Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #10)
Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:25 PM
okaawhatever (6,640 posts)
15. I know. I think there should be some additional unemployment insurance for high earners. That's one
of the problems with the current system. I haven't looked at it for probably twenty years, but most states reimburse a percentage of income (I thought it was 60% because taxes aren't taken out) up to x amount. So if the state max per week is $450 like in your state, a person gets that amount whether they make $3500 per month or $10,000 per month.
I've been thinking about the discrimination against high cost/earning living areas lately. Other than Hawaii and Alaska, I don't think most high income and cost cities like LA, SF and New York get any more in certain federal benefits. Like food stamps, welfare programs and earned income tax credits. I wondered if the real reason blue states are paying more into the federal government by way of taxes is because of the higher incomes vs. red states without compensating benefits. It's just a theory, but I read a long time ago that one of the purposes of the earned income tax credit was to equalize the south's low wages. It was suggested that is why the Republicans jump all over food stamps and other programs, but not necessarily the EIC. I don't have more info, but I've been wondering about that lately, especially when I read that Boeing is moving jobs to the South and Midwest. I'm sure the move is to lower their costs, but I was wondering if the taxpayers will end up paying any less for their products?
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|sabrina 1||Dec 2013||#2|
|Ace Acme||Dec 2013||#11|
I know. I think there should be some additional unemployment insurance for high earners. That's one
|Uncle Joe||Dec 2013||#14|
|Chico Man||Dec 2013||#18|
Please login to view edit histories.