primitives discuss paying back unemployment compensation

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002301245

Oh my.

By the way, didn't the Magic One solve the unemployment problem more than three years ago?

The primitives promised us he would.

shraby (14,667 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

Do people have to pay back the unemployment insurance they drew?

My dau-in-law says she has to start paying it back in June in Georgia. I never heard of something like that before.

shraby (14,667 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. Does anyone know? My grandson says she does have to pay it back.

Need input..he's on the other end of emails tonight.

Tuesday Afternoon (33,794 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

2. did she have taxes taken out?

if not then, that might be what she is talking about.

shraby (14,667 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

3. I don't know, but the kid said she had to start paying it back in June, so it doesn't sound like taxes. I know those are owed by people who draw.

Hassin Bin Sober (5,197 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

5. Perhaps they were caught working for cash or some other infraction???

I've heard of states going after paid benefits in cases like that.

MADem (67,803 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

6. Did she misstate her circumstances on her application for unemployment?

Did she work "under the table" and not report her earnings?

Did she have another job she didn't mention to the unemployment people?

Normally, people do not have to pay back their unemployment insurance. The one exception would be if there was a reason that the individual was not entitled to all or part of the payments.

MiniMe (13,021 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

7. No, you don't have to pay it back

Unless the company appeals for some reason, and wins. Or they find out that the person was working while they were collecting unemployment. If she got some kind of notice, it should state why she has to pay it back, and you can search on what that says.

Tuesday Afternoon (33,794 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

8. short answer: in some instances, yes.

SaintPete (439 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

11. the only reason you have to pay it back is if you weren't supposed to have received it in the first place - whether due to fraud or error, or --as another DUer said - after being successfully challenged by the company that terminated employment.

shraby (14,667 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

12. To the ones who thought she might not be entitled, she definitely was, and definitely wasn't working under the table. I think my grandson misunderstood, and the sticky wicket was whether she had taxes taken out or not. After talking to him further, I'm pretty sure he didn't understand as much as he thought he did.

trackfan (3,125 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

9. I think only if there were some sort of adjudication that she was not entitled to the benefits she had been receiving would she have to pay it back. If she was legitimately receiving unemployment benefits, I would think that that is her money, and that she would only be responsible for any income taxes owed thereon.

dionysus (20,351 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

14. my guess would be if it was improperly issued, ie someone was claiming and caught getting paid under the table

rocktivity (32,888 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

15. You shouldn't have to pay it back unless you took it when you weren't supposed to.

After all, your taxes paid INTO the program -- Unemployment benefits are NOT an "entitlement."

MrSlayer (17,780 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

16. You shouldn't have to.

You pay into it the whole time you're working, essentially it's your own money.

BlueToTheBone (611 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

18. Actually, the employee pays nothing into the system. It is the employer who pays the unemployment insurance premium. Generally 3-5% of the gross salary base.

BlueToTheBone (611 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

17. only if she drew the benefits to which she was not entitled. But, Georgia is its own world and may have other rules.

JSnuffy (177 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

19. Most states put the requirement on the employer...

.. for the actual monthly "dues"

[obumazombie]

The blind leading the blind, leading from behind.

[Chris_]

SaintPete (439 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
11. the only reason you have to pay it back is if you weren't supposed to have received it in the first place - whether due to fraud or error, or --as another DUer said - after being successfully challenged by the company that terminated employment.

BlueToTheBone (611 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
18. Actually, the employee pays nothing into the system. It is the employer who pays the unemployment insurance premium. Generally 3-5% of the gross salary base.

Sounds like someone got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. 

The BTTB primitive is correct.  Employees pay nothing into the unemployment fund.

[obumazombie]

Unemployment is a benefit an employee accrues as a consequence of their employment. Therefore the employee pays.

[Texacon]

Unemployment is a benefit an employee accrues as a consequence of their employment. Therefore the employee pays.

They are more than welcome to work as contract labor.  If that is the case then there is no unemployment insurance.

KC

[dixierose]

I received unemployment in Ga for a little over a year. The only way you have to pay it back is if you turn down a legitimate job, can't prove you are conducting REAL job searches (and they do audit and check what you turn in), if you work under the table and they find out, or if you work and don't let them know. Those are the reasons they told me about anyway. They were especially harsh about turning in at least two job searches every week after the 9th month or so.

[franksolich]

They were especially harsh about turning in at least two job searches every week after the 9th month or so.

Nine months???

It's an issue, but then and again it's not an issue, here in Nebraska, and up in South Dakota and North Dakota (and I believe Vermont too) that unemployment compensation is still paid for only.....13 weeks.

Everybody else gets 99 weeks; only we four don't.

The excuse given by the bureaucrats in Washington is that since our unemployment rates are so low, we don't "deserve" all those extra weeks.  (It's a federal issue, not a state issue.)

It's nice to have such a low unemployment rate, but this seems unfair, given that the people of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota (and probably Vermont) pay federal taxes the same as everybody else, and so should get the same benefits as everybody else.....even if we don't really need them.  We pay for them.

[wasp69]

Unemployment is a benefit an employee accrues as a consequence of their employment. Therefore the employee pays.

I have never seen that particular deduction on any of my pay stubs, what am I missing?

[wasp69]

MADem (67,803 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

6. Did she misstate her circumstances on her application for unemployment?

Don't you mean "did she lie"?  Seriously, it kills me to hear these turds twist the language like this. 

Hey, DUmmies, a lie is a lie no matter how pretty you try and make it.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Sung to the tune of paint it black.

"I see a welfare check and I want to sign the back.....dum...dee...dum...dee...I did and now I have to pay it back...pay it back"

[Linda]

I have never seen that particular deduction on any of my pay stubs, what am I missing?

You missed nothing...as it was stated before..THE EMPLOYER is responsible for paying the unemployment insurance...NOT the EMPLOYEE. DUmmies know nothing and insist on proving it everyday.

[Karin]

In NY at least, it is deducted off my check.  Employer pays as well. 

[wasp69]

In NY at least, it is deducted off my check.  Employer pays as well. 

I have yet to see that one.  Different states, different laws.

[Maxiest]

Unemployment is a benefit an employee accrues as a consequence of their employment. Therefore the employee pays.

This is incorrect.... The employer pays this.

The employer pays into a state fund (SUI) and a federal fund (FUTA).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_pays_unemployment_insurance_benefits#ixzz1mHGyS0yw

[NHSparky]

I have never seen that particular deduction on any of my pay stubs, what am I missing?

When I was working for SCE, it was taken out of my pay, along with workman's comp and other taxes.  In NH, the employer pays.

But ultimately, the worker pays, one way or another.

[JohnnyReb]

This is incorrect.... The employer pays this.

The employer pays into a state fund (SUI) and a federal fund (FUTA).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_pays_unemployment_insurance_benefits#ixzz1mHGyS0yw

40 years ago when I started paying into state and fed unemployment to cover my workers, I was told that if my workers drew out less than I had paid in that I could get 50% of what was left when I retired or went out of business....that went away somewhere along the way. I have never had anyone draw against my funds.

[thundley4]

I think unemployment insurance should be paid after the fact.  Companies that lay people off should pay the most.  Seasonal employers, like construction companies that lay off people every year should pay more than companies that rarely lay people off.

[obumazombie]

When I was working for SCE, it was taken out of my pay, along with workman's comp and other taxes.  In NH, the employer pays.

But ultimately, the worker pays, one way or another.

My point exactly. It is a benefit the worker would otherwise not have, therefore it is compensation like any other.

[NHSparky]

I think unemployment insurance should be paid after the fact.  Companies that lay people off should pay the most.  Seasonal employers, like construction companies that lay off people every year should pay more than companies that rarely lay people off.

Typically, that's how it works.  Companies or industries with high turnover rates do tend to pay a higher percentage of worker salary into the system.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/payroll_taxes/Unemployment_Insurance_Tax.htm

http://www.compusource.com/taxtables/CA_Tax_Information.pdf

The California Unemployment Contribution rate, however, varies from company to company, from 1.5% to 6.2%.

That's the most convenient one I could find.  If I can find any of my old paystubs, I'll see how much I was paying.

[jukin]

In kalifornia which got some $5 billion in loans from the feds to pay the unemployment extensions the feds mandated had to start paying those loans back in 2011. The rates for UE insurance have tripled here because of this. As well, workers comp has almost doubled since MoonBeam took over. Both of these are certainly helping our unemployment stats. After all this is just free money.

[dixierose]

That's a downfall to all the extensions that people (DUmmies) don't think about. My sister and her husband own a plumbing company. They've been paying into the unemployment system in GA for 15 years with NO ONE having claims against them. After all the "loans" GA took from the Feds to extend payments, my sisters unemployment "insurance" payments went from 5% to 20%. They did have ONE claim against them in the past couple of years; but dang...that's a huge jump.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Employer pays, worker pays, it's all the same...part of the pay and benefits comp package the employer puts up to have the worker.  It's as meaningless a distinction as Obama's religion exception on birth control...its not free, everyone who receives the benefit ends up paying, whether it makes it to their 'gross taxable income' on the W2 or not.

[AllosaursRus]

Sounds like someone got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  

The BTTB primitive is correct.  Employees pay nothing into the unemployment fund.

Beat me to it! Those collecting don't pay a damn dime into what they collect. They do have to pay Fed and State taxes around here, though.

Many of these idiots don't have their federal tax taken out of their checks, so they end up owing the gubmint big time. Could be she has to pay fed or state taxes on it. After all, unemployment is now an occupation accordin' to O'bummer and Nancy, "the stretch", Pelosi!

(edited to add)

Nine months???

It's an issue, but then and again it's not an issue, here in Nebraska, and up in South Dakota and North Dakota (and I believe Vermont too) that unemployment compensation is still paid for only.....13 weeks.

Everybody else gets 99 weeks; only we four don't.

The excuse given by the bureaucrats in Washington is that since our unemployment rates are so low, we don't "deserve" all those extra weeks.  (It's a federal issue, not a state issue.)

It's nice to have such a low unemployment rate, but this seems unfair, given that the people of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota (and probably Vermont) pay federal taxes the same as everybody else, and so should get the same benefits as everybody else.....even if we don't really need them.  We pay for them.

Could be franc, that because the unemployment rate is low, your states might have not asked for the fed funding. Idaho held out as long as we could, but the unemployment rate got so high the state could no longer afford even new claims.