy.

The State's Rights part is very happy. The anti-entitlement part is disgusted. It is never the function of the Government to have entitlement programs. If a private entity wants to do entitlement fine, but no citizen should be forced at gunpoint to provide entitlements. An entitlement is for the good of one, not the common good, and not a function of government.

---

PLEASE TRY to be CIVIL and On Topic when answering Posts.

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Locking For A 23 Hour Cool Off And To Allow Some To Do Some Thinking And line up Their Thoughts.
MAYBE EVEN TEMPER THEIR RESPONSES.

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)