DIYbanter - View Single Post

Han

" wrote in
:

On Aug 15, 9:37*am, Han wrote:
" wrote
innews:c42f550e-7e0
:

On Aug 14, 5:18 pm, Han wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote
:

On 14 Aug 2011 18:50:51 GMT, Han wrote:

Are you too lazy to work and don't pay taxes and do you want
the government to give you money to support yourself or do you
work at a government job and want to insure you never get laid
off or have to work very hard?
If yes, vote democrat.

I agree that need has to be established for a handout. Wish that
was simple. Getting unemployment because you don't want to work
should n
ot
be possible. On the other hand, if the only job available was
one th
at
cut wages to less than half, some kind of subsidy should be
available.

Why would the pay scale have anything to do with it? Let us
suppose
a
person was hired to do a high-paying job, because they
interviewed extremely well and had an impeccable resume but they
were totally unqualified. Then let us suppose in 2012 that
person is fired from that job because of his incompetence,
arrogance and corruption and someone qualified was given the
job. It shouldn't be the government'
s
(read tax payers) responsibility to hold that persons hand when
things get rough, that's what relatives, friends and charities
are for -- not my hard earned savings.

Sorry, left a sentence out. There has to be a limit above which
salary/wages wouldn't be supplemented. Also supplementation of
reduced wages needs to be to 75% (WAG number) of previous salary,
with a 2 year (another WAG) time limit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there you have an good example of the thinking
that's got us where we are today. *The libs think every
possible issue they can identify as needing to be fixed
requires another law, another regulation, another
federal program, another handout. *And who do they
turn to for these programs and how to run them?
Why Congress of course, with an approval rating
of 15%. * I want Congress to do less, not more.

We got were we are because of a spendthrift congress, that showered
benefits left and right so the critters could get re-elected left and
right alike. *If you think that by abrogating unemployment benefits
we will get back on track, I suggest you hire a firing squad
(figuratively speaking, mostly).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you just advocated that spendthrift congress start spending
more money on a new unemployment program where we now
start compensating people who go from one job to a lower
paying job. It's EXACTLY that kind of thinking that has got
us to where we are today.

To any thinking person, it's ripe for abuse. There are
people who are going to do the math, decide, gee,
I can leave my job making $50K, take an easier one
at $40K. Per your own suggestion, the govt would
then pay me $7500. Now I'm making $47.5K, at an
easier, more desirable job. Sounds like a deal
there would be a line for. And if I want to pick up
that extra $2500, just do a little bit of cash work
off the books.

That is an incorrect application of what I was proposing. What I was
saying is that a person losing a 35K job for no fault of his own, should
not get full unemployment compensation if he could find a job that paid
25K. Normally one wouldn't take that if the unemployment paid anything
reasonable. But if a 7.5K subsidy were added to the 25K, that would get
him employed, and reduce the unemployment paid to him. There are many
real life examples of people in that type of situation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid