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:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...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

kescusay@lemmy.world

428

Bipartisan bill would prevent millionaires from taking unemployment checks (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Aatube@kbin.social to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] meliaesc@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You think these people are paying their fair share of taxes?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Why should someone pay into employment insurance if they won't get employment insurance?

It's capped, it's not like they are getting copious amounts.

If you wanna tax them more tax them more other ways with an actual tax.

Remember, its not a tax. It's insurance. They paid for it.

Edit: in Canada anyway... it's a separate deduction from taxes, specifically for EI.

Edit: another way to think about it is in Canada we have the CPP (canada pension plan) which is also not a tax that comes off each cheque. It pays into our pension, and we get a set amount back when we retire based off what we put in. You can't just say oh if you made this much you don't get your cpp. It's not a tax, it's something they've paid into and it's rightfully theirs.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the US, it’s just another payroll tax, not something you can choose.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Right, you can't choose it, but is it another line that says employment insurance? I doubt it says EI Tax.

That's not a tax then, it's buying into something. If you pay part of your benefits on your payroll it also isn't a tax but comes off it.

My payroll slip actually says federal tax on the taxes.

Edit: clarity and Mandatory insurance isn't a tax

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If it’s just the name’s that different and it goes to the state, it is a state tax. The arguments for not paying it and not paying for, say, medicare are about the same.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

So in Flordia, where you are required by law to have hurricane insurance if you have a mortage, is that a tax?

In Florida, hurricane insurance is required for people who own and carry a mortgage on houses or condos, including landlords, in the form of a windstorm insurance policy. The Florida legislature began requiring this policy, which is bundled into Florida homeowners, condo and landlord insurance policies at the time of purchase.

Edit: Ones for houses, the other is for employment. Both are required by the state. There's even state offered insurance as private are fleeing the state.

Edit: Oh also, do you actually have a separate line for medicaid or medicare on your payroll slips for everyone? Our healthcare in Canada is just part of our regular taxes. There's no line item for it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I’d call Hurricane insurance a tax.

Yes, Medicaid is definitely a tax. I was just making an example that having a different name shouldn’t bolster the argument that you shouldn’t pay something by any means.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Weird, my inbox only flagged this as new 6h later even though I've opened the app a lot...

I'm not saying they shouldn't pay it, I'm saying they shouldn't be denied the service they've paid for which is what the law is trying to do.

I disagree that hurricane insurance is a tax, but if we assume that's the case, then this law would in essence be, if your house is destroyed in a hurricane and you make $X we don't actually cover your house anymore.

I don't think that's right, and I disagree its a tax.

Edit: I guess my car insurance is a tax too by your view as it's mandatory and it's even you're required to get a minimum coverage from the province.

Edit: and I guess if it wasn't clear, I support them not paying it if they don't benefit because I disagree its a tax, but I think they should be required to pay it and benefit from it. If you want to tax them more, raise their taxes. The law is bad. They paid for insurance and deserve it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

These laws are quite different as a house (and a car) is worth much more than a job, so your comparison doesn’t make that much sense., not to mention you actually have options with which provider you choose. Unemployment only has a single provider, and that’s the state. That one is definitely a tax, the other ones you may argue to not be.

[–] Decoy321@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

And the concern is giving them justification.