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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7448)	1/21/2017 8:56:38 PM
From: Dracin72	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 364291

I do not know if its universal and my point was if its being funded via a tax whose purpose is solely for the payment of unemployment benefits then why is it a point of debate when a worker collects it. I think the benefit even is horribly low even at its maximum. I just never seem to understand when their is debate regarding benefits for which their is a clear and defined tax for that purpose. Just like social security, we pay it and I find it offensive when its defined as a benefit that should be reduced because the political class is levying a tax for that purpose, in this case we are discussing unemployment. So long as it is a mandatory tax being collected then no one should complain that we are paying out benefits. People are getting what they paid for and sadly one could argue they are receivng a poor benefit. I think the maximum benefit for unemployment in California is $450 per week which is horrible for any Californian with our cost of living.