Severance Package Question

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by Fred Douglass

.....paying into RETIREMENT and/or social(ist) SECURITY.......NOT (repeat NOT) "unemployment"....which supplied those out of work.

I'm sure there's an historic explanation for everything.....but "unemployment" always seemed to be drawn from a general public pool.

It doesn't bother me.....I'm old-fashioned and genetically anti-FDR, anyway. I've never collected any "benefits" other than retirement funds INTO WHICH I'VE PAID. It seems a federal (or state) unemployment fund----whether "paid" by an employer via taxes or not still seems different from dipping into one's OWN retirement.

Betcha that math still applies.....condescending/scolding "corrections" aside.

I am confident this response will meet with more of the above. Nonetheless, I trust my sources as to the origins and ethics of unemployment "benefits".....

Chow,

You Sir are a true patriot and an example that all should follow.

[Wes Tausend]

...

There appears some confusion as to how unemployment compensation is funded.

In North Dakota (and I'll bet most other states), state unemployment is funded by a performance percentage rate assigned to each employer. Employers with frequent lay-offs and frequent collection-by-employee, pay a higher rate.

Federal unemployment is usually a flat rate and adjustment credit is given for amounts paid into state funds, which vary by state. I believe federal does not usually kick in until state fails or runs out.

None of these are "welfare" until the claims exceed the pool. Which may happen when the economy crashes like this.

Concerning state, this is why some businesses try to minimise (or eliminate) collections, the most abusing claiming the employee was fired for lack of performance, which may or may not be true.

One of the main points is that funds paid into the pool are always funds that are earned by, but not paid directly, to the employees. An alternative would be to pay employees full higher wages and let them live off their savings on a rainy day. Think about how that would work for the 80+ percent who do not bother to save at all.
Forced savings (unemployment compensation) are thee way the public and creditors are protected; at least there is some self-funded food and some available self-payment funds to go after.

It's important to remember all taxes and funds are inevitably paid by the production of workers. Employers can take a legitimate "cut" only to the extent they actually enhance production, and yes, their cut can also be taxed, preferably to no more than match their benefit option.

Regarding any pension funds, social security, railroad retirement, goverment retirement etc. IMO, all are equal-merit pyramid schemes and they work great ...as long as new investors put in more than early investors draw out.

Wes

...