Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
20 user(s) are online (9 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 20

more...



Tags: ''  

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#70
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/7/13 2:20
Last Login :
2014/2/17 0:53
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 72
Offline
NJ Senator Robert Menendez says unemployment fund will not get bailed out by the federal government, we are on our own:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010 ... oyment_fund_will_not.html

Posted on: 2010/3/1 23:48
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/10/19 1:18
Last Login :
6/20 11:43
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1577
Offline
Quote:

Rbastid wrote:
Now if you stop taxing the living hell out of companies, maybe they won't run out and hire 10,000 workers, but you will protect the jobs of those few who are able to work.


I would argue you have the problem exactly backwards. Companies pay far, far less than the corporate tax rates that are advertised to the poor slobs like us who don't know any better. (For instance, Goldman, Sachs paid 1% of it's gross income in taxes in 2008) Subchapter S corporations, Master Limited Partnerships, favorable tax treatment of private equity firms, offshore incorporation, interest deductions that are abused through poorly thought out endeavors such as LBOs, gross abuse of deferred taxes by extractive industries (a big reason why oil companies pay very little income tax), net operating loss carryforwards - the list goes on and on.

There is a reason why tax-driven financings and corporate structures consume so much of our banking and legal resources - we've devoted a very large amount of human capital in tax avoidance. That's all Enron was - a massive collection of tax-limiting and tax-avoiding structures. When we, as an economy, shifted from making things to buying and financing things and constantly restructuring the entities that sell things to us, the clock started ticking on the end of American Supremacy.

Also entirely backwards is the argument that because corporations are tax payers, they have the rights of people and are therefore entitled to the same level of participation in the political process. In fact, since corporations pay far less - if any - taxes, they are getting the best of both worlds: representation without taxation.

Posted on: 2010/3/1 17:04
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/6 2:44
Last Login :
2014/1/22 9:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 193
Offline
Quote:

Rbastid wrote:
This thread is an amazing collection of false talking points though (fully proven with the link to huffpo) All the EVILLLL business talk and attempts to attack "talk radio" hilarious.



I didn't attempt to attack talk radio..I did. These entertainers, with no training in economics, environmental science etc, are multi-millionaires who pretend to be experts in numerous fields while also trying to claim that they are everyday downtrodden Americans, exert an enormous amount of influence on the social dialogue in this country. As an avid listener of talk radio for years I pick up on the one liners and false arguments as they make their way through forums and even everyday subway chatter.

Quote:

Rbastid wrote:
The newest Obama bill has many tax cuts for business along with unemployment extensions, the extensions always pass on their own so why add the tax cuts? Maybe because they too believe it works.


It's more than believing what works or doesn't work these are political choices done to try and please all sides. Taxes are just one variable in a complex calculus of economic incentive that drives firm/worker behavior in the economy....there are unfortunately no simple answers and there are many varied approaches
Quote:

Rbastid wrote:
Yes businesses will always be looking out for their bottom line, and why shouldn't they thats the whole point of a business


Fine, but the whole point of being human isn't to be subservient to the prime directive of business under capitalism. The problem is when big business starts using its massive wealth to instill its value system as the primary philosophical values of a society through talk radio and other forms of mass media that we have a problem. I don't get angry when big business says it needs to pay less money into unemployment insurance..I get angry when workers who are unemployed or a paycheck away from unemployment irrationally agree to it based on the false notion that lowering UI taxes for business makes it cheaper for business to hire workers (It doesn't it only makes it cheaper to lay them off).

Quote:

Rbastid wrote:
but by all of you quoting that talking point you are proving the point you keep trying to claim is false, that tax cuts spur employment. If I run a business and I see my bottom line being cut into by taxes I'm going to fire someone to make sure I stay with X amount of dollars, so the more you tax, the more I fire, until I keep the bare minimum to run effectively while still making what I want. Now if you stop taxing the living hell out of companies, maybe they won't run out and hire 10,000 workers, but you will protect the jobs of those few who are able to work.


Sometimes tax cuts can spur employment...but when that happens there are a number of other variables that have to fall in place...likewise some tax cuts do not spur employment or increased economic activity..same with interest rates and lending (check out the liquidity trap in Japan). Unemployment Insurance is an entirely different animal than capital gains taxes and other employment related taxes.

If McDonalds sells 5 hamburgers a day it is going to keep the # of workers employed it needs to serve those 5 hamburgers...you can cut the employment taxes, capital gains taxes or the UI insurance payments McDonalds has to make by whatever you want...they still won't hire an additional worker if that worker is not needed by the business.

The way Unemployment Insurance works is that the more an employer lays workers off the higher its experience rating and therefore higher the payment they have to put in to UI. So it is actually a disincentive to lay off workers because the more they layoff the more taxes they have to pay on the workers they are currently employing. This serves 2 purposes...it tries to eliminate the incentive of employers to layoff workers and save money by forcing workers presently employed to work harder or exploit through forcing them to work off the clock or have salaried employees work more hours to make up for the laid off employees....and it prevents employers from using Unemployment Insurance to save money i.e. production is slow this month so lets have our workers paid by unemployment for the next month then call them back when production ramps up.

Posted on: 2010/3/1 16:41
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#67
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/6/21 22:37
Last Login :
2010/5/18 2:28
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 30
Offline
I\'m not against paying more taxes, that\'s not the point at all. There are the NJ issues, which is corruptions, overspending, services galore, and entitlement. And there are the US issues, which is similar to the states. We spend what we don\'t have and don\'t care about our future. It\'s one thing to tax the rich 60, 70, 80% and we actually able to spend responsibly and still not cause the economy to flip. It\'s quite something else to do so but spend irresponsibly and cause the nation to go into bankruptcy.

If our deficits isn\'t such a big problem that it risks bankrupt our nation and potentially make our children and future generations slaves of foreigners, then I have no problem spending that kind of money. You might argue that it doesn\'t hurt the employed to pay the extra $50, that\'s is not the point. Because that $50 was really over payment previously that would require deficit spending to get us there. I agree some of these entitlements are necessary but it should only be provided as a solution of last resort. Let\'s say we increase taxes, our revenue goes to 3.0 trillion, does that help? No, as you see this year, the government decide to spending 3.8 trillion. If we goes to 4.0 trillion, guess what, I\'m sure the government will go and spend 5 trillion. We need to push better fiscal responsibly to not only government but individuals. These benefits are benefits because we are able to afford it up to now, but ask yourself this question, will we be able to afford it tomorrow? Look at Greece, it has a lot of eerily similarities to US as a whole, and their workers still don\'t get it and still want their entitled pay like they always got. But guess what, they

The solution is simple, save on the personal level, save on the national level, stop spending what we don\'t have. Balance budget at the household level and balance budget at the federal level.

I watched a movie last year, it really clarifies where we are as a nation. You should take a look.
http://www.iousathemovie.com/

Posted on: 2010/2/28 21:49
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/16 5:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3642
Offline
Bill Clinton raised taxes and everyone seemed to do just fine - so your argument that things will get bad just doesn't hold water.

Also, how do you propose we solve the deficit problem? I think the ones who can afford to pay more to provide safety nets and help reduce the deficit, etc. should pay more

Posted on: 2010/2/28 18:56
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#65
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/6/21 22:37
Last Login :
2010/5/18 2:28
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 30
Offline
Rbastid:

There is no point trying to argue with these folks that can\'t be argued with. The easier thing is to totally agree with them so they live in their own world twiddling away as they think they are always right. I may be accused of being a republican sometimes, which I\'m not, but I hate both parties to their guts and don\'t understand why there isn\'t a third or fourth party that rise up in a time like this as none of these corrupt mindless politicians really understand the common folks and do things to help while spending within their means.

This is my ideal scenario in terms of government, minimum policy, minimum services (roads,police,fire,some level of hospital care,school), gear towards improvement of middle class. In terms of welfare, provide minimum shelter and food using wealth transfer from the wealthy (no cash, none whatsoever, just food,shelter,and doctors provided on large scale in stadium like environment) for the poor and unemployed, if they choose to use it). Provide help in those environment to better these folks through education and transition services as it would be easier to administer than hire thousands of different people to go to different homes to help.

While I understand the above scenario can\'t and will never happen as this is a free country, I can\'t see why we can\'t move towards a similar system in the middle providing the best environment to move everyone forward. I would like to have an environment in which we have 100% employment with 100% living comfortable able to provide for their families. The truth of the matter is that the state and the federal government is broke and eventually everyone have to cut back. They are tough choices but they have to be made nonetheless. One thing with the whole unemployment scheme that is totally disagreed with is the fact that it supposed to be a temporary solution for individuals until they find their next jobs. They also should have enough savings from the time that they are working to hold them over and not rely on these programs. What happens to the days where you turn to your family for help when you are in trouble? Don\'t get me wrong because I\'ve been down the unemployment road before and its not pretty (I did not take unemployment check, feel too shameful to do so. Instead I clamp down and moved in with family and find a job before I moved out.) So in my opinion, the unemployment is the way it is because we as a society encourage spending and not savings. I know when I have a kid I will teach him/her the value of saving money and not rely on others to live a life. Always look to give and never ask for anything back in return.

Posted on: 2010/2/28 17:01
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/9/6 15:48
Last Login :
2016/6/20 2:33
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 636
Offline
"They don't even have a word for 'entrepreneur' in France!"

Posted on: 2010/2/28 12:28
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#63
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/9/10 10:28
Last Login :
2010/2/28 6:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5
Offline
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
what is wrong with a sales tax or income tax surcharge until the economy recovers. surely a $50 hike in income taxes would not hurt those who are working. or increase the millionaire's tax.


The problem is by adding a tax on income tax or a tax surcharge you're hurting everyone else.

Say someone is making the maximum or even 2/3rds max in unemployment, yet I work and only make $8.50 an hour. I'd be over taxed on my $350 a week (before taxes) so they can collect more cash? Why is their livelihood more important than mine? Or anyone else's for that matter?

As I stated before, working in NYC I was capped at $405 + $25 a week for my unemployment, and thats ontop of already paying some of the highest taxes (7.85% vs NJ's 6.4%) so for those in NJ to be stuck with such a pittance is just heartbreaking.

This thread is an amazing collection of false talking points though (fully proven with the link to huffpo) All the EVILLLL business talk and attempts to attack "talk radio" hilarious. The newest Obama bill has many tax cuts for business along with unemployment extensions, the extensions always pass on their own so why add the tax cuts? Maybe because they too believe it works.

Yes businesses will always be looking out for their bottom line, and why shouldn't they thats the whole point of a business, but by all of you quoting that talking point you are proving the point you keep trying to claim is false, that tax cuts spur employment. If I run a business and I see my bottom line being cut into by taxes I'm going to fire someone to make sure I stay with X amount of dollars, so the more you tax, the more I fire, until I keep the bare minimum to run effectively while still making what I want. Now if you stop taxing the living hell out of companies, maybe they won't run out and hire 10,000 workers, but you will protect the jobs of those few who are able to work.

Posted on: 2010/2/28 7:15
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2006/4/10 13:29
Last Login :
2017/4/13 21:03
From Mars
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2635
Offline
Nominal tax cuts on businesses don't create new jobs, just bigger profits for business owners.

Posted on: 2010/2/27 15:14
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#61
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/6/21 22:37
Last Login :
2010/5/18 2:28
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 30
Offline
Forgot to add, we should also borrow all we can as they are paper money that we won't be paying back anyway. New Jersey should be in the front spending all we can. Fudge the China and Japan with their debt. Also fudge all the retirees and future retirees for all the money that they lend us in buying the treasuries. They don't need those money too.

Posted on: 2010/2/27 4:27
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/16 5:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3642
Offline
Spoken like a true fan of JIm "Tough sh!t" Bunning. If they tax me more, I willt be able to eat out only 6x per week. blah, blah, blah

Posted on: 2010/2/27 3:36
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/7/1 20:11
Last Login :
2012/9/17 18:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 232
Offline
Once again Regan's trickle own theory is rearing is ugly help. That is rich pissing on the poor.

Posted on: 2010/2/27 2:35
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#58
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/6/21 22:37
Last Login :
2010/5/18 2:28
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 30
Offline
I agree with Mathis and Hero6. Let's give all unemployed 100k each week since they are in distress. While at it, tax all businesses 100%, heck, let's make it 150% of their revenue because they are evil and they don't need the money. Let's tax the 90% that's employed the same 100% as they should be glad they are employed. Let's take all the benefits from them as well to pay for the unemployed. Actually, I support having everyone staying at home and collect unemployment. We'll threaten China, Japan and European that we'll aim some nuclear weapons their way if they don't support our 100% unemployed workforce. Also, in the same demand, ask them to create robots that does the work and serve us. We might as well as make the unemployment permanent if we already give UP to 99 weeks like we do now.

Posted on: 2010/2/27 2:32
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/16 5:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3642
Offline
Some of you wingnuts must idolize Jim "Tough sh!t to the unemployed" Bunning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02 ... peatedly-bl_n_477910.html

Posted on: 2010/2/27 1:20
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/16 5:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3642
Offline
what is wrong with a sales tax or income tax surcharge until the economy recovers. surely a $50 hike in income taxes would not hurt those who are working. or increase the millionaire's tax.

Posted on: 2010/2/27 1:01
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/6 2:44
Last Login :
2014/1/22 9:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 193
Offline
Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:
I'd like to know what your solution would be to close the budget gap. The pension fund is $46 BILLION under funded. Would you rather NJ go bankrupt and not pay these workers anything?



Everybody gets Ice Cream

Posted on: 2010/2/27 0:45
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/4 22:11
Last Login :
2014/11/16 18:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 485
Offline
Quote:

Mathias wrote:

Exactly...lets cut $50 bucks a week from unemployed workers checks..those lazy bastards.



Who the hell said anything about unemployed workers being lazy bastards?

I'd like to know what your solution would be to close the budget gap. The pension fund is $46 BILLION under funded. Would you rather NJ go bankrupt and not pay these workers anything?

Posted on: 2010/2/26 21:36
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 981
Offline
Again, he is not reducing everyone's take by $50, he is reducing the top payment from $600 to $550.

You do know that there will still be a Unemployment Tax increase on companies under Christie's plan? He is just making sure it does not skyrocket to the maximum allowed by law. This will save jobs.

And any company that is too big to fail is simply too big. It is a shame that we had to bail these bloated behemoths out, but if we didn't, there wouldn't be enough unemployment insurance in the world to cover the resulting layoffs.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:34
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2018/3/5 19:18
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4123
Offline
That's right, the rich get richer and the poor get the picture !

Get the chinese to manufacture our stuff and then attack them on environmental issues for making the stuff. We dump a siht load of people on the unemployment line and now stick it to them with how much we give them as a hand out.....what a fuukked up democracy and capitalist society we live in.

Sorry to say Gov. Christie, but you're an idiot

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:26
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/6 2:44
Last Login :
2014/1/22 9:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 193
Offline
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Nothing reduces a debate into simplistic sound bites like the appearance of hero69.

No one is debating the need for safety nets. Who pays, who benefits, and how much is the question.


Exactly...lets cut $50 bucks a week from unemployed workers checks..those lazy bastards.

And we need safety nets because some things are just "too big to fail" So we will block Unemployment Benefits to laid off workers but pass multi billion dollar bailout packages for Wall Street Tycoons.

Who Pays, Who Benefits and How Much....under Christie the workers will pay, business will benefit and How Much will be the price we all pay as citizens trying to survive in an economy/society/polity that is too one sided towards big business

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:08
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/16 5:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3642
Offline
Thank you kindly. There was no debate to begin with. The wingnuts simply assumed that their position was correct and that the "liberals" ought to stop trying to prevent Christie from what he wants to do.

It's like those people who always try to portray the more eggregious examples of healthcare in Canada, the UK and elsewhere as the norm in those countries and then say we don't want that in the US. Of course, not. But the norm in those countries is far superior to the norm in the US. Further, the wingnuts always proclaim that America has the best healthcare in the world. But guess, unless you are Bill, Oprah or Obama or the Clintons, you're not getting that level of healthcare.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:07
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/6 2:44
Last Login :
2014/1/22 9:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 193
Offline
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The quoting is getting ponderous, but I will just reiterate that this tax increase will cause pain for small and mid-size businesses, sliding scale or not, and will inevitably lead to more job cuts.


That's a myth.... just like raising the minimum wage causes job cuts. Will it cost them yes, is it so over the top they will choose to lay-off workers because the increase in UI is greater than the revenue derived by that additional employee....not a chance.

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:

Christie has decided to make it tougher for those fired for misconduct. You are the one assuming that lack of productivity and caring for sick family would be included. You need to prove this.


I'm not assuming...i work in the field.

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Everyone lobbies.


And I can see which side you are lobbying for

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
The national recession is the fault of many people, but NJ's problems are much more the fault of our prior governors and NJ's public employee unions and their pension funds, so Christie is on the right track as far as that is concerned.


Of course it is...

Posted on: 2010/2/26 20:02
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 981
Offline
Nothing reduces a debate into simplistic sound bites like the appearance of hero69.

No one is debating the need for safety nets. Who pays, who benefits, and how much is the question.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:56
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#47
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/4/6 19:49
Last Login :
2013/1/24 19:41
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 129
Offline
OK so now let's blame everyone on UI for our economic woes. What a bunch of whiners. Are u really that immature to think those unemployed can hang around for months just biding there time???? Most folks find this a degrading, depressing event. People have kids, mortgages, bills. How old are these get-overs? 19-20? They hardly equate to those laid off in the tech/financial sector who would give anything to be employed. Let's take all benefits away from everyone. Make the minimum wage 1.25 per hour.
Also, many firms still have pensions like, JPMChase. The fat cats caused this and now we have morons turning on the rank and file.
Grow up.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:56
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/16 5:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3642
Offline
let's all compete with China.

Mathias - you remind of this guy at work who was vocal about cutting off benefits for the unemployed. He was adamantly opposed to ObamaCare. Then one day he almost lost his job due to downsizing.

Well, that big mouth no longer has such a big mouth and I bet you even he sees the value in having safety nets.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:47
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 981
Offline
Quote:

Walk_Idiot_Walk wrote:
Hey Chester,

The Devils suck and so do you.


So's your mom.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:46
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 981
Offline
Quote:

Mathias wrote:
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Employers certainly do make employment decisions based on taxes, tax incentives, and tax credits, no matter the size. They also make decisions about where to locate their employees based on these incentives. They do not hire based on need alone.


What I said was that the UI tax is not significant enough in and of itself to make a difference in hiring decisions.
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Not all businesses are corporations. In fact, most are not. A tax increase of $400 per person is not small for a small or mid-size business.


UI Tax for employers and employees is done using a sliding scale not everyone is hit the same

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
If New York or Penn. are doing something that is more business-friendly (and budget-friendly) than NJ, we ought to at least consider doing the same thing, because they are our competition for jobs. Just because someone is working paycheck to paycheck, does not mean that they should be paid for regular, short-term intervals between paychecks just because they are out of work for a few days.


No it means that smart societies recognize the fact that there is a such thing as involuntary unemployment and that the costs to a society of no social safety net are far greater than the cost of taxing workers and employers specifically for a fund to help workers in transition.

And what does business friendly mean? What kind of bullshit philosophy is business friendly? Is Bangladesh business-friendly because they allow children to work 12 hour days in factories? At what point do you stop and say limits need to be put on competition before we all race to the bottom?
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Caring for a family member and lack of productivity would not fall under misconduct. Christie wants to make it tougher for those fired for misconduct.


Where did you read that? Find me the Chris Christie definition of employee misconduct or are you just assuming? Employers regularly try to challenge unemployment benefits for workers who are fired for things such as calling out sick or productivity...Christie is proposing to make it easier for employers to win those kinds of claims

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
I know that all business owners seem like Montgomery Burns or Henry Potter to you, but they are not. The only folks trying to please the crowd are the ones who are against this bill.


No, they seem like people who are passionately driven to make a profit by any means necessary and who are willing to spend a lot of money to lobbying politicians to make things easier to do that...either by exploiting workers, the environment, public perception etc. And I guess under Capitalism that is fine...as long as you have strong workers' and citizens organizations to balance that out...
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
And do you really think that most people blame this recession on immigrants and unions? Please. Most people blame George Bush and Congress (both Dems and Repubs) and big banks and Wall Street. They are not incorrect, either.


Lets see of the Big Banks and Wall Street are the problem why is Christie attacking labor unions, workers pension funds and the unemployed?


What can I say except I disagree with just about everything that you think?

The quoting is getting ponderous, but I will just reiterate that this tax increase will cause pain for small and mid-size businesses, sliding scale or not, and will inevitably lead to more job cuts.

There are journeymen-type careers which, by nature, come with temporary time off work between jobs. This should not be covered by unemployment.

Christie has decided to make it tougher for those fired for misconduct. You are the one assuming that lack of productivity and caring for sick family would be included. You need to prove this.

Everyone lobbies.

The national recession is the fault of many people, but NJ's problems are much more the fault of our prior governors and NJ's public employee unions and their pension funds, so Christie is on the right track as far as that is concerned.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:46
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/6 2:44
Last Login :
2014/1/22 9:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 193
Offline
Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
We do not compete for business with Alabama as much as we do with PA and NY. I thought that was obvious.


But PA then competes with West Virginia which competes with Kentucky which competes with Tennessee which competes with Alabama...where do you draw the line?

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:38
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/10/6 2:44
Last Login :
2014/1/22 9:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 193
Offline
Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:

I wouldn't compare Alabama's UI rate because the cost of living there is much much lower than NJ. However, NY is a good comparison because the cost of living is the same, and many people who live in NJ, work in NY and when they are laid off, they get the NY rate.

Seriously, what country do you think you live in? The US is a capitalist driven society. If you want socialism, move to Cuba or something.


NY is a huge state encompassing many different economies...NJ is the most urban state with one of the highest average costs of living. It has been a serious problem for a long time that NYC is stuck with such a low UI benefit as a result of being tied into the larger state of NY. Their UI is way too low.

I live in the United States

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:34
Top


Re: Gov Christie wants to cut unempluyment benefits $50 a week
#41
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/3/9 15:00
Last Login :
4/19 17:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
Hey Chester,

The Devils suck and so do you.

Posted on: 2010/2/26 19:32
Top




(1) 2 3 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017