Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (197720)	8/15/2004 11:58:11 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586267

Bovine excrement. I was single and newly unemployed the year that the tax code was in force. I had just gotten to about $20k per year when my job was riffed in June of that year. I exhausted my unemployment(a max. of $150 every two weeks), in Texas 6 months max., and didn't find a job until Feb. of the next year. I still had to cut a check for almost $1k for my unemployment. Then you made 14,000 (including unemployment benefits) in 1986. That would have exceeded the standard deduction and the exemption allowance for a single person. So you should be taxed on your unemployment benefits. But, at most, you paid $600 on those benefits. Remember, Texas isn't known for its generous unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits SHOULD NOT BE GENEROUS. They should feed you, NOT pay your mortgage and car payment. Your employers have to pay for these benefits. It is unfair to the employer to require them to pay you even after you're not working for them any longer. You should be glad you got ANY unemployment benefits. For unemployment benefits to be nontaxable, one has to address the question of "why?". Section 61 of the tax code is very specific about what "income" is: "INCOME IS GROSS INCOME, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED". There is inherent unfairness in exempting unemployment benefits from taxation, and your case exemplifies it. In '86/'87, when this law was enacted, there were millions of people who were working hard every day making 6.73/hour or less (your average for the year) who were paying taxes on every nickel of it (to the extent it exceeded the same deductions/exemptions you had, and paying Social Security ON TOP OF IT [which you didn't pay]). WHY SHOULD THEY PAY TAXES WHEN YOU DON'T? THEY'RE WORKING, YOU'RE NOT. Unless one is a Socialist or a Communist, exempting Unemployment Benefits makes no sense whatsoever. If you can tell me why you deserved this benefit that others who were working hard every day of the year didn't have, I think you don't have a leg to stand on. This is not a personal attack on you, but is merely an objective, factual look at the rationale behind taxation of UC. Try some real facts, ok? I know it isn't your strong point, but... Everything in my previous post was indisputable, well-documented fact. Rather than an unfounded attack, if you believe my previous post was wrong about something, how about stating what it was and citing appropriate authority for your statement.