You see it as an absolute percentage figure... he means it as a cap (Reply #15)

In the discussion thread: Rs want to pay 70% of earnings for unemployed. Did they think this through? [View all]

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 12:53 PM

FBaggins (25,626 posts)

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 OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

36 replies	Author	Time	Post
Rs want to pay 70% of earnings for unemployed. Did they think this through? [View all]	stopbush	Jul 2020	OP
I don't know any folks who make the amount you indicated	Sherman A1	Jul 2020	#1
I've made that much in my career. A six-figure salary In CA is fairly common.	stopbush	Jul 2020	#2
This message was self-deleted by its author	Sherman A1	Jul 2020	#3
Perhaps it is	Sherman A1	Jul 2020	#9
Lucky. With that income you probably have a nice 401K and some savings	LakeArenal	Jul 2020	#29
Mnuchin says GOP plan for unemployment extension will be based on '70% wage replacement'	MrsCoffee	Jul 2020	#4
You see it as an absolute percentage figure... he means it as a cap	FBaggins	Jul 2020	#15
Bet it'll be something like	durablend	Jul 2020	#22
I expect it to be a flat amount	FBaggins	Jul 2020	#27
Here's a link	House of Roberts	Jul 2020	#6
Could there be a cap, like there was a ceiling for people to receive stimulus checks? nt	Mike 03	Jul 2020	#5
+1	uponit7771	Jul 2020	#8
Sure, but a cap on high-wage earners rather negates the rationale	stopbush	Jul 2020	#10
I'm not arguing with your point, just trying to figure this out.	Mike 03	Jul 2020	#30
But should any level of earner be made to suffer due to tRump's massive fuck up?	stopbush	Jul 2020	#32
All fair points.	Mike 03	Jul 2020	#33
I agree that this might not be what they intended. But it is a more equitable solution	Buckeyeblue	Jul 2020	#7
Yes, and the more-equitable solution would have lots of money flowing	stopbush	Jul 2020	#12
Yes it is. The biggest thing is to get Bill's paid and to get money flowing to businesses.	Buckeyeblue	Jul 2020	#20
They'd still top it out	Johnny2X2X	Jul 2020	#11
We're in the same boat. My CA weekly benefit is only $167 as I filed off a 1099.	stopbush	Jul 2020	#13
This sheds light on how ridiculous UE pay is	Johnny2X2X	Jul 2020	#19
"this has disaster written all over it"	Mike 03	Jul 2020	#16
Reps in Congress are totally tone deaf on this	Johnny2X2X	Jul 2020	#21
There are many reps in Congress..	stillcool	Jul 2020	#26
For minimum wage in states like Texas, where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr.	dlk	Jul 2020	#14
The usual is 47% of salary. This is going to kill us.	Luz	Jul 2020	#23
Whatever they may have been in the past, today's Republican Party is a death cult	dlk	Jul 2020	#34
By several accounts it will take states 6-20 weeks to figure, program, and distribute at 70%	underpants	Jul 2020	#17
Here's a thought: adjust the amount state by state based on median income in	stopbush	Jul 2020	#25
That's actually a good point	underpants	Jul 2020	#28
Rural FL compared to SOFL	obamanut2012	Jul 2020	#31
There are a lot of states that still haven't sent out the flat $600	MoonlitKnight	Jul 2020	#35
Hey wait!	underpants	Jul 2020	#36
That income is low in the high tech job space	RainCaster	Jul 2020	#18
Indeed. I picked $150,000 as an example, because the high-wage earners	stopbush	Jul 2020	#24

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.