this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2023
428 points (96.7% liked)

Not The Onion

12224 readers
801 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Um, how isn't this a thing already? (Millionaire=people who earn $1M yearly)
Sorry for Fox News, but it's the best source with this headline and it says it's bipartisan so we should probably be good.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] techwooded@lemmy.ca 58 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Would just like to pop in here and say that terms like “millionaires” and “billionaires” typically refer to net worth/wealth, not income. This is why Jeff Bezos was able to claim some of the federal COVID aide because, despite being a multi-billionaire, his income in that year was below the threshold (I think it was sub-$100k) as income from investments didn’t qualify under the structure of the plan.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment of people whose net worths are upwards of a million being able to claim unemployment, actually calculating net worth is extremely difficult to do, especially among the wealthy. That would put an unreasonable burden on the unemployment benefit system that would probably end up costing more in administrative costs than the money saved by not including to the ultra-wealthy in the benefit. Preventing the latter is the main benefit of universal programs

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

actually calculating net worth is extremely difficult to do, especially among the wealthy.

Even among the non-wealthy. For example, you might have some guy who has essentially no savings but who worked for an auto manufacturer and has a pension coming, compared to another guy who has a million dollars in his 401K but the annual income from that would be less than the first guy's pension.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the 90s, I didn't qualify for food stamps. I had a minimum wage job, but the house I lived in had a washer and a dryer, which meant I was too rich for food stamps.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Were* those literally criteria that were used?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's bonkers. I'm sorry you had to endure that.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

That's Indiana for you. And I survived despite it, so it all worked out, but thanks.

[–] Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Not exactly related, I was a college kid looking to move out of my parents' house back in 2007. I applied for Section 8 housing as my minimum wage job at the time technically met all the qualifications for it. I wasn't allowed to receive it because I was in school at the time. You can't be poor and go to college at the same time if you wanted a place to live, apparently.

[–] shottymcb@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You don't have to put the burden on the unemployment system or the poor. A simple law that says "claiming unemployment insurance if your net worth is over $5,000,000 shall be punished by 30 years in prison" would suffice.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And then how do you enforce that without calculating net worth? Just let people self-report with no verification?

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it necessarily needs active enforcement. It can be as simple as:

Richy Rich: "So I claimed unemployment during my taxes, and no one stopped me! Bwa ha ha!"
Moralistic Auditor: "Wait...you did?? That's illegal! Screw it, I always hated you, I'm going to report you to the IRS!"
IRS: "We've discovered you incorrectly claimed unemployment, thanks to an anonymous tip and brief investigation. Your punitive taxes have been quintupled."

You wouldn't always catch everyone; that's fine, as long as the cost of abusers is not outweighed by the savings of not verifying everyone.

[–] techwooded@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Main problem with this is that unemployment isn’t handled by the IRS, it’s a program under the Department of Labor and administered by the States and federal agencies notoriously don’t talk to each other.

There’s also nothing wrong with just giving them unemployment benefits, but you structure your tax system so that the rich people, when they end up needing to claim unemployment, are paying more or equivalent in taxes paying into unemployment than they’re getting in the payout. You simplify both sets of laws, the IRS is in charge of collecting revenue and the subdepartment of Labor tasked with this only has to worry about dishing out your cash so the administration of the benefit is simplified, and you still get your desired result of exceedingly well off people not “dragging” the system