Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#81

Post by robust-cactus »

I think people forget, it's literally your money. Yea it's theoretically subsidized but the amount of money you put into the system over 40 years is probably more than you'll ever get out of it.

- You pay roughly 1-2% of your salary to it every year

- The max weekly benefit in California is $450 for 26 weeks, so roughly $11k. But it's also a percentage of your salary

- Unless you get fired/quit jobs every year it's probably very hard to get more out than you put in and even then there's probably other safeguards

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#82

Post by gpvos »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #39

I live in a former communist country, and much of the regulation is still unchanged. While employed you pay "unemployment insurance" (a small percentage of your paycheck), and when you lose your job (not quit!, so fired, or the company goes under, etc.), and if you worked for 6+ months, and depending on the time worked (months of paid insurance) and your age, you can get 2-25 months of unemployment benefits (80% of y…

The system in the Netherlands (never been communist) is very similar, although you get 70% for up to two years, and you have to apply for jobs.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#83

Post by WrongAssumption »

madsbuch wrote: post #56

We have this in Denmark where you can get up to 2 years of unemployment benefit - also when you quit yourself (you will get a one-month quarantine, though). Denmark has a 2.9% unemployment rate: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be... I don't entirely know how that compare to the US.

The government of Denmark does not provide unemployment insurance. Unemployment is voluntary and provided through privately owned insurance funds. The government does not pay out of unemployment benefits at all.

To get the extended benefits, you have to pay more. Like any private insurance, pay more to get better benefits.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#84

Post by [deleted] »

derelicta wrote: post #45
jojobas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supporting others works as long as the majority is prosperous, provides assistance (taxes) voluntarily, and receiving help is sort of shameful and still keeps you kinda needy. You don't those people to become a political force enough to demand more assistance, we know how that ends.

and how does it end?

[deleted]

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#85

Post by vel0city »

ketchupdebugger wrote: post #79
vel0city wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$40 a week? A full day at federal minimum wage is $58/day. FICA on that would be $8.87. That's $49/day. $49 * 7 > $40. Even if you cut that in half that's still way more than $40/week. And no, you're not paying federal income taxes on that low wage income.

40 a week on unemployment for low wage in CA

Ah ok you're saying UI after a low wage job is $40/wk. Understood.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#86

Post by gpvos »

oezi wrote: post #30

Germany does pay 12 month of unemployment benefits (at 60% of previous salary with a cap). If you quit (rather than being fired), you don't get benefits for the first 12 weeks. This is an okay balance in my mind.

That looks like a good way to solve the problem of taking a holiday on state expenses between jobs. One year is a bit on the short side though.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#87

Post by drewcoo »

derelicta wrote: post #45
jojobas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supporting others works as long as the majority is prosperous, provides assistance (taxes) voluntarily, and receiving help is sort of shameful and still keeps you kinda needy. You don't those people to become a political force enough to demand more assistance, we know how that ends.

and how does it end?

Ubiquitous televisions and beer. Or smartphones and fentanyl in the 21st century.

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#88

Post by simonsarris »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #15

As with everything in America, I assume it is a non-starter to make more universal benefits. Sure it would be fine if I got unemployment for quitting, but not those people . They would just squander the opportunity! Best we all suffer rather than someone I do not like getting the same benefit.

> As with everything in America

Who do you think the 7.5 million on SSI are, if not those people? We already have Basic Income scheme for people we deem unfit for doing any kind of work.

(Note this is different from the 7.3 million on SSDI, though people sometimes confuse the two, or simply don't know SSI exists)

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#89

Post by bitshiftfaced »

digging wrote: post #78
losvedir wrote: post #50

It's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it? The system is set up with lots of people paying into it to cover the expenses of the relatively few that need to draw on it, in the relatively low probability event that you need to. Insurance lets you get bigger payouts with smaller premiums. If everyone can easily and frequently draw from it at will, I doubt it's sustainable as is. Either benefits will have to…

> It's not really "insurance" at that point then, is it? You've never had to or wanted to quit a horrible job, but been stuck because you needed the income/benefits?

You've never searched for a new job while working at a job you don't like?

Re: Should people who quit get unemployment benefits, too?

#90

Post by soco »

boston_clone wrote: post #80
throwadobe wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cue inflation. A better solution is to tax capital gains and corporate income at a rate that is closer to personal income taxes so that everyone pays their fair share.

People cannot live on $7.25 an hour in the US, and the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare. Inflation skyrocketed in the past 5 years; minimum wage has not changed for 15 years. So, no correlation there. The corporate tax rate should be increased, as well as taxes on high-earners, as well as the minimum wage. Capital gains taxes for individuals with 1M+ of assets may be considered, but is u…

It's always interesting to watch how so many people oppose increasing the minimum wage (which stagnates since decades) while at the same time opposing increasing the taxation of corporations and billionaires (which goes down since decades). It's like, the society was created for corporations, not for regular people... and no, billionaires are in reality not taxed like regular people so let's not even try this theoretical argument.
Post reply on HN