It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unemployment Checks: The fastest way to Creat Jobs....

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM
And another thing to reinforce my argument...

How else do I know that UI checks are good for the economy?


posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM
Are you actually using Archie Bunker to back up your statement?

If you can't make the link to some income and what it does for local businesses, I can't help you.

No money=no business
Some money =some business

What my state does if you collect tanf, or cash assistance welfare, you have the option to sign up for work experience. You are essentially working for the money at the welfare office. That way you get experience(a lot of the people don't have the experience they need) and it alleviates the gap in the resume. It is a very good system, and everyone finds a job, with the exception of the one or two crazies.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Not using Archie Bunker to back up anything, it was inserted as humor and my post directly is from the source link in OP.

And in the subsequent post, you can see the ongoing discussion about the end user of monies. Of course it will only mitigate some decline for some sectors, not the boost as many believe it to be.

To utterly go out their and say UI benefits are the quickest way to boost jobs just legitimizes their reason to put more individuals on UI benefits.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:35 PM
reply to post by prionace glauca

First, she's not entirely wrong. The economy truly would be that much less stimulated if this money were to disappear. More jobs would be lost. And those without the checks would probably seek additional assistance.

Second, it's not all small businesses that are and have been laying off people by the tens of thousands. And I don't believe it's employers who are funding all the extensions either.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by prionace glauca

Most employers factor this cost as what on their taxes? A cost of doing business? An expense? A deduction.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Big businesses have much larger coffers to deal with than small businesses. Small businesses outnumber big businesses. UI taxes collected from businesses are forwarded to the government to be handed out, they are in charge of the revenue collected and disbursement.

As for factoring in costs for deduction on the businesses end year taxes:

Business Insurance Premiums

The IRS lists (in Pub. 535) the following as generally accepted premium deductions:

* Credit insurance that covers losses from business bad debts.
* Group hospitalization and medical insurance for employees, including long-term care insurance.
* Liability insurance.
* Malpractice insurance that covers your personal liability for professional negligence resulting in injury or damage to patients or clients.
* Workers' compensation insurance set by state law that covers any claims for bodily injuries or job-related diseases suffered by employees in your business, regardless of fault.
* Contributions to a state unemployment insurance fund are deductible as taxes if they are considered taxes under state law.
* Overhead insurance that pays for business overhead expenses you have during long periods of disability caused by your injury or sickness.
* Car and other vehicle insurance that covers vehicles used in your business for liability, damages, and other losses. NOTE: Only if you use the actual cost method of figuring automobile expense - if you take the mileage deduction this is not applicable.
* Life insurance covering your officers and employees if you are not directly or indirectly a beneficiary under the contract.
* Business interruption insurance that pays for lost profits if your business is shut down due to a fire or other cause.

A business can only include deductions on items they themselves eventually benefit from, UI does not benefit employers.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by prionace glauca

Any statistics on who lays off more people? Also, as I said, what they pay into UI is a deduction. It's all factored in to things like salaries and profits. It's also a known cost and risk of doing business.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 12:57 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

As I mentioned in another thread, the welfare office has been flooded. It is supposed to be the slower time of years as people get summer jobs. But instead it is the busiest I have seen in awhile, because of all the unemployment ending.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by prionace glauca

Contributions to a state unemployment insurance fund are deductible as taxes if they are considered taxes under state law. Source

In addition, I quickly looked, and small businesses, by either methodology used to calculate number of jobs/layoffs appear to run slightly lower as far as jobs created/lost. In the neighborhood of 7%-10% lower. In aggregate. I also see this is a GOP talking point, which I didn't realize until I started a search. But in all six articles I quickly peeked at I saw no sources or math. If there are such things you are aware of, I'd appreciate some links.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Here too. So arguing from the particular stance that cutting unemployment benefits will somehow save money seems contradictory. Treating every unemployed person as a lazy bum is not only unwarrented but flat out judgmental slander that is typically coming from people who still have jobs or are in other ways disconnected from the reality of what is happening.

In a way, too, the reactions of many employers in this "economy" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's half if not all illusion. Employers hear how "bad" it is and say wow I better lay some people or take the opportunity to cut people they have been looking for excuses to cut anyway. Then they wind up adding to the problem. This in turn effects the people who are still working who now have to work harder, and the consequences of that are yet to be felt. This also in turn makes people buy less goods in fear that they need to save money, money which they are becoming more skeptical of putting in the crooked banks.

I'd bet that if the fearmongers on the major networks never started spreading the economy horror stories, the economy would be in a lot better shape.

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:24 PM
And why do business decide to lay off workers? Is it because they can't afford them or because...
A. it will increase a business' profit margin,
2. the boss take 1.28 million instead of 1.27 million, or
III. yield a 7.2% return to investors instead of 7%?

If you guessed all three, you would be right. So they cut workers in the name of their own greed and send millions to the unemployment office creating less economic stimulation.

TI to lay off 2,500 despite beating estimates

Apple lays off 1,600 'geniuses'
Despite posting record financial results

Microsoft to lay off 5000 employees despite still making 4.17 B profit

Ericsson to lay off 5,000 despite posting profit of 462 million

Siemens announces job cuts despite high quarterly profits

The Case Against Lay-offs - Our overreliance on downsizing is killing workers, the economy—and even the bottom line.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:54 PM
Pelosi is indeed correct in her assessment here: unemployment checks allows some money, in whatever capacity, to be transferred from buyer to seller, and ultimately contribute to the overall scheme of the economy. No unemployment checks would be no money whatsoever, thus no transfer of money between hands. It is of utmost importance, at this stage, to keep the economy afloat through whatever means, including so-called 'socialized' programs such as UI, food stamps, etc.

Of course, Republican zeal for unmitigated free trade is one of the major factors in our widespread unemployment: George H.W. Bush spear-headed the creation of NAFTA, which helped further a snow-balling trade deficit that had started way back when so-called 'progressive' politicians like FDR ignored Keynes at Bretton-Woods and allowed the US dollar to act as a reserve currency for global capitalism. NAFTA's job displacement follows the exact model of free-market capitalism that both conservatives and the majority of the liberals extol, which is simply where jobs or even entire firms can and must be outsourced to lower cost regions. Of course this will disastrous in the long-run for the average America, but for the industrial elite and their bankers, it is a perpetual payday. That is the nature of the economy now that we must keep afloat.

There are two solutions: recognize the collective failures of free-market doctrine, and end the reign of the US dollar as a reserve currency. One solution shifts the balance of power from the elite and closer to the citizen-spectators, and the other ends America's stint as a world power.

If jobs are to be generated in full-swing, and the economy is to be rebounded, then we have to make necessary sacrifices in our notion of "America." America simply is not sustainable anymore.

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 11:20 AM
Op-ed in the NY Times by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman:

"Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly"

Case Closed

posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip

And according to most sane economist, she is absolutely right. For every 1 dollar spent on unemployment it generates $1.61 back into the economy. For Food Stamps, every dollar yields $1.71 back into the economy. These are highly stimulating programs.

The only thing that makes unemployment and welfare benefits more "efficient" in economists' calculus is that they are "direct transfers," i.e., taxpayers' money paid directly to the beneficiaries.

Where economists miss the boat is in their assumptions that 100% of such benefits are returned directly into the economy to keep a flow of cash into businesses and their employees.

Unfortunately, that assumption is flawed and without basis in the lives of the recipients.

Cash payments can and do go to many other things than business. Utilities are a large percentage of basic living expense and are returned to the government-funded, or investor-funded utility, whose bonds and equities pay the highest returns to investors. The "underground" economy takes a portion that will never support new jobs or job creation.

Voucher payments, as in WIC and Welfare, are used only for foodstuffs and basic sustenance in industries that are themselves cash-strapped due to increasing commodity prices, labor costs and debt. Again, no net job creation.

Tax cuts come into play where NEW investment is required or encouraged from people and businesses with accumulated capital (money) waiting for a safe opportunity to put it back to work.

At present, most "sane economists" will tell you that there is about $13 trillion of hoarded capital and profits being held OUT of the economy because of economic uncertainty, confiscatory tax and regulatory policies, and a lack of incentives or confidence that such investments will be rewarded.

When the government insists that transfers of wealth are the keys to recovery, those who hold the wealth will resist and avoid such tansfers by remaining on the sidelines.

When tax and regulatory policies ease to make business less of a gamble, or outright theft (think of Chrysler's "secured creditors, like teachers' and police pension funds, who lost their entire investments/retirement funds to Obama's transfer to the UAW), investors and entrepreneurs will return, and bring jobs, to the market.

Ask any "sane economist."

deny ignorance


[edit on 5-7-2010 by jdub297]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in