Forced Drug & Alcohol Testing to get Unemployment Benefits

reply to post by PayMeh


Tax is a for profit business. Its for the profit of the government to do as it sees fit. Unemployment tax is no different than Social Security Tax. They both are deducted from income to go for a specific program unlike your state and federal taxes which go to whatever.

I have made no claims to my support of this legislation. I am attempting to correct the numerous inaccuracies being said about who pays what with regards to unemployment taxes, you being one of those spreading ignorant lies. I have not completely thought through my position on the matter so I will refrain from commenting, but I will continue to comment on tax laws and misinformation being spread by many members hear with obviously no knowledge of how such things work.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Well Blaine .. I agree with you more than not. I think our whole society and the country are falling apart. And I actually think a lot of it has to do with moral decay .. a particular type of moral decay. People who are routinely and habitually dishonest in many ways, people who have no respect for others or themselves, people who almost totally lack the concept of personal responsibility ...

Too bad you aren't within my commute distance, I'd love to try and work for you depending on what the job is. I give a good day's work for my pay and I'm honest, reliable, responsible, and internally motivated. In 36 years I've never lost a job for performance reasons.

On the other hand, I'm "old" (over 50), overweight, and not "pretty." From my perspective it seems like too many employers are looking for eye candy instead of good workers, especially for office and administrative type jobs.

Back to the topic. I myself was unemployed for almost a year recently and I know I was really trying to find a job. But for six weeks or so earlier this year I took a temporary assignment doing peoples' taxes for them. It was a free service as the client was a nonprofit, and I saw a lot of people who admitted to happily sitting on their duffs collecting unemployment and not really looking for a job. They thought I was a volunteer so they didn't have any concerns about telling me such things. And I don't even want to start thinking, let alone talking, about the people who collect SSI for some of the most ridiculous reasons and never have to work a day while getting more money than I make working full time.

reply to post by ninthaxis


You are approaching this from the point of view of a bureaucrat with no real world experience. Every dime that goes to the government reduces what I can pay. Period end of subject. Play games all you want. It has been called Insurance since its inception and presented to us as such by the government.

The new wording is to hide the fact they routinely fail to keep the funds in a separate pool. To hide past lies that were told.

Social Security was supposed to accrue in a pool also. Can you point us all to the account where this pool of money is kept?

You old enough to remember in 1980 when we all found out that this insurance fund had been borrowed and spent by the Fed's and the States and they could not pay benefits. Some people waited as long as three months to get their first check. People lost their houses over that big fat lie. Remember that and the 21% Mortgage Rates? I do.

I only drew unemployment once in my life as an employee. It was then. I waited 11 weeks for my first check even though I maxed out my payments every quarter for almost 8 years. Those 11 weeks were after the two weeks it took to get the process going. I could not even get a tank of gas to look for work, which technically made me ineligible. You ever known how that feels?

We are hitting a brick wall here and those in government are protecting their own backsides and jobs, by finding any way they can to reduce spending without laying off the half of government workers who are sucking the system dry while they surf porn on our nickel. While they destroy the wealth we create.

I have a close friend who is always bragging to me about the fact she can take three full months a year off her government job, without being docked a single days pay. She makes about $120,000 plus over $40,000 in benefits. What does she do? She moves barrels with an overhead winch, from one side of a government warehouse to the other side. That is it. That is all she does. 9 months a year for 12 months of pay. Some great job, eh?

If I worked for the government and knew I was grossly overpaid and how lazy I could be and not get fired, I'd probably defend them vigorously also.

I can't decide on this issue.

I am pro-legalization of all drugs, but at the same time understand the risks of abuse and people who will abuse the system. Testing is a logical recourse, but then invades the personal space and rights of anyone bound to it. Can't determine what's the morally right or wrong thing to do on this type of issue...

I say base unemployment benefits on how much tax you have paid (if our tax system was legit, morally right or constitutional) and if you have paid taxes say, for 5 years, and lose your job...you're entitled to benefits. If you continuously abuse the system or can't hold a job, you aren't entitled. You can get unemployment if you lose your job within 30 days, in my state. 30 days is the time to determine if a job is "suitable" or "met expectations", IE, if a job promises a guaranteed bonus of 1,000 every 3 months and you don't get that...you can quit and get unemployment...dead serious.

Where is your real world experience? You are approaching this from someone who has obviously never read even the most basic tax laws or codes. Go look up the Federal Unemployment TAX Act and State Unemployment TAX Act. They are taxes levied by the government that a business pays on a percent of wages. Insurances payments are flat rates, not percentages such as this. It is a tax and to argue otherwise is semantics on your part. This isn't some beaurocratic nonsense this IS real world buddy. Some states do require an additional unemployment INSURANCE to be carried by companies but this is by no means the standard. Take some time to educate yourself on the above matters and respond back intelligently.

Yet another insulting and degrading law for the slaves to follow.......

The bankers didn't have to be tested to receive our multi-trillion dollar handout. Why should the slaves?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ninthaxis

 

I only drew unemployment once in my life as an employee. It was then. I waited 11 weeks for my first check even though I maxed out my payments every quarter for almost 8 years. Those 11 weeks were after the two weeks it took to get the process going. I could not even get a tank of gas to look for work, which technically made me ineligible. You ever known how that feels?

This is further verification of your ignorance of tax laws. There is both a state and federal max that is payed by your employer. Those few states that have the employee pay the tax also have a limit on wages subject to the unemployment tax. This isn't something that gets paid "to the max" every quarter, once you hit the gross wage limit taxes are no longer withheld for unemployment.

reply to post by hhott


That's the best application I've had in a while.

Shhhhh, there are government folks on here, so don't repeat this. I give the handicapped and older people preference in hiring. I have a small office. Most of us are handicapped, including me.

You sound motivated, so you will manage to get by I'm sure. People who treat finding a job, like a job, do the best in hard times.

Sit down and write a letter to go with your Resume. Be open with what you say in it. Explain the things that have happened. It might surprise you how fast you find something good. Tell them they can hire an irresponsible youngster who has had five jobs in the last year, or they can hire you a good worker, a reliable person who will show up every day and not take a day off for a hangnail, and get the advantage of all your life experience.

Good luck with your hunting. Again I apologize for not being more third person in what I said before.

reply to post by ninthaxis


Your youth is showing. I'm sorry but I can't fight that.

Every dollar I pay to the government for any reason whatsoever, is a dollar less I can pay to my employees. My payroll is handled by my bank and I may not be fully up to speed on every damn detail of it, but I pay it. I cut the checks. I make the deposits to the accounts. My Employees and I create every penny and the government takes it away from me (us).

Do you understand business, how wealth is created, what profits are, what determines how much you can pay your people? I perform a service, which means that every penny I pay out deducts a penny from what I can share with my employee's. What is hard about understanding that?

In 1980 how much you paid in on prior quarters was exactly how it was handled. It determined the amount and the duration of your checks. You can't possibly have knowledge going back that far. You are very young, correct?

If you are not even aware that Unemployment Insurance was developed as an Insurance and originally called Insurance with a shared risk pool, they screwed you on your training.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

quit smoking pot and
you got nothing
to worry about

lol I don't smoke pot or use any other drugs. I probably only drink about a 24 beers in a given year. My issue isn't with the drug testing it's with the politicians that think I and every American should have to pay for drug testing in the midst of a deep recession. Although I would imagine government contracts with chemical testing firms would quadruple, and more work will become available. That is not want I want, if I had any say.

Originally posted by The_Undertaker
I don't think this is a totally bad idea. I personally know plenty of drug addicts who collect unemployment. As, a taxpayer, it kinda ticks me off.

Although, I am against drug testing, as I don't feel the government should regulate what a person puts into their body. The fact remains, a lot of people do take advantage of the system, and that can make it harder for people who really need the help.

A complicated matter indeed.

Although, if the Government is gonna make everybody take a drug test, for those benefits, are they gonna foot the bill, or will the people have to cover it themselves?

Will it be covered in the new US Health Care Plan?

Drug testing costs money, and quite frankly I wouldn't want our tax dollars going towards that, and even if it doesn't, it creates more revenue for the drug testing companies.

A conspiracy... quite possibly!

What if you were someone who was unfortunately put out of a job? Even if you had been paying tax (and therefore funding social security), do you think it would be correct that you would be therefore forbidden from drinking beer to claim benefits? This is a grotesque violation of civil liberties, government has no place whatsoever in saying what people may do of their own volition... I can understand the drug testing (as, although consumption is not illegal, more or less everything else relating to drugs is illegal) but I think it is absurd that the legislators have the absolute gall to say you are undeserving of benefits if you like to have a drink every now and then. I never could understand why American legislators seem to hate alcohol and people who consume it so much...

reply to post by ninthaxis


I am in NC and I can confirm that they do have a company account in a larger fund. There are mandatory tax rates based on the employees of the company and unemployment rate of the state. Then there are a tax rate that slides for each individual employer. As the employer withdraws benefits from their account for employees...that employer pays a higher rate. This was supposed to stabilize workforces and make sure employers didn't wantonly hire and fire as they pleased. If they did without good reason the employee still received their UI benefits and the employer paid a slight increase to their personal fund. A good employer or a terrible employer that makes up reasons to deny UI benefits in theory would have the lowest draw rate on their account and once that employer reaches the cap would only pay into the state tax fund.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
In a shocking amendment to the 2010 Unemployment Extension Bill, lawmakers now want to force drug & alcohol tests on the unemployed to qualify for benefits.

What a shock!!! You mean the unemployed can't get stoned on the Govt. dole????? What is the world coming to? Nobody is "forcing" them to take unemployment, they can choose not to and still get lit up......... life is full of choices.

Originally posted by ninthaxis
Where is your real world experience? You are approaching this from someone who has obviously never read even the most basic tax laws or codes. Go look up the Federal Unemployment TAX Act and State Unemployment TAX Act. They are taxes levied by the government that a business pays on a percent of wages. Insurances payments are flat rates, not percentages such as this. It is a tax and to argue otherwise is semantics on your part. This isn't some beaurocratic nonsense this IS real world buddy. Some states do require an additional unemployment INSURANCE to be carried by companies but this is by no means the standard. Take some time to educate yourself on the above matters and respond back intelligently.

I've never had unemployment taxes taken from my paycheck. Never!! The employer has always paid this tax. And, yes, it is a percentage rate. Some businesses pay a lower percentage rate. Some higher. At least this is the way it is in Kentucky. Construction companies pay a high percentage rate. Last time I set up a new construction company's accounting system, this rate was 10 percent. A bit high. That's because, first, it's a construction company. Layoffs due to seasons is considered. Secondly, this was an unproven construction company, so the company's activities will be reviewed from time to time. Less than the normal layoffs? The percentage rate is reduced. Other companies, the ones in categories that do not experience seasonal layoffs, or a high turnover of fired or laid off employees, then they get a reduced rate to begin with.

Anyway, back to the original topic, drug and alcohol testing for unemployment benefits? Doesn't seem right to me. Because the tax was already paid. The unemployed person who lost the job to no fault of his/her own, has already "paid" into the fund just by working in the first place. The benefits are based on past work history, not current state of mind and body of the unemployed person.

By the way, if you work for an employer and the employer is reluctant to fire individuals, and instead just makes the work environment miserable for the undesirables until they quit? This is a tactic to keep the unemployment insurance rate percentage low for the employer.

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
actually, that's fascism.. sounds about right
huh? what a world , what a world, these days

What a sick,sick world.



ATS sounds like the NWO already.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by RRokkyy]

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by andy1033

 

Who cares if they spend their money on a double qtr. pounder with cheese at McDonalds or a 6 pack of Busch? Who are you to say what others should do with their money?


[edit on 20-6-2010 by GreenBicMan]

Actually its not their money, it's mine, and every other taxpayer. So yeah, this can be a good thing if not abused.... but it's hard to trust our government not to abuse any of their power. But if i had to choose, then yes, if you at home collecting unemployment then i don't see the harm in random testing of these people to make sure that they aren't too comfortable sitting around all day in a drunken or drugged fog while my taxes pay their bills. Your not making much of an effort to find a new job if your sitting around all day getting stoned!! Especially when Obama is asking for even more $$$ to extend unemployment! When will it end??? As it stands now, they are actually taxing me into poverty.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by Under Water]

reply to post by ExPostFacto


It doesn't matter, I've been telling her that til I'm blue in the face and all I've gotten from her is...

a. UI says 'tax' in that column of her ledger which must mean that it is paid in and not to be expected to be returned.

b. She is smarter than anyone else on this forum.

Any discussion from this point on will be nothing more than arguing.

FWIW, I understand that it needs to be harder to abuse the system. This is not the answer.

Denying someone's benefits because they have a legal substance in their system such as alcohol is too far.

You want to keep people from abusing the system? Stop extending benefits, and those not employed when benefits run out can go apply for more permanent assistance. Feel free to restrict that program all you want.

reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


your ignornant. what does your hard earned money translate into of the trillions of dollars raised in taxes. what percentage of your income tax when spread out among all taxes dollars is actually being paid out in unemployment. .0001 cents maybe. you can't give an unemployed person .0001 cents. that can't even buy a half a toke of second hand ganja smoke.

Originally posted by Under Water

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by andy1033

 

Who cares if they spend their money on a double qtr. pounder with cheese at McDonalds or a 6 pack of Busch? Who are you to say what others should do with their money?


[edit on 20-6-2010 by GreenBicMan]

Actually its not their money, it's mine, and every other taxpayer. So yeah, this can be a good thing if not abused.... but it's hard to trust our government not to abuse any of their power. But if i had to choose, then yes, if you at home collecting unemployment then i don't see the harm in random testing of these people to make sure that they aren't too comfortable sitting around all day in a drunken or drugged fog while my taxes pay their bills. Your not making much of an effort to find a new job if your sitting around all day getting stoned!! Especially when Obama is asking for even more $$$ to extend unemployment! When will it end??? As it stands now, they are actually taxing me into poverty.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by Under Water]

Why is it your money? I don't understand how you feel it's yours when it is certainly most not.

Taxing you into poverty? Unlikely, especially if you have a median run of the mill salary you aren't taxed that heavily in the USA. The rich pay all the taxes so don't act like they are taking 38%+ unless you actually are justified.

reply to post by Under Water


Please feel free to read the whole thread before jumping in.

It's not your tax dollars, everyone funds this program themselves. Essentially the government is just holding the money for you. When you draw unemployment it's money that you've generated toward the fund. Only those who have never worked have not contributed. Therefore, when you get unemployment the money you get is money you created to start with.

I guarantee that each and every person on this thread has generated more for this fund than they could ever be allowed to withdraw.

So no, it's not your tax money.
You can't even get politicians to stop lining their own pockets.
If you're mad about where your tax dollars go, then there are much bigger pressing issues you should be concerned with.