I believe that they are (partially) funded by both state and federal unemployment taxes. However, the issue of extending benefits is always a question of the federal government…why is that?
I’ve never heard of any proposals that extensions be done on a sliding scale. For example, first series of weeks @ 100% of your benefit, if extended the next series of weeks at 75%, the next series at 50% etc. This as a means to ween the unemployed off of the benefits and encourage them to look for alternatives.
The employer pays for all the unemployment benefits, except in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Alaska, where the employee chips in as well.
The basic system is funded by taxes that the employer pays. This rate or tax, if you will, is based on the number of people an employer lays off. The more they lay off the greater the rate. (If a person is fired for good cause, like stealing, that doesn’t count against the employer). This is why a lot of employers fight every claim regardless if it’s justified or not.
As the other posted noted different states have different details, but most fund about 26 weeks.
Once this is exhuasted the federal government steps in to provide for an additional 13 to 20 weeks. Usually this is split 50/50 by the state and federal government but since 2009 the federal government has been picking up the entire cost
According to this site over 30 states have ran through the unemployment trust funds that had and are borrowing to meet unemployment benefits.
Historically the federal government has intervened in times of high unemployment to help the states out. You will note the high unemployment rate is not even. The Dakotas and Nebraska for instance have about 5% or less for an unemployment rate.
This federal government program was enacted in the early 70s and was cut somewhat by Ronald Reagan’s administration.
If you ask whether or not people receiving unemployment insurance, should get reduced benefits as they go on to additional weeks, well that will quickly turn into a great debate. As there are a lot arguments both for and against
Why would encouragement beyond losing two thirds of your income be needed?
Unemployment is [del]rarely[/del] never enough to maintain your regular lifestyle, and drastic cutbacks and big hit to your savings are required to cover the basics. Most people on unemployment go into panic mode immediately without any kind of thought that they might be able to make a life out of staying on unemployment for an extended period.
If you’re employed part-time, your unemployment benefits are reduced proportionately. That, if you will, is the weaning off of benefits and the alternative you want. Can’t find a full-time job? Take a part-time and the state will make sure your benefits don’t stop entirely.
Having been a victim of prolonged unemployment myself, I assure the OP that unemployment benefits aren’t like winning the lottery. In my case, they just about equaled minimum wage.
I realize that states have different rules but I’ve never heard of a state extending or limiting the number of weeks allowed apart from what the Federal govt is doing. And the Federal govt extension legislation is always big news.
I realize that times are tough, but anecdotal evidence aside, some people do have alternatives (job they wouldn’t otherwise take , family help, sell assets, etc) who are more than happy to keep cashing the check they get. I’d do the same thing.
One of these days the extensions are going to stop and somebody out there is going to hurt. Perhaps one more extension would get passed at a reduced rate.
Correct, that is for debate. I was asking whether anyone had heard of any legislative proposals that would provide extensions at other than 100% of the original benefit.
Have you ever been on unemployment? I assure you, this is not the case. While unemployment can keep you going for a while, it quickly becomes clear that you’re eating into your savings at a rapid pace. People do all the things you mentioned while on unemployment. With out it they lose their house and other more drastic actions.
Rather than a sliding scale, the benefits are terminated after 26 weeks. That accomplishes exactly the same thing.
The maximum benefit in New York is $405 a week (before taxes). Odds are that if you were employed, this already represents a sizable cut in your income, and isn’t enough to keep you afloat. Very few folks need an incentive to get re-employed.
The counter argument to this is people who are on unemployment will not accept jobs that are available but pay less than they made, till the unemployment runs out.
WLS-TV in Chicago ran a piece on this and found about half the people who took jobs paying less than they were making didn’t take them till they could no longer get unemployment benefits. In other words the jobs were available to them but they wouldn’t take them till forced to.
Part of this is not correct, as a lot of them are temp jobs and people are fearful of getting work for a month or so and getting tossed off unemployment for a month, 'cause it’s so hard to get back on.
That’s where the argument starts, and of course, as I said, this is a great debate.
I once drew out unemployment for a number of years, by taking temp jobs. And then, when the temp jobs were over, I reactivated the benefits. It was not at all hard to get back on within a certain time period, and after that time period it was like filing a new claim (you lost your job, again).
Some of those temp jobs did in fact pay less, but once you hit half the amount of your weekly unemployment, they didn’t pay even if you made less at the temp job than you would have gotten in unemployment. Which, as others have said, is not a grand amount in any case, but enough to keep you afloat.
The unemployment in our state asks you if you made a certain number of job contacts and if you turned down any employment. If you didn’t make the contacts–and sometimes you have to prove that–you can be denied. If you turned down a job, you have to provide all sorts of information about why you didn’t take a job that was offered. If it paid a certain amount less, or involved relocation, or even an uncomfortable commute, then you were probably still entitled to unemployment. Otherwise, they could pull it.
(Also, you are entitled to unemployment whether you need it or not. If you were fabulously wealthy and only working for some reason other than money, and lost the job, you could still get unemployment.)
I trust that it is not your case… but it is not the case. There are plenty of people collecting right now who could get by without doing so.
Yes, I was unemployed once. I collected for 26 weeks. I didn’t get any extensions. Thankfully I didn’t really need any. But if they were offered I’d have taken them for a long time.
They apply to anyone who is eligible for benefits. However, if you lose your job tomorrow, you won’t be getting the extension money until you use up your regular benefits.
If you lose your job tomorrow, you won’t be getting the extension money at all, because Congress hasn’t voted to extend the program. You’ll get your regular benefits and that’s it.
At least in my state (NM) this is incorrect. The UI benefit is reduced by the full amount (NOT proportionally) you earn. So up to the amount of UI benefit, you are zero sum. Going out and busting ass for 10 hours pays the same as sitting home and watching “The View”.
Even worse, because the benefit is reduced the week you earn it, not the week it is payed. This can be a serious problem for 1099 work where there might be 4 weeks or even more delay before an invoice is paid. Big problem for professionals who can find small consulting gigs, but have problems getting hired as an employee, and the system is not really set up to handle “I got a FT consulting gig that will last 3 weeks” situations.
This is just one of the things I think is a serious problem with the way my state’s UI is administered. They really shouldn’t be discouraging folks from getting out and doing something to earn some money. Being employed in some capacity can make it easier to find full time work: Networking, contract-to-hire, and losing the stigma of being out of work are the long poles.
I think CO at least extends the time you can receive benefits if you offset them some by working part time, so working PT defers your benefit (assuming you stay unemployed) rather than reducing it.
I think I understand a little better now, please correct me if I’m wrong…
Normal benefits last 26 weeks. Extensions these days last for 73 more weeks to total 99 (why the extension is that long when only 26 weeks is typically enough stumps me though). Could be that time are four times worse than normal… or the magic figure of 100 was just too much for some.
I think the extension votes apply to batches of the unemployed whose normal benefits expire thru a certain date. Therefor all of the unemployed up thru 11/30/10 were eligible for the full 99 weeks. Only those (I’ve heard 650,000) whose normal benefit expired after the last extension window ran out are affected by the extension legislation under consideration now. Correct?
No, unless I’m misunderstanding you. Let’s say you were laid off in the past, where there was full funding for everything. You start out by applying for regular unemployment, which is paid for by the states through an employer tax. That’s the kind of unemployment you’re probably familiar with. That lasts 26 months.
Lets say those 26 months pass and you can’t find a job. So there’s a federal program called EUC, Emergency Unemployment Compensation. That was set up in June of 2008 and as paid for by the federal government from the general fund, and is divided into 4 tiers. Tier 1 lasts for 20 weeks, Tier 2 lasts for 14 weeks, Tier 3 lasts for 13 weeks, and Tier 4 lasts for 6 weeks. Tiers 1 and 2 are open to residents of all states, Tiers 3 and 4 are open to residents of states with unemployment over a certain rate.
So lets say you exhaust that and still can’t find a job. You then move to what are called Extended Benefits, which last for up to 20 weeks (13 and then an additional if you’re in a state with high unemployment), which is paid for by both the federal government and the state government. After that, you’re done and you don’t get any unemployment.
So what does the unemployment thing expiring mean? It doesn’t directly affect people on regular unemployment. They still get the 26 weeks. People on EUC can complete their tier, but no one can be added to another tier (so if you’re on EUC tier 1, you’ll be able to get unemployment for rest of the 20 weeks remaining on your tier, but you won’t be able to go to tier 2. If you’re on regular unemployment, and that runs out, you won’t be able to get on tier 1.) People who are on extended benfits stop getting them, either immediately or over the next couple of weeks, depending on the state. So if you’re on extended benefits, either this week or next week is likely to be your last check.
So you’re wrong, I think. This not passing affects everyone on unemployment, and current figures suggest that this not passing will mean that 2 million people will lose benefits by the end of this month, and more in the next few months to come.
26 weeks, Captain Amazing, not months, weeks, for the initial unemployment claim. The rest of your post is correct, but you started out with 26 months initially and that is weeks.