Lawmakers introduce bill to end unemployment benefits for millionaires

[babylonsister]

:wtf:

Lawmakers introduce bill to end unemployment benefits for millionaires
By Vicki Needham - 02/08/11 07:42 PM ET


Several lawmakers introduced Tuesday evening a bipartisan measure that would end unemployment payments to millionaires, saving nearly $100 million over five years.

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.) back the measure that would stop the payment of unemployment checks to those who made more than $1 million a year.

"In a federal budget rife with waste, duplication and, sometimes, sheer stupidity, giving unemployment benefits to millionaires may take the cake," Coburn said in a statement. "Ending this practice will save nearly $100 million and correct a gross injustice against the millions of Americans who are out of work. Congress should pass this bill without delay. If there was ever a common sense spending cut, this is it."

As many as 2,840 households who have reported an income of $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008, according to Internal Revenue Service figures.


more...

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/142895-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-end-unemployment-benefits-for-millionaires

[Skink]

1. Means testing.

could be good.

[napi21]

2. I'm actually surprised that any millionaires FILED for UE.

I've only knwn one guy who, although wasn't a millionaire, made a nice busk. When he was unemployed, he never filed for U , and in his words "I really didn't need it and that $$ is better used for those who really DO need it." O remember when he said that I really thought very highly of him for feeling that way.

[quaker bill]

3. Of course

One could in theory make a million in real estate one year, and be quite broke the next... I know it seems impossible, but I have met a few recently. I am not overly sympathetic, no more than I would be for an unemployed restaurant worker anyway. Some of these folks do go broke in a spectacular manner.

[Merlot]

4. well, if they go broke in a spectacular manner and loose everything

they are no longer millionaires. I think this bill referrers to people who still have assets.

[quaker bill]

11. just going off the op

"payment of unemployment checks to those who made more than $1 million a year"

the word "made" would be past tense. If they have kept assets and have millions in the bank, I agree we should not be cutting them checks. In FL as an example, you can shelter millions from bankruptcy by buying a mansion, as they can't take your house, even if it is worth 10 million. I would not favor giving these folks a check. Some do not plan so well and end up just as broke as the homeless guy you might meet on a street corner. They should get checks regardless of how much they might have "made" in the recent past

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Not welfare.

Part of your compensation includes your employer's payments to your state's UIC program. The benefits are capped, not means tested, as they should be.

You buy into 'no millionaires' and next it is 'no 100,000-aires' and then it is you.

[leftstreet]

8. +1

[Statistical]

10. +1000. Each subsequent cut is easier because the excluded will see nothing wrong with expanding it.

If you means test something it changes from compensation to welfare and we all know how well welfare programs end up. Especially in countries looking to slash the deficit.

[Nikia]

6. Have there been any studies on these unemployed millionaires

Like whether or not they regain employment in jobs paying similiar amounts or have enough assessts that make money to not quickly go broke. While it can be hard to feel sorry for the rich, they can become down on their luck too and even end up poor.
It is fairer to tax successful rich people who are making money than to deny unemployment benefits to unsuccessful formerly rich people in my opinion.

[peace13]

7. I have mixed feelings on this one.

If they can never collect on it then they should not be required to pay into it.

[badtoworse]

9. So neither they nor their employers pay premiums, right?

If you are not eligible to file a claim, what is the basis for paying premiums?