Michigan to cut unemployment benefits while unemployment is over 10%

Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Michigan unemployment benefits cut short: 'Huge win' or 'reckless'?

A new Michigan law shortens the duration of unemployment benefits from 26 to 20 weeks. A similar measure is before the Florida legislature.







Michigan's Gov. Rick Snyder (R), seen here at a Ford Motor Co. plant on March 17, signed a bill Monday that will shorten unemployment benefits in Michigan from 26 weeks to 20 weeks.



By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / March 29, 2011
Chicago Starting next year, unemployed workers in Michigan will have six fewer weeks to collect benefits – the result of a bill passed Monday by the state’s Republican-led legislature.
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder signed the bill, which was originally drafted to extend federal unemployment benefits through the end of the year. The added measure will reduce state-funded benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, which should benefit Michigan employers by lowering the unemployment taxes they will pay next year.Michigan is the first state in the country to cut benefits to 20 weeks, but others may follow suit – starting with Florida.
Click to expand...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0329/Michigan-unemployment-benefits-cut-short-Huge-win-or-reckless


Looks like all the social gains that we have fought for are slowly being reduced.

I'm guessing that Michigan's Wealthy are getting a tax cut in return? Maybe they will lower corporate taxes again..

I hate my Financial Government.

Fight for a Cap of Private Wealth!
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I hate that they are cutting benefits...thats just cruel..but not all people who make money in the private sector are evil...I could never fight for a cap on private wealth..thats crazy...but I will fight for others to help others...we all breath this damn air
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Not the only state I am finding out.

So we have had to create these programs to pick up where employers fall down.
Now we will slowly back out of that.

Slowly backing out of a lot of things when the problem is with the Finical System not the consumers.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
You can fight as much as you like, the debt is too big to make any difference. Austerity measures are going to be happening no matter how much you are against it, there is no other choice. The Governments have spent all your money, all your children's money and all your grandchildren's money already. Time to pay the piper.
 
hazorazo

hazorazo

New Member
NoDrama said:
You can fight as much as you like, the debt is too big to make any difference. Austerity measures are going to be happening no matter how much you are against it, there is no other choice. The Governments have spent all your money, all your children's money and all your grandchildren's money already. Time to pay the piper.
Click to expand...
Let the rich bear that burden. Not the working class. Raise taxes to 50 percent on anything over 1 million. Do this until our money problems are fixed. Do this along with looking for WASTE within the current system, not cutting programs. When we have the ship righted, I would have no problem dropping the tax rate on the yearly millionaires.

I am of the thought that if this country allows you to make over a million dollars a year, you ought to have stepped up already and helped....taxes happen because you did not step up like you should have.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Ernst said:
Fight for a Cap of Private Wealth!
Click to expand...
sorry, no way.

i am as raging a communist/marxist/socialist/progressive (apparently they all mean the same thing now) as the next guy, but that is a horrible idea.

besides, as i recall, this was part of a bargain whereas the longest term unemployed get more benefits. i can't say i was too outraged by this, surprisingly.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
hazorazo said:
Let the rich bear that burden. Not the working class. Raise taxes to 50 percent on anything over 1 million. Do this until our money problems are fixed. Do this along with looking for WASTE within the current system, not cutting programs. When we have the ship righted, I would have no problem dropping the tax rate on the yearly millionaires.

I am of the thought that if this country allows you to make over a million dollars a year, you ought to have stepped up already and helped....taxes happen because you did not step up like you should have.
Click to expand...
Why Don't we just make the Rockefeller and Rothschild families pay for everything for the next 100 years. According to statistics those 2 families have over $900 trillion in wealth. almost 30 times world GDP
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
LOL.... this sucks though... Florida is doing the same thing. The Republicans state that extending the benefits promotes bad behavior and abuse of system. They might be right, but tell that to a family of 4 as you take the food out of their mouths... especially when they had nothing to do with job loss or shitty economy. The rich got us in this shit... and now they are getting even richer snaping up cheap foreclosures....

If I had 60k, I could start small and make money too.... imagine being born into a family of trillions... of course they keep getting richer.... but when they die, not a single cent goes with them... :)
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
sorry, no way.

i am as raging a communist/marxist/socialist/progressive (apparently they all mean the same thing now) as the next guy, but that is a horrible idea.

besides, as i recall, this was part of a bargain whereas the longest term unemployed get more benefits. i can't say i was too outraged by this, surprisingly.
Click to expand...
I missed that. Allowing reduction was a part of extending?

Then the cream on top was the reduction of the Inheritance tax? I remember that.

On the cap on private wealth; We already have caps on private wealth in the form of economic Class I believe.
So we just remove the top 5 or 10 % and put that into the debt and we start over.
Otherwise we are saying that or system of economic slavery is becoming fixed with the gap between rich and poor the whip on the backs of the workers.

How is that for radical..

If nothing I am pointing out we are not even able to imagine something better now and that is a bad thing.

Think about it.. There will still be wealthy but at the extreme economic levels that is reserved as public wealth.
Public Wealth can will taxes.

It's a rough idea but I do have one to share.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Capping the amount someone can make and making the excess public funds will only make things much much worse. Not only will you destroy the incentive to produce, but you will give government yet another powerful tool to use against the citizenry. Probably what would happen is those people who make in excess right now will remove some of their production to make just shy of the amount, or there will be many loopholes that the ultra rich will be able to take advantage of. For instance GE made 5.2 Billion PROFIT in the USA last year, paid ZERO taxes and got a refund of 4.2 Million. The CEO is OF COURSE the head of Obama's economic advisory panel and im sure Obama gave him a tax waiver or some other BS deal where certain companies that have provided lots of cash to the Campaign now get to thwart the laws with impunity.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
hazorazo said:
Let the rich bear that burden. Not the working class. Raise taxes to 50 percent on anything over 1 million. Do this until our money problems are fixed. Do this along with looking for WASTE within the current system, not cutting programs. When we have the ship righted, I would have no problem dropping the tax rate on the yearly millionaires.

I am of the thought that if this country allows you to make over a million dollars a year, you ought to have stepped up already and helped....taxes happen because you did not step up like you should have.
Click to expand...
You assume that more regulation will solve problems that are CAUSED by excessive regulation. It wasn't "evil rich people" that spent money that didn't belong to them. It was Congress, etc.

This country doesn't "allow" people to do shit. Where did you ever get the idea that govenment is some kind of daddy and a person must first obtain permission from them to do things? That's the same bullshit argument prohibitionists use. My suggestion is you read up on things a bit. Start with the children's story "Henny Penny" .
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Ernst said:
I missed that. Allowing reduction was a part of extending?

Then the cream on top was the reduction of the Inheritance tax? I remember that.

On the cap on private wealth; We already have caps on private wealth in the form of economic Class I believe.
So we just remove the top 5 or 10 % and put that into the debt and we start over.
Otherwise we are saying that or system of economic slavery is becoming fixed with the gap between rich and poor the whip on the backs of the workers.

How is that for radical..

If nothing I am pointing out we are not even able to imagine something better now and that is a bad thing.

Think about it.. There will still be wealthy but at the extreme economic levels that is reserved as public wealth.
Public Wealth can will taxes.

It's a rough idea but I do have one to share.
Click to expand...

A cap on wealth? Is that individual wealth? I don't think that is very American. However, let us look at your other statement, inheritance tax. Inheretiance is the single most important method of concentrating wealth. That sort of thing is NOT the American way. Inheritance is predicated on the faulty notion that a man can do what he wishes with his money. Yet that man is dead and so has no rights under the Constitution. If he gives his money away previous to his death, that is income to those to whom he gives his money and should be taxed - yes yes, even if it has been taxed before. Why should that not be the case after his death. I would much more be in favor of a 90 percet inheretance tax on anything over a few million dollars. This might keep there from being American Aristocracy and that concentration of wealth I mentioned. I believe that sort of concentration is the root of most influence peddling in politics and it most certainly is the root of political dynasties, none of which bode well for the country.
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
I take it that is a personal favorite literary choice? ;)

Rob Roy said:
You assume that more regulation will solve problems that are CAUSED by excessive regulation. It wasn't "evil rich people" that spent money that didn't belong to them. It was Congress, etc.

This country doesn't "allow" people to do shit. Where did you ever get the idea that govenment is some kind of daddy and a person must first obtain permission from them to do things? That's the same bullshit argument prohibitionists use. My suggestion is you read up on things a bit. Start with the children's story "Henny Penny" .
Click to expand...
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
A cap on wealth? Is that individual wealth? I don't think that is very American. However, let us look at your other statement, inheritance tax. Inheretiance is the single most important method of concentrating wealth. That sort of thing is NOT the American way. Inheritance is predicated on the faulty notion that a man can do what he wishes with his money. Yet that man is dead and so has no rights under the Constitution. If he gives his money away previous to his death, that is income to those to whom he gives his money and should be taxed - yes yes, even if it has been taxed before. Why should that not be the case after his death. I would much more be in favor of a 90 percet inheretance tax on anything over a few million dollars. This might keep there from being American Aristocracy and that concentration of wealth I mentioned. I believe that sort of concentration is the root of most influence peddling in politics and it most certainly is the root of political dynasties, none of which bode well for the country.
Click to expand...
The very wealthy do not leave cash in a bank as an inheritance, the rich are cash poor my friend. They leave homes, equities, precious metals, works of art, capital. Pretty hard to tax a painting. Gold and Silver by law cannot be taxed, homes already have property tax and stocks and bonds can be held over a year and then the tax doesn't have to be paid for 2 years, and even then if you just reinvest the dividends the tax laws won't tax you a penny. Trying to make the ultra rich pay more taxes won't work, they have armies of Lawyers and tax specialists making sure they pay less than the rest.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You assume that more regulation will solve problems that are CAUSED by excessive regulation. It wasn't "evil rich people" that spent money that didn't belong to them. It was Congress, etc.

This country doesn't "allow" people to do shit. Where did you ever get the idea that govenment is some kind of daddy and a person must first obtain permission from them to do things? That's the same bullshit argument prohibitionists use. My suggestion is you read up on things a bit. Start with the children's story "Henny Penny" .
Click to expand...

Henny Penny does not apply. Henny, bless her little heart, was a worker. Had Henny enrolled all of her barnyard brethren to harvest the wheat, grind the wheat and bake the bread and then offer them but a scant slice for their efforts, it would be more akin to the parallel you are attempting to draw. There is an implicit bargain in the United States, it goes like this... "I will think creatively, coalesce a method by which my efforts can be multiplied by your own and hire you to help me. In return for your doing my work for me I will give you a reasonable rate on your time, a reasonably secure place to work where you do not have to think creatively or manage an enterprise. I will keep the difference". There is nothing wrong with such a bargain until the reasonable rate on one's time does not equate a tangible percentage of the wealth one creates for one's employer. This used to be the case before laws and unions kept that tendancy in check. Recently it is happening again and that failure of owners to keep that implicit bargain has always and will always be difficult on both parties.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
The very wealthy do not leave cash in a bank as an inheritance, the rich are cash poor my friend. They leave homes, equities, precious metals, works of art, capital. Pretty hard to tax a painting. Gold and Silver by law cannot be taxed, homes already have property tax and stocks and bonds can be held over a year and then the tax doesn't have to be paid for 2 years, and even then if you just reinvest the dividends the tax laws won't tax you a penny. Trying to make the ultra rich pay more taxes won't work, they have armies of Lawyers and tax specialists making sure they pay less than the rest.
Click to expand...
Mind you I know it is not particularly easy to enforce the details of such taxation and I know that loopholes will always abound, even more so for clever people with money but everything can be asessed or apraised. What I am talking about is a change in the laws where these things are less than inevitable. If America is a haven for self made people, then the wealth of a man's accumulation should be scattered again at his death for others to become "self made".
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Mind you I know it is not particularly easy to enforce the details of such taxation and I know that loopholes will always abound, even more so for clever people with money but everything can be asessed or apraised. What I am talking about is a change in the laws where these things are less than inevitable. If America is a haven for self made people, then the wealth of a man's accumulation should be scattered again at his death for others to become "self made".
Click to expand...
It is wrong to take what is someone elses without permission, no matter how you spin it , theft is theft.

Are you going to assess a painting at 500k and then demand 20k in taxes when that person has no cash to pay you anyway? The government cannot take property away from you without just compensation, it's in the Constitution, but WTF we don't need that old piece of paper, we barely use it anyway.
 
Charlie Ventura

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
Income taxation is theft based upon envy. Its been this way since the income tax was proposed during the turn of the last century, then coming to fruit with the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. Taxing wages/income/inheritance is the taxation of subjects. Sales (excise) taxes are the taxes of free men.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You assume that more regulation will solve problems that are CAUSED by excessive regulation. It wasn't "evil rich people" that spent money that didn't belong to them. It was Congress, etc.

This country doesn't "allow" people to do shit. Where did you ever get the idea that govenment is some kind of daddy and a person must first obtain permission from them to do things? That's the same bullshit argument prohibitionists use. My suggestion is you read up on things a bit. Start with the children's story "Henny Penny" .
Click to expand...
Rob are we in this modern day not sufficiently advance now that we can abandon extreme private wealth and create a two Party System of Financial government?

Where people still get to strive for wealth and private property but at some point wealth becomes the domain of the Government?

Some fear Stalin as in I am suggesting we eliminate private wealth and that isn't what i am saying.
I'm saying the resources needed to run the world should be given to the People and in turn they are the ones than manage industry and also provide social services.

Do you see what I am saying?

hazorazo probably doesn't even know we used to tax rich at 90%
Here is a link and I admit I may have it incorrect but what I am trying to share is something related to 90% taxes in the past and we did not have a deficit problem then.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
 
Illegal Smile

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
Paying more and more people more and more money for more and more time to be unemployed, doesn't seem like a good way to lower unemployment. Yet that's what we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top