It seems that they are very similar. However, it is to my understanding that in Welfare you cannot own and/or have any assets. Is this correct? If not, what are the fundamental differences between the two?
Unemployment compensation is a payout from unemployment insurance, for which you paid premiums during your period of employment. No employment = no unemployment insurance. You are entitled to collect unemployment whether you need it or not, since you paid for the coverage.
Welfare encompasses a wide variety of programs which provide money, food stamps, medical care, etc. to people on a need-based scheme. That includes programs like WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, and so on.
Unemployment can only be obtained if you’ve been employed, and the amount you receive is based on a percentage of your employed income (with caps.) You typically must have worked for X number of consecutive months to qualify for any unemployment benefits, and then once you start receiving them there is a limit to how long you can receive them before they run out. Further, you have to document some efforts to obtain employment while receiving unemployment benefits, there are also limits on what sort of side work you can do and things of that nature.
If you’ve never worked, you’ll never receive unemployment benefits.
There is no program in the United States called welfare. There are many social programs some of which people consider “welfare” and some which maybe some people don’t consider “welfare.”
Traditionally the term welfare has basically meant a regular cash payment essentially as a form of income for indigent people. Generally speaking until the Clinton reforms, this was in the form of payments made under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) act of 1935. Basically from 1935 until 1997 persons, mostly single mothers but later some two-parent families, who qualified would receive cash benefits in order to cover some part of their household expenses. Under the original program you essentially were entitled to these benefits with no expiration date.
Under the Clinton reforms AFDC was done away with and replaced with “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” (TANF). TANF is different from the old system because it requires that you be trying to get employment to continue receiving benefits, it also limits the recipient to 60 months of benefits in their lifetime, total. The program is Federally funded but State administered, some of the States allow the children of TANF recipients to continue receiving a benefit even if the parental recipient has hit their 60 month maximum (essentially at that point their benefit is reduced by the parent’s share and the remainder is the “child’s” portion.)
In addition to that there’s also as has been mentioned various other programs. The WIC program provides food and such to pregnant mothers and mothers of young children. The food stamp program provides food cards to pretty much anyone who can prove their need (even single males can get food stamps, albeit most of them won’t qualify for them and those that don’t won’t qualify for a very big benefit.) There is also Medicaid which provides health insurance for qualified poor persons. There is also public housing programs. There is HUD housing, which is where the Federal HUD agency gives money to local housing authorities who build public houses that are let out to low income persons for inexpensive amounts.
I don’t see deductions for any such premiums on my pay stubs - do you?
I’ve actually looked and I’ve seen them. Here is an example of a pay check explaining what the various deductions are. http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration-compensation/txt/talon-paystub-eng.html
In any event, the answer to the OP’s question is that it is form of insurance for which the recipient has paid and is contractually entitled to an indemnity benefit. A welfare recipient does not pay a premium for the benefit, nor is it contractually required. For example, when the government bailed out GM and Chrysler, the government had not made a contract of insurance to do so, but thought that doing so was in the best interest of the country. GM and Chrysler could have been turned down and faced liquidation in bankruptcy courts. They did not and do not pay the government for a guarantee of a bailout.
Of the $16 trillion loaned short term by the Federal Reserve Bank to the various big banks back in 08 and 09, there was an obligation to pay those loans back, at approximately 0 percent interest. But the Fed was not obliged to loan that money if they didn’t want to. There was the possibility that some of those banks could have distributed the money in the form of say, bonuses, to the very people who had put the banks in danger and then gone belly up.
Oh, well if you’re in Canada perhaps it’s different - again I don’t see any such deduction on my (U.S.) pay stubs.
Not exactly. You can, in fact, own assets but the highest permitted level is extremely low. Around $2000-2500 depending on the program and other factors. Thus, when I applied for food stamps they looked at my bank account and the value of my two vehicles (which most certainly are assets) and allowed me to keep both of them because my combined total assets was under the cut-off.
Disabled recipients get slightly higher limits on assets - it would, after all, be stupid for a quadriplegic to get dumped off the system because his electric wheelchair was valued as $X,XXX.
As noted, there is more than one program involved, and qualifying for one does not mean you’ll qualify for any other.
It’s part of the employment taxes that your employer pays – see this IRS page on FUTA. So no, it’s not a deduction on your paycheck directly, but it is part of what it costs to employ you like many other such benefits.
As with everything, this varies by state. I pay an additional state unemployment tax as a deduction from my paycheck.
In the U.S., unemployment is a joint federal and state venture. The feds collect taxes on the employer’s payroll and the states usually do as well, but a handful withhold it from the employee’s pay.
There are unemployment benefits, various welfare programs, and entitlement benefits, which you did not mention, so I won’t go into the various entitlement programs: disability insurance benefits, supplemental security income (which is actually a “welfare” program and alluded to by Martin Hyde, and social security benefits.
Here is an example of a California deductions. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/PayStubForPieceRate.pdf
Here is an example http://www.smcfa.org/index.php/documents/46-resources/472-how-to-read-your-paycheck that lists unemployment insurance under SUI
In the first example, it may not be clear, so here’s how it works. California payroll law is complicated, but in most cases the employee pays a tax callled Disability Insurance (called CA State DI in the example), and the employer pays unemployment insurance tax in the same amount.
All the state laws in this area differ to some extent, but the bottom line is that there’s always an unemployment insurance tax somewhere in the paycheck.
It’s also possible for men to get WIC benefits in the rare cases were a single father has custody of young children.
This WIC thing is always something that has bothered me and perhaps some more light can be shed on this here. Helping people doesn’t bother me and I agree that there are those of us out there that need a helping hand from time to time and that as a civilized society we should help.
However the name itself bothers me. My understanding is that WIC stands for Women, Infants and Children. Well, what about men? Do we not count in this society? Are we immune to financial hardship? Are we above illness and injury that would keep us from earning enough to live? Why is it that men are excluded from the title and why is it for the most part single males are (or seem to be) excluded from recieving help?`
Unemployment insurance–the employer pays it, and if the employer doesn’t pay it, the state revenue/tax department will go after it and shut it down if it doesn’t pay.
For the employee, the UI is there in certain cases, delayed in other cases, and not applicable in still others. If you quit your job to get a better job and six months later you’re laid off the better job, you won’t get the full uninsurance amount–that is, they’ll only take the six months’ of the new job into consideration (or something like that–this is only an example). If you get fired for stealing the petty cash you won’t qualify for UI. If you get fired because you spent more time resolving calls on the phone in your call center than the standard, then you will be able to collect.
In the state I live in you can collect UI even if you don’t really need it–if your spouse is a gazillionaire and you get laid off, you can still collect. The only limitations on what work you do while you’re collecting is, if you make more than a certain amount, your UI benefit is reduced by that amount for that period. My state has an amount limit but not a date limit, so you can collect 26 weeks’ worth of UI, or you can work temp jobs for a couple of weeks, collect a couple of weeks of UI, go back and work temp jobs for few more weeks, and draw it out for much longer than the 26 weeks.
WIC–it’s my understanding it’s for the children, and food for the W part is included only as long as the W is breastfeeding the I. Men are of course not immune to financial hardship, but I think it’s assumed that a woman with a baby is going to have a harder go because of having to find child care along with a job, and then the job has to pay enough for her to afford the child care. It’s not illness or injury. You do understand that you can’t just park a baby in your car while you do your shift at the McJob. As far as men go, people can get WIC if they’re married. This means that there are some extra resources for the family, that’s all. I cannot imagine why a healthy single male would need this resource unless he was the sole caregiver of a child, and in that case, I think he could get the benefit. (Don’t hold me to that, though.)\
Oh, and don’t start with this “don’t men count” thing. A hundred years ago women couldn’t even vote and while there were jobs to be had for women, they weren’t what you’d call great careers, and pretty much the ONLY people who counted were men.
If it makes you feel any better, women are not very included in the program, either. Only women who are pregnant or who have given birth within the past six months/are nusing an infant under a year old are eligible for the benefit, while their children are eligible until age five. Basically women are only included at all so they have healthy babies and are able to nurse them.
WIC help’s women before and after their pregnancy. If any guys want to start having babies, the program would probably let them in and change the name. Otherwise, men with children can still get it for their kids.
I’ve worked in H/R and California State DI is if you can’t work because of disability it is not the same as unemployment insurance the employer forks over.
Alaska, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are the three states that assess UI tax on employees as well as employers.
You could say the money the employee pays for state tax deduction will go for unemployment but that could be said of food stamps or any other “welfare” program
And remember after a set period the state and employer stop paying at all. The 99ers for example are being paid for by a federal government bail out of state funded unemployment plans. Those people are not getting it from any employer contributions or state tax.
Of course we all pay federal tax so you can make the argument that you pay for it anyway.
What is welfare depends on how you look at it. For example if Walmart comes into town and the state and or community exempt it from tax for so many years, that means they are avoiding tax. Avoiding not evading.
This means Walmart is getting welfare in a way. Instead of paying tax, they are getting a free ride.
Of course the counter argument is Walmart brings in jobs and those people pay taxes so it evens itself out.
You can see how you can pretty much make a good argument for anything if you try
Yes, single fathers can and do collect WIC on behalf of their infants and children, although all too many assume they can’t. Back when I worked at a clinic we actually had to get a lawyer for a man who was sole parent to 4 children, one 8 months old, after the death of their mother. Seems the social workers at the local aid office were idiots and told him that as a man he couldn’t collect and he’d have to surrender custody of the children to a female relatives. Of course, that was NOT the case, but a lawyer was required to convince them of that fact. Public Aid is biased in favor of women in many ways, even when it shouldn’t be.
Yes, single fathers can collect WIC on behalf of their children
Yes, I should have made that clearer. In California, employees pay disability insurance tax and employers pay unemployment insurance tax. In general.