Unemployment Insurance (UI) Improper Payments By State
Hover over a state for a summary or click on a state for more detailed information
at https://www.dol.gov/dol/maps/map-ipia.htm
And you might wonder what's wrong with our Governments managers and management style.
It's just a few dollars, huh?
And since paid claims effect the contribution rate required of an employer, every unauthorized/overpaid claim costs the employer more in the long run. When that employer is your county government, you, the taxpayer, are paying more.
I notice that the DOL says the cause of some 30% of the causes for over payments is "Separation Issues — Information regarding the claimant's separation from work is received after a claim is paid that disqualifies the claimant from being eligible for benefits and creates an overpayment (employer sends inaccurate or late information or a ruling is made on appeal)."
Did you know that Elk County does not routinely respond to unemployment claims made by employees terminated 'for cause' (fired) or employees who voluntarily quit? In fact, I've been told that past employees who are not legally entitled to unemployment are actually encouraged by county officials to file for it even though they are not entitled to the benefits! And because our county managers don't properly file the appeal cards when they arrive in the mail on these claims.... the unemployment benefits get paid..... legally deserved or not. Verified by our county clerk at a recent county commission meeting, I kid you not.
Bend over Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer because local 'management' strikes again.
For Kansas unemployment rules go here scroll down and read about Disqualifications:
https://www.uibenefits.dol.ks.gov/HelpEligibilDisqual.asp (https://www.uibenefits.dol.ks.gov/HelpEligibilDisqual.asp)
Unemployment insurance is another thing forced upon us that should not be.
It's our liberty that is being compromised for a benefit to those not earning/working.
Did you read this weeks paper "Area Leaders Gather to Assess Future of SE Kansas". What 250 of them. I believe a lot of information was left out of that article. For instance who were those distinguished individuals?
They talked about unification of the different county's economic growth.
Sounds like another step towards combining counties. The state does have a group studying it.
Perhaps, if they consolidate the counties our property taxes may go down, especially since we have the largest levi in Kansas. But don't you suppose along with that our road maintenance and other services will go the same way?
Well then Gov. Brownback talks about Brain Drain. Kids growing up in SEK and moving away. Not good for the area they grew up in. Wait a minute the Governor himself did that didn't he? He moved away from Parker, Linn County, Kansas - Population 200, where he grew up. Dog gone ain't that something?
And they talk about welfare, it was a government designed and they traped people into the program. The states collect money from the Feds and that improves their Economics, right. Now the money is going to go away because of Federal Cuts and now we blame the welfare reciepients. Wow.
The State is considering doing away with Income tax, but that will have to be replaced by something, right?
How about state property taxes on windfarms?
Oops there goes the PILOT for Elk County.
Just something to think about.
Quote from: Ross on November 26, 2011, 11:41:05 AM
The State is considering doing away with Income tax, but that will have to be replaced by something, right?
How about state property taxes on windfarms?
Oops there goes the PILOT for Elk County.
Just something to think about.
This is how texas has no income tax. They tax the oil coming out of the ground. Shouldn't windfarms be done the same way since they are making a fortune on them.
Ross, what paper were you talking about reading an article in?
Not sure if it varies among different states, but this is California's overview:
The Unemployment Insurance Program, commonly referred to as UI, provides workers, who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, with weekly unemployment insurance payments. The UI program is 100% funded by employers who pay taxes on wages paid to employees.
That said, when I retired I was told that because of the short notice to ask for voluntary separations, in my case, retiring, we would not be denied six months of Unemployment Insurance. The company was probably protecting itself from possible lawsuits in my mind. But even though my pension and SS were sufficient, I did not turn down the extra income for the first six months. As it turned out it took a month or two for the retirement benefits to kick in. There is no involvement money wise from the state.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on November 26, 2011, 08:22:45 PM
...The UI program is 100% funded by employers who pay taxes on wages paid to employees...
...There is no involvement money wise from the state.
UNLESS the employer is the local, state or federal government... then it's all taxpayer money.
Quote from: Janet Harrington on November 26, 2011, 07:35:56 PM
Ross, what paper were you talking about reading an article in?
Quote from: Ross on November 26, 2011, 11:41:05 AM
Did you read this weeks paper "Area Leaders Gather to Assess Future of SE Kansas".
This article was on the front page of the local paper, Prarie Star.
Quote from: larryJ on November 26, 2011, 08:22:45 PM
Not sure if it varies among different states, but this is California's overview:
The Unemployment Insurance Program, commonly referred to as Unemployement Insurance, provides workers, who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, with weekly unemployment insurance payments. The UI program is 100% funded by employers who pay taxes on wages paid to employees.
Larryj
I don't think so. There are a lot of misconceptions about UI. Each state does have their own requirements to meet to qualify for UI and each state may pay a different amount into UI but read on:
Costs are Truly Shared by Federal and State Government
Operating as a federal-state partnership, Unemployement Compensation is based on federal law, but administered by the states. The UC program is unique among U.S. social insurance programs in that it is funded almost totally by either federal or state taxes paid by employers.
Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/a/ucprogram.htm
Purpose
In general, the Federal-State Unemployment Insurance Program provides unemployment benefits to eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own (as determined under State law), and meet other eligibility requirements of State law. Unemployment insurance payments (benefits) are intended to provide temporary financial assistance to unemployed workers who meet the requirements of State law.
Each State administers a separate unemployment insurance program within guidelines established by Federal law. State Unemployment Insurance Benefits (from Department of Labor)
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp
Sorry that you disagree, Ross.
My source: http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on November 26, 2011, 11:17:20 PM
Sorry that you disagree, Ross.
My source: http://www.edd.ca.gov/Unemployment/
Larryj
I wasn't arguing or meaning to offend you, I appologize, if you took it that way.
I like most people I'm sure have had to use UI at one time or another, I do believe it is a good system and should be used by individuals when necessary while looking for a new job. I need UI when I was discharged from the military and I experienced two layoffs during my working years where I needed UI. And I find nothing disgraceful about using it. I would rather have kept my job because I was making really good money, but hey we just move on right. Now I am retired and hope to stay that way.
I don't really understand all the laws, but I did read that the federal and the state governments work together on one hand and as seperate entities on the other hand. Meaning each state has it's own laws for UI. As I understand it the extensions of up to 99 weeks are mainly financed by the federal government.
And all of it is supported by taxation. Yes, state and federal taxes on the employer. But still taxation.
And we all know that taxation is add on to the cost of goods or services we buy as individuals.
I lived in California for about ten years and it just seemed to be a different world.
It's hard to believe any state would turn down federal government tax money.
The actual point of this thread was the abuse of the system. Which appears to be documented in the graphs of the web page.
If we could really understand our governments and understand the abuses heaped on us by those within the system we would be either very smart or brain damaged by trying.
I hope all this make my thoughts as clear as mud.
LOL
Larry, in Texas the Employer pays the Unemployment insurance premiums monthly.
While in Texas I filed protests with the state against some employees getting compensation. The employer has a right to appear at a hearing or file a protest against undeserving employees getting the benefits. This is in the case of an employee that violated all company policies and ethics to try to get you to fire them.
Below is a quote regarding the premiums going up in Texas:
Dec. 9--The Texas Workforce Commission announced Tuesday the minimum Unemployment Insurance tax rate paid by Texas employers will nearly triple for the 2010 calendar year.
The tax replenishes the Texas Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund which provides unemployment insurance for Texas workers who lose their jobs through no fault of theirs.
Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/tax-law-tax-increases/13564121-1.html#ixzz1eugxlLQ9
You know i've never used IE. When i would be in between contracts i apparantly qualified to get it but it never even occured to me to apply for it. i always had money saved up for months i would not be working. It was simple formula for me to take out of my check and deposit 500 a month into an account that i would use for living on when i was not working.
LOL. Oh well.
It's good that you're not into the government programs.
I'm thinking that UI was probably started in the FDR days - another program we should never have had in this country.
I think it was probably a good idea for good intentions in the beginning but what it has done is shifted the responsibility of preparing for disaster from the individual to the government. This is why you save for retirement and emergencies. good rule of thumb is pay yourself 10% into retirement, 5% -10% into disaster until you save up 2 years of wages then you can drop it to like 5% to grow it and anything over 2 years you can roll over into retirement.
You just have to learn to live on less sometimes. Truthfully people are wasteful when it comes to spending. Think about that 1.20 cup of coffee at the gas station or if you like starbucks 5.00 cup of joe. Instead of that, buy a thermos and take it with you. savings will realize itsself in less than a week. IF you stop 3 times a day and spend 1.20 your spending 400 dollars a year on coffee
Ross, no offense taken. It is just that you made the comment about taxpayer money and I seemed to remember that it wasn't taxpayer money, but employer's contributions, as well as employees. And, I saw a post about government workers getting unemployment which would be taxpayers money, but what is the difference between unemployment benefits and the salaries they are earning while they are working? It is taxpayer money that pays for both.
I have also drawn UI benefits when I first came to CA and moved from job to job. I seem to recall there were less restrictions then, meaning you could get UI for any reason that you were unemployed. I am aware of the rules now, in that, you have to be laid off, etc. Once I started my career with the paper I worked for 34 years and never had the need to draw UI. It is good for those who need it.....honestly........but I agree there is abuse. But, like any other government agency, there is too much bureaucracy and the system is flawed.
Larryj
I agree Larry and we have far to many systems that are flawed.
And that is most likely to the fact that there is a lack of accountability, especially at the top.
The untouchables.
How is UI any different than Obamacare? It's not.
The flaw is thinking up these worthless programs, then making them Federal law.
Think liberty.
Quote from: redcliffsw on November 28, 2011, 08:52:58 AM
How is UI any different than Obamacare? It's not.
The flaw is thinking up these worthless programs, then making them Federal law.
Think liberty.
I believe you are quit right Red.
What bothers me after they start the programs they have no accountability built into the programs.
Then they fault the individuals that use the programs.
And
each and every state has been shown to abuse this particular program and no accountability on the state level.
But, hey it's good for the local economies.
It puts more money in the hands of the have nots to spend at the stores of the haves and tthat is good economic sense.
Economics depends on the circulation of currency, so from federal government tax dollars to state governments to the people to the stores and back again. Forget the system abuses it's good for business.
Personally, I prefer good neighbors.
I help them and they in turn help me when needed.
I guess, I am blessed with good neighbors.
I'm not talking dollars but other ways far more valuable.
That's the real reason they have these money programs is to circulate more money in the public.
Like they care for the guy who was laid-off. Baloney - he can make do without gov't assistance.
This isn't just a recent thing. That's the reason for social security.
How about "stimulus" programs?
And how can we expect China to loan us money if we don't buy all their stuff?
We're paying for the circus at the expense of our liberty.
Are you at least a 10-20% saver so you needn't ever borrow money? Are you a frugal spender or are you one that the ads target to help you decide what you want instead of need? People really need to be immune to advertizing.
Diane my point was not about how much any one person saves or not.
And it was not about whether a person use or doesn't use Unemployement Insurance benefits or not.
My point is shown on the map about abuses of the the system.
Abuses of the taxpayer by the Federal Government who shovels out $$$$'s without accountability.
Abuses of the taxpayer by the State Government's who also abuses the system without accountability.
In my o[pinion No one is responsible for anything in our governments, therefore all the abuses.
Just like with the housing buble and the financial bubble.
I think We will start feeling the effects real soon.
Isn't advertising a part of freedom?
Well - except for the "no call list".