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

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

Mon Jul 27, 2020, 01:12 PM

stopbush (24,131 posts)

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 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.