HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rs want to pay 70% of ear...

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:35 PM

Rs want to pay 70% of earnings for unemployed. Did they think this through?

Let’s say you live in CA and make $150,000 a year. 70% of $150,000 is $105,000, or $2019 a week.

The max UI benefit paid by CA is $450 a week. That would mean that the Feds would need to pay out $1569 a week in UI benefits for such an earner to receive 70% of their salary. That’s about 2.5 times MORE than the $600 a week the Feds are currently paying out. BTW, such an earner currently receives about 52% of their wages On the combined CA + Fed benefits. They’d love to get 70%.

The devil is in the details.

36 replies, 1751 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rs want to pay 70% of earnings for unemployed. Did they think this through? (Original post)
stopbush Jul 2020 OP
Sherman A1 Jul 2020 #1
stopbush Jul 2020 #2
Sherman A1 Jul 2020 #3
Sherman A1 Jul 2020 #9
LakeArenal Jul 2020 #29
MrsCoffee Jul 2020 #4
FBaggins Jul 2020 #15
durablend Jul 2020 #22
FBaggins Jul 2020 #27
House of Roberts Jul 2020 #6
Mike 03 Jul 2020 #5
uponit7771 Jul 2020 #8
stopbush Jul 2020 #10
Mike 03 Jul 2020 #30
stopbush Jul 2020 #32
Mike 03 Jul 2020 #33
Buckeyeblue Jul 2020 #7
stopbush Jul 2020 #12
Buckeyeblue Jul 2020 #20
Johnny2X2X Jul 2020 #11
stopbush Jul 2020 #13
Johnny2X2X Jul 2020 #19
Mike 03 Jul 2020 #16
Johnny2X2X Jul 2020 #21
stillcool Jul 2020 #26
dlk Jul 2020 #14
Luz Jul 2020 #23
dlk Jul 2020 #34
underpants Jul 2020 #17
stopbush Jul 2020 #25
underpants Jul 2020 #28
obamanut2012 Jul 2020 #31
MoonlitKnight Jul 2020 #35
underpants Jul 2020 #36
RainCaster Jul 2020 #18
stopbush Jul 2020 #24

Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:37 PM

1. I don't know any folks who make the amount you indicated

And have heard of no such 70% plan in any news reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:39 PM

2. I've made that much in my career. A six-figure salary In CA is fairly common.

As far as 70%:

Mnuchin says GOP plan for unemployment extension will be based on ’70% wage replacement’

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/coronavirus-stimulus-gop-unemployment-plan-would-have-70percent-wage-replacement.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #2)


Response to stopbush (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:43 PM

9. Perhaps it is

And I would bet there are a whole lot of folks making far, far less, but in many cases being essential workers they don’t get the option to collect UI. They just get to go to work and risk their neck everyday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:48 PM

29. Lucky. With that income you probably have a nice 401K and some savings

But 70% of 7.50 an hour is nothing to survive on. Let alone prevail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:41 PM

4. Mnuchin says GOP plan for unemployment extension will be based on '70% wage replacement'

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/coronavirus-stimulus-gop-unemployment-plan-would-have-70percent-wage-replacement.html


I live in the Bay area. Here’s the income breakdown across the Bay Area:

San Francisco: Median household income $96,265, middle-class income range $64,177 to $192,530.
Oakland: Median household income $63,251, middle-class income range $42,167 to $126,502.
San Jose: Median household income $96,662, middle-class income range $64,441 to $193,324.
Fremont: Median household income $122,191, middle-class income range $81,461 to $244,382.

I don't believe they have any intention of actually doing what Mnuchin suggests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrsCoffee (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:53 PM

15. You see it as an absolute percentage figure... he means it as a cap

They don't want to leave people with a financial incentive to not work. So they're looking to cap payouts... not set a fixed percentage that all unemployed will receive.

This isn't actually all that different from normal UI payouts. Most states have a formula targeting a payout that is a percentage of pre-unemployment income (often ~50%)... but with a cap beyond which there is no additional amount (e.g., $450/week)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:05 PM

22. Bet it'll be something like

"70% of past earnings, capped at $10"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to durablend (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:30 PM

27. I expect it to be a flat amount

My guess is they start at $200 and "compromise" their way up to $300/week. The notion will be that for the average state's program, that will pull the average unemployed individual up to X% of their pre-unemployment pay. They don't want it to be a flexible amount (e.g., "whatever it takes to get to 70% payout for workers making up to Y$" because that means that states that pay less in their default program will get more assistance than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:41 PM

5. Could there be a cap, like there was a ceiling for people to receive stimulus checks? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike 03 (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:43 PM

8. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike 03 (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:44 PM

10. Sure, but a cap on high-wage earners rather negates the rationale

behind paying lower-wage earners only 70%, does it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:52 PM

30. I'm not arguing with your point, just trying to figure this out.

Some things to keep in mind:

The very high wage earners you're talking about also get huge bonuses, and have a much easier time obtaining loans than medium or low income workers. It's not fair, but such employees have an easier time accessing capital in general.

They are likely to have a high net worth overall, separate from their annual salary.

They are more likely to have equity holdings they can liquidate for cash should the necessity arise.

This is one reason that people earning over a certain amount of money didn't receive stimulus checks. Having more money does make a difference because assuming you're sensible and prudent, you have a cushion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike 03 (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 02:05 PM

32. But should any level of earner be made to suffer due to tRump's massive fuck up?

Sure, rich people have assets, but why should they need to dip into those assets to COVER for tRump’s incompetence?

Adam Schiff warned the Senate during impeachment that tRump could and would continue to do tremendous damage to the country were he acquitted. Guess what?

I don’t like setting different subsets of the American populace against each other simply to cover for the fuck ups of politicians. Americans need to see what the TRUE COST is for having tRump in the WH, and that money needs to be coming out of the national treasury, not the pockets of this or that group of citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 02:13 PM

33. All fair points.

There's no question whatsoever, IMO, that Trump is the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime. It will leave a scar, too.

I'm not in favor of the wealthy suffering, just pointing out that they suffer less. I think it comes from the attitude my father had. We were economically comfortable and there were times when he said it was right and fair that we felt more economic pain than people who needed more help than we did. My feelings weren't hurt that I didn't get a stimulus check. I don't know. I'm sorry I don't have a stronger negative opinion about high-worth individuals taking a haircut during this emergency.

A little financial pressure on the wealthy might give them second thoughts about voting for Trump.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:42 PM

7. I agree that this might not be what they intended. But it is a more equitable solution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeyeblue (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:46 PM

12. Yes, and the more-equitable solution would have lots of money flowing

to blue states with large urban centers and high-wage earners and not so much flowing to the red states.

Perhaps that’s how it should be IF one calculates cost of living into the equation. Much cheaper to live in the rural area of a red state than in NYC, SF or LA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:01 PM

20. Yes it is. The biggest thing is to get Bill's paid and to get money flowing to businesses.

And we need out of the box solutions. Maybe guarentee extra trade in value on cars to get people to buy new cars. I'm sure there are other things that could be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:46 PM

11. They'd still top it out

And this has disaster written all over it. My wife is self employed, it was impossible for her to get UE before it was expanded, and even then they wouldn't take her income proof and she got the minimum amount of $160 a week, that would have been a disaster if not for the additional $600. So without something in addition to the $160 we are hurting.

In the end, I think that the $600 gets reduced to maybe $300, $400 max.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny2X2X (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:50 PM

13. We're in the same boat. My CA weekly benefit is only $167 as I filed off a 1099.

Take away that $600 a week and it’s pretty pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:58 PM

19. This sheds light on how ridiculous UE pay is

In MI, it tops out at $362 a week. If I were to get laid off that means it's a total crisis for me and my savings and retirement would be eaten up just to stay current on bills.

If they were smart they'd make that $600 a sliding scale, say $300 minimum, but up to $600 for higher wage workers. And extend it for the year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny2X2X (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:53 PM

16. "this has disaster written all over it"

Yes, and that's not even counting the inevitable math errors that are going to occur, because even the people who will be in charge of it say they aren't equipped to quickly make all these calculations and cut these millions of checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike 03 (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:03 PM

21. Reps in Congress are totally tone deaf on this

They have no idea since close to none of them have held a real job in decades, making ends meet on a few hundred dollars a week is a completely foreign concept to them.

50 million people lost their jobs! I don't care what the UE rate says it is, most of those people are out of work and will continue to be out of work. Going after that $600 is a big political mistake because it effects millions of people who are swing voters. And the economy is going to collapse without that $600 a week right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny2X2X (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:16 PM

26. There are many reps in Congress..

who are newly elected, and held real jobs for decades. The Senate needs to take their cut, of any money trickling out of the government. They and their's are first in line, and those at the end of the line get nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:53 PM

14. For minimum wage in states like Texas, where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr.

70% of that would be $203.00, assuming a 40-hour workweek. How far would that go toward rent, utilities, food, gas and other necessary living expenses? Republicans are cold & cruel monsters. Make no mistake, for them, the cruelty is the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:08 PM

23. The usual is 47% of salary. This is going to kill us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luz (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 02:40 PM

34. Whatever they may have been in the past, today's Republican Party is a death cult

Human life has absolutely no value for them. Their “right to life” posture is a sham.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:54 PM

17. By several accounts it will take states 6-20 weeks to figure, program, and distribute at 70%

They need a flat supplemental amount. I see that the Pukes proposal is to cut it from $600 to $200.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:15 PM

25. Here's a thought: adjust the amount state by state based on median income in

each state.

Oops - Rs wouldn’t like that as the red states would get hit hardest. But the fact is that it’s mostly people in the red states who are “getting more on UI than they make at their jobs,” so if you want to base it on earnings, the state-by-state basis would work just fine, and would be much easier to implement than doing it on an individual basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:46 PM

28. That's actually a good point

$600 goes waaay further in Al Abama or Mississippi than it does even in Virginia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:58 PM

31. Rural FL compared to SOFL

Huge difference in cost of living.

Same across every state. That is also not fair.

$11 Publix worker in Palm Beach County compared to $11 Publix worker in Clay County. Rent, utilities, car insurance, day care, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 03:16 PM

35. There are a lot of states that still haven't sent out the flat $600

Millions of people have not been paid. They will turn this major fiasco into a deeper catastrophe.

Just give two grand a month until further notice. Call it a flat tax cut.

Auto refi all mortgages to 2.5% no cost and no payments for three months. Same but higher rate for commercial and rental properties. No rent due for three months because landlords got the mortgage break. People can use the time and two grand to catch up.

Money to state and local governments.

Fund an infrastructure plan for long term economic and employment growth.

And shut it down again so we can get the pandemic under control and stock up on PPE, testing, tracing and treatment.

Circle back and see what needs to be done for people and businesses that fall through the cracks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonlitKnight (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 03:23 PM

36. Hey wait!

I’m refi’ing at 2.75!!!!
(Stomps off muttering something about people “getting over” on him)

Just kidding.

The Fed technology is horrendously out of date. Wasn’t there a call for people who knew COBOL programming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopbush (Original post)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:57 PM

18. That income is low in the high tech job space

The last year I worked full time was TY2018. My income was 190K, which made my "unemployment bonus" rather small, since the IRS hasn't processed my TY2019 return yet. That would put my income in a much higher category that what I'm getting now.

BTW, starting salary for a programmer in CA with 5 years experience is far above the 150K mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainCaster (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:12 PM

24. Indeed. I picked $150,000 as an example, because the high-wage earners

never seem to enter into the discussion. Yet these people also lose their jobs. If you live in Silicon Valley, your high wages are tied directly to the high CoL of that area. It’s not what you make, it’s what you keep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread