Probably another Trillion Going out, but why the excess unemployment $

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Trump just signed an executive order to extend UE - can't wait to hear the furor from both sides!

Trump announced that his executive order would extend unemployment benefits at a rate of $400 per week; however, states will be asked to cover 25 percent of the cost, according to Trump with the federal government picking up the remaining 75 percent. This means the federal contribution will be only $300, while states will be expected to kick in $100.

While Trump did not announce for how long he would extend the benefits, his executive action included details.  Money to cover the federal contribution will come from the Department of Homeland Security’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The fund currently has over $70 billion in funds available. Trump’s order states that the increased benefits will be available “for eligible claimants until the balance of the DRF reaches $25 billion or for weeks of unemployment ending not later than December 6, 2020, whichever occurs first, at which time the lost wages assistance program shall terminate.” With over 30 million unemployed, the funds available to fund the unemployment benefit extension may only last a few weeks.

(bold emphasis mine :)

[MasterStache]

Anyway, the philosophical question I want to ask here is:
Is that the fault of socialim, creating this misuse, or the fault of capitalism, jumping on the opportunity?

I suspect that it's the problem of incompetent government.  Because the USA has spent the last 40 years kowtowing to the mantra "government is bad and government spending (other than military/pseudo military spending) is bad" they are now left  with federal and state governments which are underfunded in revenue spending, have been underfunded in capital investment for decades and which have had trouble attracting the brightest and best employees over that time as well.   Th Neither federal nor state governments are capable any more of a competent, timely and nuanced response to an emergency and are left with having to throw indescrimiate money at the problem because its the only thing they can still do.

MAGA?

[tooqk4u22]

Anyway, the philosophical question I want to ask here is:
Is that the fault of socialim, creating this misuse, or the fault of capitalism, jumping on the opportunity?

I suspect that it's the problem of incompetent government.  Because the USA has spent the last 40 years kowtowing to the mantra "government is bad and government spending (other than military/pseudo military spending) is bad" they are now left  with federal and state governments which are underfunded in revenue spending, have been underfunded in capital investment for decades and which have had trouble attracting the brightest and best employees over that time as well.   Th Neither federal nor state governments are capable any more of a competent, timely and nuanced response to an emergency and are left with having to throw indescrimiate money at the problem because its the only thing they can still do.

Not Exactly.....

See 2019 chart from CBO.   The other category includes a mix of hidden social and defense spending.   2020 will look a lot different. 

[GuitarStv]

Holy fuck.  You guys spend more on defence than all other discretionary expenses combined???  Am I reading that right?

[PDXTabs]

Holy fuck.  You guys spend more on defence than all other discretionary expenses combined???  Am I reading that right?

Yup. For a very long time they were equal, but the Trump tax cut put an end to that.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

[LennStar]

Holy fuck.  You guys spend more on defence than all other discretionary expenses combined???  Am I reading that right?

Ever seen the expenses of towns?
With police above 50%?
POLICE?

That is why they say "defund the police", because it costs more than police and all social services in other countries together.

[MasterStache]

Holy fuck.  You guys spend more on defence than all other discretionary expenses combined???  Am I reading that right?

Ever seen the expenses of towns?
With police above 50%?
POLICE?

That is why they say "defund the police", because it costs more than police and all social services in other countries together.

Well we can solve that problem with more guns ( ;

[NaN]

From the excellent WSJ article, we should all agree that the $600/week "saved" the economy earlier this year.  "Saved" meaning there is a big difference between all of those workers being out on the street through evictions, food banks, and foreclosures and 68% earning slightly more than they usually do. It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic. That is what a stimulus does! And it likely benefited a lot of low wage workers who would have earned much less in basic unemployment (e.g. not @Jack0Life or @ketchup 's GF).

I disagree with Schumer that the "idea that the $600 unemployment benefit keeps workers away from jobs belittles the American people". This was a dumb comment. You know what belittles the American people? How about these:

• Rare Stock Tweak During Pandemic Adds Millions to a C.E.O.’s Potential Payout
• Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine.
  

[Hotstreak]

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

[former player]

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

It's linked to unemployment insurance which is earned by working.

[LennStar]

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

It's linked to unemployment insurance which is earned by working.

No, it's earned by using it to consume something. That is the reason why you get it.

[former player]

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

It's linked to unemployment insurance which is earned by working.

No, it's earned by using it to consume something. That is the reason why you get it.

It may be the reason it's been given but there is no state or federal mandate requiring it to be spent.

[LennStar]

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

It's linked to unemployment insurance which is earned by working.

No, it's earned by using it to consume something. That is the reason why you get it.

It may be the reason it's been given but there is no state or federal mandate requiring it to be spent.

Because the average person (especially Amrican) doe not need to be told so ;)

[Hotstreak]

State unemployment insurance is earned - it is paid into by workers.


This not true for the $600 federal unemployment payment.

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

It's linked to unemployment insurance which is earned by working.

[Hotstreak]

What a load of semantic bullshit.

It would be great if we all stop complaining about workers earning more now than they did before the pandemic.

The $600/week is not earned income.

It's linked to unemployment insurance which is earned by working.

No, it's earned by using it to consume something. That is the reason why you get it.

[GuitarStv]

100% of dividends from stock owned is unearned income.  But I have no problem with people taking and even living off these proceeds.  People buy stocks, and hope that it'll look after them when they need it.

It would therefore be pretty hypocritical of me to be offended about people receiving unearned monetary aid from the government during a pandemic.  People elect a government in the hopes that it'll look after them when they need it.  And they certainly need it now.

[nereo]

Phew!

There's several important points about Unemployment insurance that posters either aren't acknowledging or are only briefly circling around.  The premise of the OP is that high levels of UI discourage working, a frequent criticism of recent UI assistance.   To that end, there is already a great deal of conditions on UI specifically to reduce just such a situation

1) You must continue to search for work. While some states have temporarily suspended job-search verification, all require that you are available and able to work should an opportunity come along.  WHile each state is different, the basic procedure is that every week you must certify that you are able to work, looking for work, and have not turned down any opportunities.  Many states will forward job offers in your field which you are then required to pursue or risk losing your benefits. 

2) If your previous employer offers to re-hire you, you must take the job or lose your unemployment benefits.  A person cannot simply choose to not go back to work. Companies are contacted by the unemployment office about layoffs and re-staffing.

3) Unemployment benefits end..  Most states limit unemployment to 26 weeks.  Some offer an additional 13 weeks of lesser payments.  A few offer even less (e.g. Florida at 12 + 6 weeks). Additional conditions apply as well, including the maximum amount of UI one can recieve per calendar year.

4) Generally, state unemployment benefits are tied to previous income, up to a cap.  This often gets overlooked when someone claims the minimum salary one needs to earn to 'get more than on unemployment'. In most states, a person earning minimum-wage and working 32 hours/week (techincally considered "full time") will not qualify for the maximum amount of benefits. In my own state it's your average quarterly earnings divided by 22 up to $420.  Many other states are far less generous, a few moreso.

5) Unemployment does not consider nor include health/retirement benefits.  This too is frequently overlooked. Consider a union worker earning $45k gross with full benefits.  With the additional $600/wk Federal UI + state UI his/her take home pay may have been slightly less, but this person's family is now without health insurance, is not getting a company match or contributing to their pension, etc. Speaking from my own experience my employer's contribution for health insurance + retirement for my 3 person family with no underlying conditions is over $14k/year.  Bottom line is a job with benefits is far more appealing than staying on UI for most people.

All of the above are conditions that most (if not all) States impose to reduce the chances that individuals stay on unemployment instead of going back to wokr if they are able.  Depending on your personal ideology you can be thankful or bitter towards the GOP for pushing through most of those work requirements.  In some states a few of these have been put on hold during the pandemic, but all are slated to return.

In addition there's a number of other factors which limit people staying on umployment longer than necessary
i) we stigmatize unemployment in the US. 

ii) many people genuinely prefer to work.  This is probably related to the stigma we attach to unemployment and the emphasis we place on being a 'productive member of society'.  Work also provides other social benefits and longer-term financial security (see "unemployment benefits end", above).

iii) long-term unemployment hurts advancement and lifetime earning potential.  Most people realize the longer they are out of their field the harder it is to get the job they want.  Even a job that pays less has the potential to lead to a better paying, permanent position.

iv) States don't want their citizens on UI.  It costs them money, they lose tax revenue, and it lowers their productivity. Through a combination of the above and various work/retraining programs they actively push people to get jobs.

[Hotstreak]

The stock market analogy would makes sense if everybody was getting the $600, which is what happens when a company issues dividends (excluding preferred which is a separate class at buy in, not determined based on need at the time of payment)

100% of dividends from stock owned is unearned income.  But I have no problem with people taking and even living off these proceeds.  People buy stocks, and hope that it'll look after them when they need it.

It would therefore be pretty hypocritical of me to be offended about people receiving unearned monetary aid from the government during a pandemic.  People elect a government in the hopes that it'll look after them when they need it.  And they certainly need it now.

[NaN]

What a load of semantic bullshit.

Well you started it. ;)   I guess what I should have written was along the lines 'received in their bank accounts unemployment benefits more than they brought in from wages".

i) we stigmatize unemployment in the US. 

ii) many people genuinely prefer to work.  This is probably related to the stigma we attach to unemployment and the emphasis we place on being a 'productive member of society'.  Work also provides other social benefits and longer-term financial security (see "unemployment benefits end", above).

iii) long-term unemployment hurts advancement and lifetime earning potential.  Most people realize the longer they are out of their field the harder it is to get the job they want.  Even a job that pays less has the potential to lead to a better paying, permanent position.

iv) States don't want their citizens on UI.  It costs them money, they lose tax revenue, and it lowers their productivity. Through a combination of the above and various work/retraining programs they actively push people to get jobs.

Yes, the last point is true. However, 100% impossible to avoid. I suppose there is a fraction of unemployment benefit recipients that don't believe your 2nd and 3rd points. The problem is a lot opposed to unemployment benefits (or the extra $600) believe everyone receiving the benefit are all unmotivated workers. That is the stigmatization.

I'll say it again, the $600/week did what it was supposed to do. It stimulated the economy. For those frustrated with the extra $600 just take a step back and think about what it could have been if that was not the case. There was over 20M additionally unemployed in 2 months, what is essentially instantaneous at economic time scale

Going forward though, I do think less "extra" is needed, as any extra will not stimulate the economy as much as it did in April. It has nothing to do with unmotivated workers.

However, here is a crazy thought. If a person needs someone to work, or poor companies need workers to make money, why can't that company pay them more than the unemployment benefits? Or alternatively, if you are upset the low-wage worker at the restaurant is receiving more unemployed than through a paycheck maybe you should be okay with higher prices for food so that the owner can employ the worker at a livable wage?

[Jack0Life]

What a load of semantic bullshit.

Well you started it. ;)   I guess what I should have written was along the lines 'received in their bank accounts unemployment benefits more than they brought in from wages".

i) we stigmatize unemployment in the US. 

ii) many people genuinely prefer to work.  This is probably related to the stigma we attach to unemployment and the emphasis we place on being a 'productive member of society'.  Work also provides other social benefits and longer-term financial security (see "unemployment benefits end", above).

iii) long-term unemployment hurts advancement and lifetime earning potential.  Most people realize the longer they are out of their field the harder it is to get the job they want.  Even a job that pays less has the potential to lead to a better paying, permanent position.

iv) States don't want their citizens on UI.  It costs them money, they lose tax revenue, and it lowers their productivity. Through a combination of the above and various work/retraining programs they actively push people to get jobs.

Yes, the last point is true. However, 100% impossible to avoid. I suppose there is a fraction of unemployment benefit recipients that don't believe your 2nd and 3rd points. The problem is a lot opposed to unemployment benefits (or the extra $600) believe everyone receiving the benefit are all unmotivated workers. That is the stigmatization.

I'll say it again, the $600/week did what it was supposed to do. It stimulated the economy. For those frustrated with the extra $600 just take a step back and think about what it could have been if that was not the case. There was over 20M additionally unemployed in 2 months, what is essentially instantaneous at economic time scale

Going forward though, I do think less "extra" is needed, as any extra will not stimulate the economy as much as it did in April. It has nothing to do with unmotivated workers.

However, here is a crazy thought. If a person needs someone to work, or poor companies need workers to make money, why can't that company pay them more than the unemployment benefits? Or alternatively, if you are upset the low-wage worker at the restaurant is receiving more unemployed than through a paycheck maybe you should be okay with higher prices for food so that the owner can employ the worker at a livable wage?

I don't think many people were oppose to the initial $600 which was why the $2.2 CARES act passed unanimously. The Dem wants to pass another bill at $3.4 trillions.
My problem is people who feel they are entitled to the extra  $600 till the end of the year saying it's needed for "livable wages".
$600 + states UE is at least $45k and more. Last time I looked $45k and $90k/couple is a whole lot more than livable wages.
Now if your living expenses is a $300k house, 2 car loans, CC expenses, student loans, etcc then NO you can't cover all those but then again the government didn't put you in that position. You did. You should have savings to supplement whatever the government can provide.
Yeah and I'm a guy who is furloughed from a $120k job which I know I won't be making for years to come.

[Jack0Life]

Phew!

There's several important points about Unemployment insurance that posters either aren't acknowledging or are only briefly circling around.  The premise of the OP is that high levels of UI discourage working, a frequent criticism of recent UI assistance.   To that end, there is already a great deal of conditions on UI specifically to reduce just such a situation

1) You must continue to search for work. While some states have temporarily suspended job-search verification, all require that you are available and able to work should an opportunity come along.  WHile each state is different, the basic procedure is that every week you must certify that you are able to work, looking for work, and have not turned down any opportunities.  Many states will forward job offers in your field which you are then required to pursue or risk losing your benefits. 

2) If your previous employer offers to re-hire you, you must take the job or lose your unemployment benefits.  A person cannot simply choose to not go back to work. Companies are contacted by the unemployment office about layoffs and re-staffing.

3) Unemployment benefits end..  Most states limit unemployment to 26 weeks.  Some offer an additional 13 weeks of lesser payments.  A few offer even less (e.g. Florida at 12 + 6 weeks). Additional conditions apply as well, including the maximum amount of UI one can recieve per calendar year.

4) Generally, state unemployment benefits are tied to previous income, up to a cap.  This often gets overlooked when someone claims the minimum salary one needs to earn to 'get more than on unemployment'. In most states, a person earning minimum-wage and working 32 hours/week (techincally considered "full time") will not qualify for the maximum amount of benefits. In my own state it's your average quarterly earnings divided by 22 up to $420.  Many other states are far less generous, a few moreso.

5) Unemployment does not consider nor include health/retirement benefits.  This too is frequently overlooked. Consider a union worker earning $45k gross with full benefits.  With the additional $600/wk Federal UI + state UI his/her take home pay may have been slightly less, but this person's family is now without health insurance, is not getting a company match or contributing to their pension, etc. Speaking from my own experience my employer's contribution for health insurance + retirement for my 3 person family with no underlying conditions is over $14k/year.  Bottom line is a job with benefits is far more appealing than staying on UI for most people.

All of the above are conditions that most (if not all) States impose to reduce the chances that individuals stay on unemployment instead of going back to wokr if they are able.  Depending on your personal ideology you can be thankful or bitter towards the GOP for pushing through most of those work requirements.  In some states a few of these have been put on hold during the pandemic, but all are slated to return.

In addition there's a number of other factors which limit people staying on umployment longer than necessary
i) we stigmatize unemployment in the US. 

ii) many people genuinely prefer to work.  This is probably related to the stigma we attach to unemployment and the emphasis we place on being a 'productive member of society'.  Work also provides other social benefits and longer-term financial security (see "unemployment benefits end", above).

iii) long-term unemployment hurts advancement and lifetime earning potential.  Most people realize the longer they are out of their field the harder it is to get the job they want.  Even a job that pays less has the potential to lead to a better paying, permanent position.

iv) States don't want their citizens on UI.  It costs them money, they lose tax revenue, and it lowers their productivity. Through a combination of the above and various work/retraining programs they actively push people to get jobs.

I don't know about others but UE has been super easy for me to collect.
Every 2 weeks, I go in and claim my weeks and the approval was pretty much automatic. I see my $550 from states 2 days later in my bank and $1200 from Federal the following day.
After my 12 weeks were up, they gave me a link to PEUC for another 13 weeks. I'm on my first PEUC week. Got another 12 weeks to go. After that Florida has an extension also.
Remembered I was making $120k before I got furloughed. Getting $875($600+$275)gave me ZERO desire to look for anything. Even at $400+$275 I still rather park my ass at home cause I know I can't find a job that pays me $35k right now($675 weekly).

Yesterday I went in and claimed my week through PEUC. I clicked 8 boxes and submit. Today $275 was deposited and what ever federal decided to dole out.
Yeah UE during this pandemic is fairly easy. I can honestly say I have no motivation to look for a job even though I'm only getting a fraction of what I was earning. Imagine all those people that were making ~$12/hr

[EvenSteven]

I don't think many people were oppose to the initial $600 which was why the $2.2 CARES act passed unanimously. The Dem wants to pass another bill at $3.4 trillions.
My problem is people who feel they are entitled to the extra  $600 till the end of the year saying it's needed for "livable wages".
$600 + states UE is at least $45k and more. Last time I looked $45k and $90k/couple is a whole lot more than livable wages.
Now if your living expenses is a $300k house, 2 car loans, CC expenses, student loans, etcc then NO you can't cover all those but then again the government didn't put you in that position. You did. You should have savings to supplement whatever the government can provide.
Yeah and I'm a guy who is furloughed from a $120k job which I know I won't be making for years to come.

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know the ins and outs, but shouldn't that be $12k and more? We get 20 weeks here in MO, at $600 per week to get to 12k, then the "and up" part would be the normal state UI, which would be usually much less than an additional 12k. Can you really be on UI for a full year?

[nereo]

My problem is people who feel they are entitled to the extra  $600 till the end of the year saying it's needed for "livable wages".
$600 + states UE is at least $45k and more. Last time I looked $45k and $90k/couple is a whole lot more than livable wages.
Now if your living expenses is a $300k house, 2 car loans, CC expenses, student loans, etcc then NO you can't cover all those but then again the government didn't put you in that position. You did. You should have savings to supplement whatever the government can provide.
Yeah and I'm a guy who is furloughed from a $120k job which I know I won't be making for years to come.

Well, to state the obvious, what is a 'living wage' depends tremendously on where you live and how you define a "living wage"

i.e. what kind of a lifestyle should a person making a 'living wage' afford? A 3 bedroom SFH and two cars for a family of four?  Or do we set the bar substantially lower?  Where do we distinguish from a 'living wage' and 'poverty'?   In the US a family of 4 is officially in "poverty" if they make less than $26,200.

I don't know about others but UE has been super easy for me to collect.
Every 2 weeks, I go in and claim my weeks and the approval was pretty much automatic. I see my $550 from states 2 days later in my bank and $1200 from Federal the following day.
After my 12 weeks were up, they gave me a link to PEUC for another 13 weeks. I'm on my first PEUC week. Got another 12 weeks to go. After that Florida has an extension also.
Remembered I was making $120k before I got furloughed. Getting $875($600+$275)gave me ZERO desire to look for anything. Even at $400+$275 I still rather park my ass at home cause I know I can't find a job that pays me $35k right now($675 weekly).

Yesterday I went in and claimed my week through PEUC. I clicked 8 boxes and submit. Today $275 was deposited and what ever federal decided to dole out.
Yeah UE during this pandemic is fairly easy. I can honestly say I have no motivation to look for a job even though I'm only getting a fraction of what I was earning. Imagine all those people that were making ~$12/hr

Here I believe you are confounding how easy it is to collect unemployment and whether you qualify.  I see no reason to make it difficult for people to collect UI who qualify for it.  It should be as easy as possible. 
That's very different from saying "anyone can get UI" (and can continue collecting indefiniteyl) - which is demonstrably false, as I've outlined above.

To me, the fact that you think you "can't find a job that pays [even] $35k right now" speaks volumes on why we need UI in the first place. 

[nereo]

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know the ins and outs, but shouldn't that be $12k and more? We get 20 weeks here in MO, at $600 per week to get to 12k, then the "and up" part would be the normal state UI, which would be usually much less than an additional 12k. Can you really be on UI for a full year?

The short answer is "no" - unless benefits are extended again.  This was notably done last during the 'great recession', and is currently a sticking point among congressional negotiations. Each state has control over the length of its benefits.

Most states limit UI to 26 weeks, and the CARES act allowed some to extend to a full 39 weeks.  Some are shorter - FLorida and N.C is just 12 weeks, Alabama 14.  Several have extended benefits (e.g. Kansas went from 16 to 26).  Practically speaking this means that many people who went on UI at the end of March or early April will run out of benefits in October/November.

Saying a person can make "$45k on unemployment right now" is a gross misuse of figures.  It basically takes State + Federal $600 (which has now expired) and extrapolates that out 52 weeks, assuming 1) benefits will be extended at the same level and 2) the individual remains eligible for UI that entire time. To date the maximum Federal UI a person could have received is $10,800.  The additional $400 ($100 of which must come from the State) that Trump has floated in his EO  would last only another ~5 weeks with available funding (adding antoher $2k).

[Jack0Life]

I don't think many people were oppose to the initial $600 which was why the $2.2 CARES act passed unanimously. The Dem wants to pass another bill at $3.4 trillions.
My problem is people who feel they are entitled to the extra  $600 till the end of the year saying it's needed for "livable wages".
$600 + states UE is at least $45k and more. Last time I looked $45k and $90k/couple is a whole lot more than livable wages.
Now if your living expenses is a $300k house, 2 car loans, CC expenses, student loans, etcc then NO you can't cover all those but then again the government didn't put you in that position. You did. You should have savings to supplement whatever the government can provide.
Yeah and I'm a guy who is furloughed from a $120k job which I know I won't be making for years to come.

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know the ins and outs, but shouldn't that be $12k and more? We get 20 weeks here in MO, at $600 per week to get to 12k, then the "and up" part would be the normal state UI, which would be usually much less than an additional 12k. Can you really be on UI for a full year?

We have to discuss UE on a pro-rated basis.
$875/week is $45.5k/yr

[nereo]

I don't think many people were oppose to the initial $600 which was why the $2.2 CARES act passed unanimously. The Dem wants to pass another bill at $3.4 trillions.
My problem is people who feel they are entitled to the extra  $600 till the end of the year saying it's needed for "livable wages".
$600 + states UE is at least $45k and more. Last time I looked $45k and $90k/couple is a whole lot more than livable wages.
Now if your living expenses is a $300k house, 2 car loans, CC expenses, student loans, etcc then NO you can't cover all those but then again the government didn't put you in that position. You did. You should have savings to supplement whatever the government can provide.
Yeah and I'm a guy who is furloughed from a $120k job which I know I won't be making for years to come.

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know the ins and outs, but shouldn't that be $12k and more? We get 20 weeks here in MO, at $600 per week to get to 12k, then the "and up" part would be the normal state UI, which would be usually much less than an additional 12k. Can you really be on UI for a full year?

We have to discuss UE on a pro-rated basis.
$875/week is $45.5k/yr

Absolutely not.  Unemployment isn't available for an entire year, nor is the program as designed structured to provide long-term benefits.
The only reason to pro-rate numbers is to be deceptive on the amounts people are likely to receive.

[tooqk4u22]

I don't think many people were oppose to the initial $600 which was why the $2.2 CARES act passed unanimously. The Dem wants to pass another bill at $3.4 trillions.
My problem is people who feel they are entitled to the extra  $600 till the end of the year saying it's needed for "livable wages".
$600 + states UE is at least $45k and more. Last time I looked $45k and $90k/couple is a whole lot more than livable wages.
Now if your living expenses is a $300k house, 2 car loans, CC expenses, student loans, etcc then NO you can't cover all those but then again the government didn't put you in that position. You did. You should have savings to supplement whatever the government can provide.
Yeah and I'm a guy who is furloughed from a $120k job which I know I won't be making for years to come.

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know the ins and outs, but shouldn't that be $12k and more? We get 20 weeks here in MO, at $600 per week to get to 12k, then the "and up" part would be the normal state UI, which would be usually much less than an additional 12k. Can you really be on UI for a full year?

We have to discuss UE on a pro-rated basis.
$875/week is $45.5k/yr

Absolutely not.  Unemployment isn't available for an entire year, nor is the program as designed structured to provide long-term benefits.
The only reason to pro-rate numbers is to be deceptive on the amounts people are likely to receive.

I disagree, people still live monthly and if they have a "monthly" equivalent of $45-50k a year vs. a much lower number then what they had when they were working it still matters in the short term.  Plus once something is put in place its hard (for the gov't or for those who are receiving it) to cut it off.  That's why there is such a fight right now - and remember even Dumpy is cutting it off, just cutting it back to an extra $400 per week( or $300 without states 25%). Sure in normalcy, UE is time limited but remember during the great recession that UE was extended for what seemed like forever, I think it was almost 5 years.   

I assure you the extra is extended for whatever (1, 3, 6 months) at the time it expires you will have people and politicians doing the same damn thing.....Crying in the streets and to the media "People can't afford to live without it, they will lose their homes and apartments, it needs to be extended!"

[nereo]

... well it expired two weeks ago and has yet to be reinstated, despite the President’s attempt at an end-run.  ::eye roll::

[Daisyedwards800]

While I have savings and no kids, allow me to give an alternative perspective on the unemployment extension.  I earned over $100k as an accountant prior to being laid off.  My rent is rent-stabilized and hasn't been raised in 5 years (and is about 45 minutes commute from the city where most people work).  I live in a very high cost of living area.  Here is my budget:

$1950 Rent
$185 Electric/gas/internet
$70 Student Loan (at 2.2%)
$15 Renter's Insurance
$50 Car Insurance
$775 (Silver ACA plan for single person with $6,000 deductible and 60% copays)
$200-300 Food
$40-60 Misc.

NY unemployment maximum pays $1700 a month.  That is why the extra is necessary.  Now, this only goes for 26 weeks plus possible extensions in my state.  So you need to save some of your unemployment in case the economy doesn't come straight out of this depression.   So giving people 20% of what they made before (which is what my scenario is) isn't great.  I have savings but we know most people don't and most people have kids and support others, so they aren't in a position to go rent a room share for $1,200 a month. 

People have no idea what health care costs when you aren't employed, or how little state unemployment pays.  It just isn't enough.  My expenses are twice what state unemployment pays.  I am an accountant and have a masters, with 17 straight years of experience and even for me it's tough getting interviews, when prior to coronavirus, recruiters would bang down my door.  So please think through when you say that the $600 shouldn't be allowed.

You are all good at math or you wouldn't be here.  $2400 plus $1700 means that those who are 'making more' on unemployment were making $52,000 or less.  So if they lowered it to $500 a week, that person wouldn't be making more with the extra.  They are counting a lot of people who are JUST making a little bit more on UE but then have extra health care expenses, and no benefits.

But cutting to $500 means millions will be making half or less of their income before, with no jobs available yet.  Do you want people to lose their homes ?

I am apply for many jobs a day because I don't want my career to suffer or my earnings to permanently be lower.  Plenty of people are looking for jobs because unemployment pays much less than they made before, especially in HCOL states.

[NaN]

Thanks for sharing that @Daisyedwards800 . At the end of the day, the $600 is a stimulus to keep those paying their rent, mortgage, food, etc and I am all on board like most people. Also, it does seem to help by giving those at higher paying jobs a little more time to look for a similar salary replacement, in hopes the pandemic recedes and these jobs come back. That matters to the economy so you can spend at the same level you did before (not accusing you of a spender, just well, we know not everyone is on these forums).

I hope those who lost jobs get jobs at that same level before. But since these benefits always have a shelf life, after they expire eventually months of no benefits or little many unemployed will eventually take a job that is half their salary, or at least to cover expenses for a while. Or people move to LCOL areas. Again, I really do hope we can bounce back. I rather have you all back at your old salaries than worrying about $600/week from the federal gov.

One way to think about the $600/week is that once it expires, or it expires on the worker side, it locks in the bad effects of the state of the economy in the middle of the pandemic. We would be much worse without, and once it expires if we aren't back to some normal then it does not look good. If a lot people on unemployment start accepting lower paying jobs that will ripple through the economy for years. We have avoided this so far. I think there is a cutoff point below $600 where it will start that, (maybe $200 maybe $300). However, if this pandemic goes on for much longer (with a third wave in the fall), we may never have that economy pre-pandemic again. At some point, those out of jobs would start having to accept what they can find, move to different cities, etc. My guess is the realization that we are in a new bad economy will tie with a stock market decline of fairly large proportions.

Again, I hope that doesn't happen. It really is a gamble with these stimulus bills because even the lawmakers, as much as we want them to make the perfect choice, can not predict the future.

[Fireball]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

[ketchup]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

You fucking nailed it.  I don't understand the mental gymnastics at work there.  I don't think that's everyone that's all fired up about UI being "too much" but it's a lot of them (certainly many elected officials with (R) next to their names).

[nereo]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

You fucking nailed it.  I don't understand the mental gymnastics at work there.  I don't think that's everyone that's all fired up about UI being "too much" but it's a lot of them (certainly many elected officials with (R) next to their names).

As direct examples, Trump has been pushing a payroll tax "cut" (technically a deferment, which he pinky-swears he'll make permanent), as well as a Capitol Gains holiday.  At the same time he wants to cut the federal UI to $300 and has offered just 5 weeks of funding.

Only employed people would benefit from a payroll tax deferment/cut.  Only families who earn over $80k AND have realized LTCG will benefit from a CG holiday.  In other words: we must help the currently employed and the very rich investors! We can't afford to help the recently unemployed.

[LennStar]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

That has been the basic line of argument from neoliberals since the start of the "War on poor people" half a century ago.
It is one of those things I could never understand in their ideology (taken at face value of course, not if you remember that those rules are created by rich people).

[nereo]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

That has been the basic line of argument from neoliberals since the start of the "War on poor people" half a century ago.
It is one of those things I could never understand in their ideology (taken at face value of course, not if you remember that those rules are created by rich people).

To put it one way:
according to their ideology, the United States is the 'land of opportunity' where hard work is rewarded and anyone can get ahead.  Ergo, if you remain poor it is a moral failing, not a societal one.  Increasing support for poor people is a massive "transfer of wealth" and - particularly if not strictly regulated - creates a perverse imbalance which rewards sloth and punishes hard work.  This is inherent in the arguments against unemployment insurance.

The counter to this is echoed in the 'Black Lives Matter' movement; that there is systemic prejudice in our system, that poverty can be crushing and our support network so meager (e.g. lack of health-care) that even hardworking poor people rarely advance above their station.

[GuitarStv]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

That has been the basic line of argument from neoliberals since the start of the "War on poor people" half a century ago.
It is one of those things I could never understand in their ideology (taken at face value of course, not if you remember that those rules are created by rich people).

To put it one way:
according to their ideology, the United States is the 'land of opportunity' where hard work is rewarded and anyone can get ahead.  Ergo, if you remain poor it is a moral failing, not a societal one.  Increasing support for poor people is a massive "transfer of wealth" and - particularly if not strictly regulated - creates a perverse imbalance which rewards sloth and punishes hard work.  This is inherent in the arguments against unemployment insurance.

The counter to this is echoed in the 'Black Lives Matter' movement; that there is systemic prejudice in our system, that poverty can be crushing and our support network so meager (e.g. lack of health-care) that even hardworking poor people rarely advance above their station.

There's some pretty robust evidence that transfer of wealth to poor people doesn't have to create create a perverse incentive rewarding sloth and punishing hard work.  Look at the countries with the highest social mobility:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

The top countries ranked by social mobility with their world rank by social welfare spending in brackets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending):

1. Denmark (4)
2. Norway (9)
3. Finland (3)
4. Sweden (7)
5. Iceland (5)

[nereo]

There's some pretty robust evidence that transfer of wealth to poor people doesn't have to create create a perverse incentive rewarding sloth and punishing hard work.  Look at the countries with the highest social mobility:
[snip]

The United States has not been at or near the top of social/economic mobility for decades.  Yet the belief that this is the "Land of Opportunity" persists.  I refer to it as the Great Lie we drill into all young school-children (e.g. "America is the place everyone wants to live" and "We are the greatest nation on earth, because FREEDOM!")

Perversely, since we are conditioned to believe these statements at a very early age, questioning them by suggesting the poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich, or that people of color are at an inherent disadvantage (an acute form of injustice in the 'land of freedom') gets you labeled 'Un-American'. 

More than a few people have told me I should 'Go Back to Canada' because I want to improve healthcare access and address systemic racism.  What I want to do is help my native country live up to its lofty ideals as well as other successful democracies.

[NaN]

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

I find the first to be off, the second is spot on. I don't think the point of tax cuts/profits for millionaires and billionaires are THE incentive to make them want to work. I think generally the tax cuts and profits is founded in double taxation, just less taxes, and stimulating businesses to hire more, invest more.

I would like to comment on the second one, expanding in the context of just general hollowing out of benefits for the working class and middle class. A lot of places have gotten much worse in their benefits (wages, vacation, retirement packages, health care).  I think we are at a low of these benefits in our modern history and is the main reason I would have voted for Bernie Sanders if he was on the top of the ticket this fall. He truly believes this is the case. Bernie might have been one or two decades to early for everyone to realize this.

But back to UE. it is a very niche thing, run by each state differently, and is tied to losing a job and finding another. Sorry, that is just what the system is. The federal excess UE is essentially economic stimulus but masquerading as a UBI oddly tied to unemployment. Probably not the ideal system.

I think many who did not get any aspect of $600/week can be rightly upset this exists. There are probably actually many stories about employed individuals making $40k that still have their job but just kept working. Why don't they get a stimulus in this nose-diving economy? I just don't think you can't have 1/3rd of the full-time working population receiving less than $600/week, while others receive it no questions asked. A much more solid UE plan has to be thought up. I am all on board with more progressive ways to help people along when they lose their job.

This case though, the $600 UE benefit, was haphazardly thrown in to save the economy. Was it successful, yes, one of Paul Krugman's articles said it saved 5% of the GDP the second quarter (and that's not an annualized rate). What is clear is federal spending must increase to save us all from spiraling deeper into this recession. I am not sure $600/week guaranteed UE is the right way to do it but would it be better than nothing. Yes. But since it has expired with no plan in place, with the Senate in recess, might just break the camel's back.

[GuitarStv]

There's some pretty robust evidence that transfer of wealth to poor people doesn't have to create create a perverse incentive rewarding sloth and punishing hard work.  Look at the countries with the highest social mobility:
[snip]

The United States has not been at or near the top of social/economic mobility for decades.  Yet the belief that this is the "Land of Opportunity" persists.  I refer to it as the Great Lie we drill into all young school-children (e.g. "America is the place everyone wants to live" and "We are the greatest nation on earth, because FREEDOM!")

Perversely, since we are conditioned to believe these statements at a very early age, questioning them by suggesting the poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich, or that people of color are at an inherent disadvantage (an acute form of injustice in the 'land of freedom') gets you labeled 'Un-American'. 

More than a few people have told me I should 'Go Back to Canada' because I want to improve healthcare access and address systemic racism.  What I want to do is help my native country live up to its lofty ideals as well as other successful democracies.

Yeah, I was really surprised that the US was number 27 on social mobility . . . behind many of the European countries that we've always been traditionally told are more difficult to get ahead in.

[LennStar]

There's some pretty robust evidence that transfer of wealth to poor people doesn't have to create create a perverse incentive rewarding sloth and punishing hard work.  Look at the countries with the highest social mobility:
[snip]

The United States has not been at or near the top of social/economic mobility for decades.  Yet the belief that this is the "Land of Opportunity" persists.  I refer to it as the Great Lie we drill into all young school-children (e.g. "America is the place everyone wants to live" and "We are the greatest nation on earth, because FREEDOM!")

Perversely, since we are conditioned to believe these statements at a very early age, questioning them by suggesting the poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich, or that people of color are at an inherent disadvantage (an acute form of injustice in the 'land of freedom') gets you labeled 'Un-American'. 

More than a few people have told me I should 'Go Back to Canada' because I want to improve healthcare access and address systemic racism.  What I want to do is help my native country live up to its lofty ideals as well as other successful democracies.

Yeah, I was really surprised that the US was number 27 on social mobility . . . behind many of the European countries that we've always been traditionally told are more difficult to get ahead in.

You have no idea how many Americans are not only surprised but totally baffled and don't believe me even if I show them half a dozen stats covering different indicators of that.
You just have no idea how many!
The amount of cognitive dissonance itself is so staggering it is unbelievable!

[talltexan]

Indeed deferring collection of payroll tax until someone else is in power seems like a smart play. I wonder why it hasn't been tried with all kinds of Federal revenue sources previously.

Imagine President-elect Biden having to negotiate a deal with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress to deal with the fact that payroll taxes for the last five months are suddenly due on 1/1/2021. There's basically no way for them to win, as they either appear to be raising taxes or endangering the revenue source that supports social security.

[EvenSteven]

Indeed deferring collection of payroll tax until someone else is in power seems like a smart play. I wonder why it hasn't been tried with all kinds of Federal revenue sources previously.

Imagine President-elect Biden having to negotiate a deal with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress to deal with the fact that payroll taxes for the last five months are suddenly due on 1/1/2021. There's basically no way for them to win, as they either appear to be raising taxes or endangering the revenue source that supports social security.

I've always thought that this Simpsons clip explains 90% of politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chMCU5VSuqw

[nereo]

Indeed deferring collection of payroll tax until someone else is in power seems like a smart play. I wonder why it hasn't been tried with all kinds of Federal revenue sources previously.

Imagine President-elect Biden having to negotiate a deal with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress to deal with the fact that payroll taxes for the last five months are suddenly due on 1/1/2021. There's basically no way for them to win, as they either appear to be raising taxes or endangering the revenue source that supports social security.

There’s a simple antidote for that - blame your predecessor. It works remarkably well for the first few months, than fades.

It’s even easier if the deferment comes in on 1/1/2021, as the inauguration will not have happened yet.

[Bloop Bloop]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

I simply believe that people should keep as much of what they earn as possible. So for millionaires and billionaires, while they should be subject to progressive tax rates, those rates should be punitive. Not just because of the incentive factor but also because I think it's inherently good to allow people to keep the fruits of their labour.

I believe there should be a general safety net but otherwise I don't see why giving people more in welfare/unemployment benefits than they would earn while working is a worthwhile aim. It is a perverse incentive and it's unearned. People talk about the effects of this "stimulus" but actually all the stimulus does is kick the can down the road, allowing inflated asset prices and business performances. I'd rather allow assets and shares to reduce in price to reward the actual market performance of a share/company rather than its stimulated performance.

Where I differ from most neoliberals is that I believe inherited money is unearned money, and I would advocate for a strong, bordering on punitive estate tax, to make sure that each generation has to 'start afresh'. Because I agree that otherwise, the descendants of the rich will have unearned fortunes.

[LennStar]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

I simply believe that people should keep as much of what they earn as possible.

Interestingly, if you ask land owners here, they are all for not having to pay for the street that borders to their ground, instead of keeping a bit more of their income. (At least the single home owners.) It's actually been quite the political topic two years ago, since other states already changed to not charging (aka having others pay for the street in front of your house).

[nereo]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

I simply believe that people should keep as much of what they earn as possible. So for millionaires and billionaires, while they should be subject to progressive tax rates, those rates should be punitive. Not just because of the incentive factor but also because I think it's inherently good to allow people to keep the fruits of their labour.

I believe there should be a general safety net but otherwise I don't see why giving people more in welfare/unemployment benefits than they would earn while working is a worthwhile aim. It is a perverse incentive and it's unearned. People talk about the effects of this "stimulus" but actually all the stimulus does is kick the can down the road, allowing inflated asset prices and business performances. I'd rather allow assets and shares to reduce in price to reward the actual market performance of a share/company rather than its stimulated performance.

Where I differ from most neoliberals is that I believe inherited money is unearned money, and I would advocate for a strong, bordering on punitive estate tax, to make sure that each generation has to 'start afresh'. Because I agree that otherwise, the descendants of the rich will have unearned fortunes.

I’m confused... you want affluent workers to keep most of what they earn but you also want taxation to be punitive?  Aren’t those two statements opposite?

One thing that both this health crisis and living abroad has highlighted for me is that it’s a really bad idea to have one’s health insurance and retirement tied to an employer (note: that’s different from “being employed”).   

[GuitarStv]

I've been observing all the hullabaloo about people making more on U/E than when working, not only on here, but also in RL. Is the general thinking for some people that

-In order to make millionaires and billionaires want to work, government must throw more money at them(tax cuts/profit as an incentive)
-In order to make poor people and the middle class want to work, government must reduce aid(hunger as an incentive)

Is that what I'm picking up or am I off here?

I simply believe that people should keep as much of what they earn as possible. So for millionaires and billionaires, while they should be subject to progressive tax rates, those rates should be punitive. Not just because of the incentive factor but also because I think it's inherently good to allow people to keep the fruits of their labour.

A fundamental problem here, is the assumption that income is derived from 'fruits of labour'.  A portion of my income is from investment.  This income is not really derived from my labour at all.  I can spend the whole day watching TV and eating cheetos and the income arrives.

The reason that I've got investments is that I ended up with a job that paid me more than I need to live, so had a lot of disposable income.  If I was working a minimum wage factory job I wouldn't be able to afford to have saved that initial capital to invest.

Are you really going to tell me that I'm working harder sitting on my ass and watching TV with investments in the bank, than a guy working a minimum wage job in a factory loading pallets?  Because I've done both . . . and loading the pallets is WAY more labour.

I believe there should be a general safety net but otherwise I don't see why giving people more in welfare/unemployment benefits than they would earn while working is a worthwhile aim.

Is this actually the aim though?  Can you show me the stated goal where your government is saying "We want to pay everyone more than they would earn while working."?  Because my understanding is that most governments picked a number that seemed reasonable, and ran with it.  For most people it's less than they earned while working.  For some of the poorest it's more than they earned while working.

Where I differ from most neoliberals is that I believe inherited money is unearned money, and I would advocate for a strong, bordering on punitive estate tax, to make sure that each generation has to 'start afresh'. Because I agree that otherwise, the descendants of the rich will have unearned fortunes.

I'm on-board with you on this one in theory.  Sadly it has proven impossible to implement through history.  People want to leave their offspring the money they earned . . . and this inevitably leads to unfair, unearned advantages.  Even if you prevent people from passing on any cash or property, every rich parent will ensure their kid has the best possible tutoring, education, etc.  They will ensure that their kids start out in better jobs by using their social connections and money/political power.

Anyone coming from a middle class or higher background has tremendous amounts of unearned advantage over others - and this directly translates into income over a lifetime.  Because of this fact we need to look at a real world solution to level the uneven playing field that a capitalist system always creates.  To date, progressive taxation is one of the best ways that has been come up with to do this.  And taxation makes sense . . . since the folks who have most benefited from the public services available (roads to ship things, police to keep crime low, fire departments to prevent factories from burning down, public education to create new employees educated to minimum standards, etc.) are the rich.

[Kris]

There's some pretty robust evidence that transfer of wealth to poor people doesn't have to create create a perverse incentive rewarding sloth and punishing hard work.  Look at the countries with the highest social mobility:
[snip]

The United States has not been at or near the top of social/economic mobility for decades.  Yet the belief that this is the "Land of Opportunity" persists.  I refer to it as the Great Lie we drill into all young school-children (e.g. "America is the place everyone wants to live" and "We are the greatest nation on earth, because FREEDOM!")

Perversely, since we are conditioned to believe these statements at a very early age, questioning them by suggesting the poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich, or that people of color are at an inherent disadvantage (an acute form of injustice in the 'land of freedom') gets you labeled 'Un-American'. 

More than a few people have told me I should 'Go Back to Canada' because I want to improve healthcare access and address systemic racism.  What I want to do is help my native country live up to its lofty ideals as well as other successful democracies.

Yeah, I was really surprised that the US was number 27 on social mobility . . . behind many of the European countries that we've always been traditionally told are more difficult to get ahead in.

You have no idea how many Americans are not only surprised but totally baffled and don't believe me even if I show them half a dozen stats covering different indicators of that.
You just have no idea how many!
The amount of cognitive dissonance itself is so staggering it is unbelievable!

We in the US have been SUUUUUPER-indoctrinated to think we're the best in the world at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For lots of Americans, even daring to voice any doubt about our #1 status in anything is tantamount to burning the flag while lunching on a recently-aborted baby. For them, you can't be an American patriot and voice even the slightest doubt about our superiority.

[Bloop Bloop]

I’m confused... you want affluent workers to keep most of what they earn but you also want taxation to be punitive?  Aren’t those two statements opposite?

One thing that both this health crisis and living abroad has highlighted for me is that it’s a really bad idea to have one’s health insurance and retirement tied to an employer (note: that’s different from “being employed”).

I want taxation of income - both active and passive - to be moderately progressive but taxation of estates on death to be heavily punitive. I cannot see any legitimate reason for parents to gift children more than a modicum of wealth. The children never earned it.

A fundamental problem here, is the assumption that income is derived from 'fruits of labour'.  A portion of my income is from investment.  This income is not really derived from my labour at all.  I can spend the whole day watching TV and eating cheetos and the income arrives.

Sure, but you accrued the invested assets from your original income. No different from putting it in the bank and getting interest.

Is this actually the aim though?  Can you show me the stated goal where your government is saying "We want to pay everyone more than they would earn while working."?  Because my understanding is that most governments picked a number that seemed reasonable, and ran with it.  For most people it's less than they earned while working.  For some of the poorest it's more than they earned while working.

Here in Australia it's $750/week given to anyone who's lost their job whether or not they were working part-time or full-time hours.

It's a lot of money for casuals who might have only been working 5 or 10 or 15 hours a week while living at home as a young person (note that living at home does not stop you from still getting the full, entire covid supplement).

Even if you prevent people from passing on any cash or property, every rich parent will ensure their kid has the best possible tutoring, education, etc.  They will ensure that their kids start out in better jobs by using their social connections and money/political power.

Well, it's still a lot better than the current system, which features all those things anyway, plus a lot of actual money being spent.

Nepotism can be countered by a variety of means, including blind hiring practice.

Education is a funny thing. I've seen no research that shows throwing huge amounts of money on children does anything for their lasting education besides making them richer. You're not going to make your kid into a football star by buying him the world's best helmet and boots.

[GuitarStv]

Even if you prevent people from passing on any cash or property, every rich parent will ensure their kid has the best possible tutoring, education, etc.  They will ensure that their kids start out in better jobs by using their social connections and money/political power.

Well, it's still a lot better than the current system, which features all those things anyway, plus a lot of actual money being spent.

Nepotism can be countered by a variety of means, including blind hiring practice.

Education is a funny thing. I've seen no research that shows throwing huge amounts of money on children does anything for their lasting education besides making them richer. You're not going to make your kid into a football star by buying him the world's best helmet and boots.

In the nature/nurture conflict, I look at things as follows:
- You have a certain amount of natural talent when you're born.  This is effectively a cap on how smart you're going to be.
- The amount of that natural talent that you are able to fulfill and achieve is based on the environment you're in.

So a natural genius who never gets any kind of encouragement, has a poor education, has no peers of a similar level, is exposed to violence and crime at a young age . . . they're not likely going to live up to their potential.  Equal odds of ending up one or two rungs up on a shit job or turning out to be a successful criminal.

An average kid who gets great encouragement, excellent instruction, enrichment opportunities, may never be smarter than the genius, but he or she is going to learn more and get further in life, be paid more, and have more success.