Pee in a cup to get unimployment?

USFREEDOM911 said:
Give me one website that shows this; because the State regulates Unemployment and not any "localities".
Just one
Click to expand...
As for the argument of the cost to your paycheck of the unemployment insurance....

How 'bout the Cato Institute?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-302.html

The burden of taxation are often "hidden" in plain site. Please note the bolded portion, it may interest you.

To better understand how the burden of taxation is hidden from us, try the following thought experiment. Imagine that you are an average manufacturing wage worker. You receive a paycheck twice a month. Your gross earnings cost your employer $1,133.33 per pay period, but after unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and the employer's share of the payroll tax are included, your employer must spend $1,289.76. After income and payroll taxes, your take-home pay is $934.73. Now, assume that our current system of withholding and employer-paid taxes does not exist. In your bimonthly paycheck, your employer gives you the entire $1,289.76 that he must pay to keep you on the payroll, rather than your previous take-home pay of $934.73. That is 38 percent more than you were receiving. However, individual employees now must pay each and every one of the various government-imposed costs themselves. Imagine that every time you receive a paycheck you have to go to a series of windows and pay the cashiers behind each.

* At the first window you pay $86.70 for the "employer share" of the Social Security/Medicare payroll tax.


* At the second window you pay $58.12 for the workers' compensation contribution.


* At the third window you pay $9.28 for the state unemployment insurance tax.


* At the fourth window you pay $2.33 for the federal unemployment insurance tax.


* At the fifth window you pay another $86.70 for the employee's share of the Social Security/Medicare payroll tax.


* At the sixth window you pay $85.31 for the federal income tax.


* Finally, at the seventh window you pay $26.59 for the state income tax.
Click to expand...

As for a link to a locality that requires it to be listed on a paystub: I do not have a link to a locality that requires it be listed on the paystub, it is something that I heard existed and believe that some localities do require it, though I haven't found a link on the web for it. Simply accusing all people of lying when they may be mistaken makes you sound like an imbecile though.
 
Damocles said:
As for the argument of the cost to your paycheck of the unemployment insurance....

How 'bout the Cato Institute?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-302.html

The burden of taxation are often "hidden" in plain site. Please note the bolded portion, it may interest you.



As for a link to a locality that requires it to be listed on a paystub: I do not have a link to a locality that requires it be listed on the paystub, it is something that I heard existed and believe that some localities do require it, though I haven't found a link on the web for it. Simply accusing all people of lying when they may be mistaken makes you sound like an imbecile though.
Click to expand...

You can imagine that there's 20 windows, if you want; but your response does nothing to support the suggestion that teh employee pays for the Unemployment Insurance.

On this thead I posted two websites, from States on different sides of the US, that both show who pays for the Unemployment Insurance.
If you feel that you're correct, all I'm asking for is for you to show where one says exactly that.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Your link supported exactly what I've been saying.
Unemployment Insureance is paid for, by the employer.
There was nothing there that suggested it was paid for by the employee, or that the employer would pay the employee more if they didn't have to pay this.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but if you had read carefully you would have noted information regarding how much tax the employer pays and what that is based on. Here's something from another state that should clarify my point. http://www.mmdc.org/tables/Unemploy_insurance_MI.pdf

You have to note that the percentage the employer pays to the State is based on the paycheck of each employee. In this example, for every $9 grand the employer pays 2.7% towards unemployment insurance. In effect, that is money that could be put in the employee's pocket directly, but is used to set up unemployment insurance.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Your link supported exactly what I've been saying.
Unemployment Insureance is paid for, by the employer.
There was nothing there that suggested it was paid for by the employee, or that the employer would pay the employee more if they didn't have to pay this.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
Refering to your previous post, just shows that what you offered was just what you FELT.
Click to expand...

Wrong.....see my latest response.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but if you had read carefully you would have noted information regarding how much tax the employer pays and what that is based on. Here's something from another state that should clarify my point. http://www.mmdc.org/tables/Unemploy_insurance_MI.pdf

You have to note that the percentage the employer pays to the State is based on the paycheck of each employee. In this example, for every $9 grand the employer pays 2.7% towards unemployment insurance. In effect, that is money that could be put in the employee's pocket directly, but is used to set up unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...

You keep using phrases that imply it would be, just because it COULD be.
You have yet to show anything that supports your idea that they would do so.

The employer also pays for copy paper, lights, computers, computer connections, etc.
If you supply your own, does this mean that the employer WOULD pay you more then the next person??

Feelings do not show proof.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You keep using phrases that imply it would be, just because it COULD be.
You have yet to show anything that supports your idea that they would do so.

The employer also pays for copy paper, lights, computers, computer connections, etc.
If you supply your own, does this mean that the employer WOULD pay you more then the next person??

Feelings do not show proof.
Click to expand...


Given the absurd status of your analogy......two employees in one building...one has lights and electrical outlets, the other doesn't....one would have to create a complex fantasy business world. I won't go down that detour with you.

What I sourced to you and my subsequent statements points towards a "hidden cost", as it were. For every $9 grand, the employer has to pay 2.7% to the state for unemployment insurance. Now you are correct in surmizing that if the employer didn't pay into this, he could put the money towards a number of things.....facility maintenance, new equipment, salaries. What you don't acknowledge is that as an employee, your salary is DIRECTLY affected by unemployment insurance in that it DIRECTLY affects the company bottom line as to what's in the coffers for the very items previously mentioned. No, it's not listed on your pay stub....but your boss sure as hell has the paper work on it.

Now, back to the original point of contention.....to propose that people getting unemployment have to pee in a cup is nonsense.....unless the advocates of this proposal are willing to put the same stipulations to Wall St. traders, investment firm management, and private bank management. If we're all in this together, no problem. If not, then I do wish some folk would stop busting the chops of the working folk and letting the management get off scott free.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I posted information from two different States that show that Employees DO NOT pay into the Unemployment fund.
That leaves 48 States, more if you listen to President Obama, where you can surely find something to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

See, my latest response....Hopely, it will clarify things.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Given the absurd status of your analogy......two employees in one building...one has lights and electrical outlets, the other doesn't....one would have to create a complex fantasy business world. I won't go down that detour with you.

What I sourced to you and my subsequent statements points towards a "hidden cost", as it were. For every $9 grand, the employer has to pay 2.7% to the state for unemployment insurance. Now you are correct in surmizing that if the employer didn't pay into this, he could put the money towards a number of things.....facility maintenance, new equipment, salaries. What you don't acknowledge is that as an employee, your salary is DIRECTLY affected by unemployment insurance in that it DIRECTLY affects the company bottom line as to what's in the coffers for the very items previously mentioned. No, it's not listed on your pay stub....but your boss sure as hell has the paper work on it.

Now, back to the original point of contention.....to propose that people getting unemployment have to pee in a cup is nonsense.....unless the advocates of this proposal are willing to put the same stipulations to Wall St. traders, investment firm management, and private bank management. If we're all in this together, no problem. If not, then I do wish some folk would stop busting the chops of the working folk and letting the management get off scott free.
Click to expand...

So you finally were able to admit that the employee DOES NOT pay for the Unemployment Insurance.
Thank you
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Given the absurd status of your analogy......two employees in one building...one has lights and electrical outlets, the other doesn't....one would have to create a complex fantasy business world. I won't go down that detour with you.

What I sourced to you and my subsequent statements points towards a "hidden cost", as it were. For every $9 grand, the employer has to pay 2.7% to the state for unemployment insurance. Now you are correct in surmizing that if the employer didn't pay into this, he could put the money towards a number of things.....facility maintenance, new equipment, salaries. What you don't acknowledge is that as an employee, your salary is DIRECTLY affected by unemployment insurance in that it DIRECTLY affects the company bottom line as to what's in the coffers for the very items previously mentioned. No, it's not listed on your pay stub....but your boss sure as hell has the paper work on it.

Now, back to the original point of contention.....to propose that people getting unemployment have to pee in a cup is nonsense.....unless the advocates of this proposal are willing to put the same stipulations to Wall St. traders, investment firm management, and private bank management. If we're all in this together, no problem. If not, then I do wish some folk would stop busting the chops of the working folk and letting the management get off scott free.


USFREEDOM911 said:
So you finally were able to admit that the employee DOES NOT pay for the Unemployment Insurance.
Thank you
Click to expand...

If you had actually read carefully my first response, you would have seen that I acknowledged that very fact.....which STILL doesn't invalidate anything else I've stated here. As I've explained, just because it's not stamped on your paycheck doesn't mean it doesn't exist.....your boss sure as hell knows this to be true.

Now, back to square one...do you agree or disagree with the proposal of drug testing for unemployment insurance? I thought all "anti-liberals" were against "nanny states" and big gov't intrustion on individual privacy?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It certainly does clarify things.
It shows that you're unable to post anything from any of the States, to support your idea.
Click to expand...

Obviously you either don't remember or didn't read the second site I linked and the subsequent explanations I gave based on it. Since this thread is not long, you should be able to click back, read it carefully in relation to the other posts. Note that both the links I give are for 2 different States.

You can create dozens of side bar questions that divert from the original discussion, but what I've posted will remain valid. Whether you are willing to deal directly with that is up to you.
 
This guy is a complete moron who virtually everybody on the WOT board had on IA. He always behaves the same way and never backs down in an argument even when it is obvious to everybody that he is talking bullshit. I once tried to explain to him the difference between too and to, as well as the indefinite articles a and an, I would have had more success explaining it to an amoeba or a amoeba as he would have it.

tinfoil said:
I didn't say it came out of the check of the employee. I said it came out of the resources used to pay the employee.

Forget about it, you can't follow the details
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
This guy is a complete moron who virtually everybody on the WOT board had on IA. He always behaves the same way and never backs down in an argument even when it is obvious to everybody that he is talking bullshit. I once tried to explain to him the difference between too and to, as well as the indefinite articles a and an, I would have had more success explaining it to an amoeba or a amoeba as he would have it.
Click to expand...

AWWWWWWWWW timmie.
You just go ahead and continue to flog that dead horse. :bdh:
It is so you.

But then; you are the "queen" of England, you old toss bucket you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I love it.
The old hidden card trick.
Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but you cannot disprove the information I posted as to how unemployment insurance is paid for and how its directly related to your paycheck. Instead you take a sentence out of context to try and establish a faux premise of which I did not present. Unfortunately for you, all one has to do is click back on the thread to see your folly.

Now, the question still stands....what's your personal opinion regarding the proposal of a drug test for unemployment insurance? I thought you conservatives were all against "big gov't" and "nanny states"? If you can't give an honest answer and wish to pursure your attempted dodge, then I leave you to carry on alone here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but you cannot disprove the information I posted as to how unemployment insurance is paid for and how its directly related to your paycheck. Instead you take a sentence out of context to try and establish a faux premise of which I did not present. Unfortunately for you, all one has to do is click back on the thread to see your folly.

Now, the question still stands....what's your personal opinion regarding the proposal of a drug test for unemployment insurance? I thought you conservatives were all against "big gov't" and "nanny states"? If you can't give an honest answer and wish to pursure your attempted dodge, then I leave you to carry on alone here.
Click to expand...

Since I can't disprove an unproven negative, that means that the unproven negative has to be correct!!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You deserve no response, to your second question; because you're a fucking idiot.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top