Criminalizing unemployed - Sen. Hatch wants unemployed to face mandatory drug tests

[Jarhead]

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

Not based on those that are employed.
Based on those that were terminated.
Existing gross payroll has no affect on my UI ratio. Amount of people terminated does. When my ratio hits a certyain number, I am charged per claim; and the amount I am charged is based n the amount they are given by the state. And yes, the amount given by the state is based on what their most recent salary was.
But my ratio is strictly based on how many I terminated. Not my gross payroll.

And just an FYI......5 years and my ratio is still below the threshold of where I must contribute. Yep, I am proud of that.

As a small business owner I want to say Jarhead has it exactly right here, except for one minor detail, unless things have changed: Firing with cause will disqualify the unemployed person from drawing UI.

All else being equal, a person "laid off" because of unavailability of work will always draw UI, if they meet work duration requirements.

Firing with cause is reason why UI can be challanged by the employer. This is correct. But most ethical employers will never challange unemployment. Cause or not, that individual needs to eat. The few I have terminated all deserved to be terminated. Excessive Absenteeism, frequent tardiness. But I never challanged unemployment. Their lifestyle may work for them but it does not work for me. But it does not mean that they deserve to starve.

But I again stress, and correct me if I am wrong AH....UI is not at all determined by existing gross payroll. It is strictly based on numbers terminated.

At least that is how mine has always been determined.

 

[American Horse]

Firing with cause is reason why UI can be challanged by the employer. This is correct. But most ethical employers will never challange unemployment. Cause or not, that individual needs to eat. The few I have terminated all deserved to be terminated. Excessive Absenteeism, frequent tardiness. But I never challanged unemployment. Their lifestyle may work for them but it does not work for me. But it does not mean that they deserve to starve.

But I again stress, and correct me if I am wrong AH....UI is not at all determined by existing gross payroll. It is strictly based on numbers terminated.

At least that is how mine has always been determined.

You are right about all of that.
And I too never challenged a person's status for drawing unemployment insurance. I assumed they needed it for survival, and the cost to me was nothing except some small future increase in my rate.

The amount paid in by the employer bears no relationship to the amount of total payroll or the amount paid to any employee. It is based entirely on the record or experience of the employer because of laying people off. An employer who almost never (or never has) laid any employees off will pay almost nothing, I presume because the company has not contribued to the problem of unemployment.

 

[Immanuel]

the percentage they pay is based on how many they fire, but the percentage is processed against all the employee salaries that they pay out.....no?

The percentage that are laid off. And yes, it is figured on the number of employees you have. You must pay a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employee.

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

I'm not sure where you come up with this.

I have done payroll for a long time and Unemployment taxes are paid based upon the salaries of those who are currently in your employment. The rate you are charged is based partly upon your prior experience.

You pay a certain rate on the first X dollars paid to all of your employees each year. Last year it was $7,000. This year the State of Florida raised that from $7,000 to $8,500.

So, if you pay John Smith wages this year, you are taxed on the first $7,000 of wages paid to him this year at the rate you have earned. If you have a steady employment history and your employees either stay with you long term or when they do leave they take other positions without having to receive UE, your rate is going to be low. If you lay people off unexpectedly and force them to take UE, then your rate will creep upwards.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Do you really think it would be an impetus to stop doing drugs? If their own health, family, children isn't enough to get them off of drugs why would random drug testing?

Immie

Absolutely yes. People doing drugs, particularly milder drugs like "dope" will stop, because even dope is not cheap, and they have to have money to get it. If they knew that by taking a test they would not only lose the benefit of getting money in the form of an unemployment check, but getting money over a sustained period, they would quit.

I've known people who did dope who stopped because they needed to get a job and they knew they would be tested up-front as a pre-requisite for that employment, so they quit at least 30 days before applying for a job, and they never re-started.

I can see that for the "casual" drug user. But not for people who use all the time even pot.

It seems to me that when they are users they don't think or care about the consequences especially when you are talking about the habitual drugs i.e. crack. I'm not a user and never have been of any drug so this is impression only, but it seems to me that people that are addicted don't care and will get drugs by any means possible.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

The percentage that are laid off. And yes, it is figured on the number of employees you have. You must pay a percentage of the first $7,000 of each employee.

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

I'm not sure where you come up with this.

I have done payroll for a long time and Unemployment taxes are paid based upon the salaries of those who are currently in your employment. The rate you are charged is based partly upon your prior experience.

You pay a certain rate on the first X dollars paid to all of your employees each year. Last year it was $7,000. This year the State of Florida raised that from $7,000 to $8,500.

So, if you pay John Smith wages this year, you are taxed on the first $7,000 of wages paid to him this year at the rate you have earned. If you have a steady employment history and your employees either stay with you long term or when they do leave they take other positions without having to receive UE, your rate is going to be low. If you lay people off unexpectedly and force them to take UE, then your rate will creep upwards.

Immie

That is not at all how it is done in NY. To the contrary, I am charged nothing at all. I have a "balance" offered to me by the state and that balance is tapped into based on each claim. It is referred top as my UI ratio.

We do not have an unemployment tax here in NY so I assume it is a state by state thing?

 

[Ravi]

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

I'm not sure where you come up with this.

I have done payroll for a long time and Unemployment taxes are paid based upon the salaries of those who are currently in your employment. The rate you are charged is based partly upon your prior experience.

You pay a certain rate on the first X dollars paid to all of your employees each year. Last year it was $7,000. This year the State of Florida raised that from $7,000 to $8,500.

So, if you pay John Smith wages this year, you are taxed on the first $7,000 of wages paid to him this year at the rate you have earned. If you have a steady employment history and your employees either stay with you long term or when they do leave they take other positions without having to receive UE, your rate is going to be low. If you lay people off unexpectedly and force them to take UE, then your rate will creep upwards.

Immie

That is not at all how it is done in NY. To the contrary, I am charged nothing at all. I have a "balance" offered to me by the state and that balance is tapped into based on each claim. It is referred top as my UI ratio.

We do not have an unemployment tax here in NY so I assume it is a state by state thing?

uh oh...sounds like you might be in a bit of trouble.

New York Unemployment Tax Rules

Print​

Coverage: Any business paying compensation to employees of at least $300 in any calendar quarter (liability beginning as of the first day of such quarter).
Rates: 0.7% — 8.7% for 2009; 4.1% for new employers
Taxable Wage Limit: $8,500 for 2009 and 2010
Employee Withholding: None
Administration:
Department of Labor
State Campus, Building 12
Room 500
Albany, New York 12240-0339

 

[American Horse]

A call to my CPA provides the following useful information.

The unemployment insurance RATE at the state level is applied to the first $7,000 (in my state of Indiana) of any employees wages, and is cumulative in the following manner: with 10 employees the rate would be applied to $70,000 in wages to determine the amount to be paid into the UI fund. The rate is determined by the employer's unemployment experience record; higher for a greater experience of unemployment, lower for less experience.

Edit: FUTA (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) has a correspoonding and slightly different rate of application.
There are two systems: state and federal

 

[Immanuel]

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

Your rate goes up if you lay people off. But yes, the employer pays his/her rate on each and every employee he has. The first 7,000 of salary you pay each employee is multiplied by the employers current unemployment rate.

Explain how that determines UI.

My ratio, here in NY is based STRICTLY on how many I terminate. At my peak of employment, I had a payroll of over 1 Million, but I was not paying a dime and have never paid a dime in UI.
I still have a ways to go before I pay a dime.

The only entity that requires a regular update of my gross payroll is my LTD and Workers Comp inusurer.

I think you better take a look at the Unemployment Insurance laws in the state of New York. I can tell you that by this statement, if you are not paying any UE Taxes then you are breaking Federal Statutes, because you must pay federal Unemployment taxes (Federal Tax Form 940) annually.

New York Tax Rates:

New York State Department of Labor - UI Employer Tax Rates

For 2010, the range of NYS Unemployment Insurance total tax rates is as follows:

UI Tax Rate * RSF ** Total

Lowest rate: 1.425% 0.075% 1.5%

New Employer rate: 4.025% 0.075% 4.1%

Highest rate: 9.825% 0.075% 9.9%

Size of Fund Index Column: Less than 0%

General Account Balance: Less than $0

* The UI tax rate is used to calculate line #4 on the NYS 45.

** The 0.075% re-employment tax applies to all tax rated accounts and is used to calculate line #5 on the NYS 45.

It appears that you MUST pay UE taxes on for NYS-45 each quarter based on the first $8,500 of compensation each year:

New York State Department of Labor - UI - Quarterly Reporting

Your contributions are based on the first $8,500 of remuneration paid to each employee in a calendar year. Remuneration includes every form of compensation paid to covered employees including salary, cash wages, commissions, bonuses, tips, vacation pay, the value of meals and lodging, and other types of noncash compensation.

In determining the first $8,500 of remuneration paid to an employee, an employer who has acquired all, or a segregable part, of another employer's business may consider the wages paid by the former employer. Wages paid to an employee that were reported to another state during a calendar year may also be considered, although this usually only pertains to an employee who transfers into New York State.

Employers who share the services of a single employee are required to report and pay the tax on their share of the employee's earnings. Each is liable for taxes up to the annual taxable limit of $8,500. However, if the employers are financially related, taxes are required only on the first $8,500 of total annual earnings.

You may have paid into the Voluntary Contribution plan and have an account built up that excludes you from having to make contributions. I have never worked with such a plan, but I cannot imagine that you do not have to pay any UE Taxes each year.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

It is NOT based on how many employees you have. It is based on hoiw many you terminate.

I'm not sure where you come up with this.

I have done payroll for a long time and Unemployment taxes are paid based upon the salaries of those who are currently in your employment. The rate you are charged is based partly upon your prior experience.

You pay a certain rate on the first X dollars paid to all of your employees each year. Last year it was $7,000. This year the State of Florida raised that from $7,000 to $8,500.

So, if you pay John Smith wages this year, you are taxed on the first $7,000 of wages paid to him this year at the rate you have earned. If you have a steady employment history and your employees either stay with you long term or when they do leave they take other positions without having to receive UE, your rate is going to be low. If you lay people off unexpectedly and force them to take UE, then your rate will creep upwards.

Immie

That is not at all how it is done in NY. To the contrary, I am charged nothing at all. I have a "balance" offered to me by the state and that balance is tapped into based on each claim. It is referred top as my UI ratio.

We do not have an unemployment tax here in NY so I assume it is a state by state thing?

You do in fact have an unemployment tax in NY. See my last post. However, I would guess from this post of yours that you have paid into the account a sufficient amount to prevent you have having to make quarterly payment. My guess is the State of New York tells you each year how much you need to replenish that account annually.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

A call to my CPA provides the following useful information.

The unemployment insurance RATE at the state level is applied to the first $7,000 (in my state of Indiana) of any employees wages, and is cumulative in the following manner: with 10 employees the rate would be applied to $70,000 in wages to determine the amount to be paid into the UI fund. The rate is determined by the employer's unemployment experience record; higher for a greater experience of unemployment, lower for less experience.

Edit: FUTA (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) has a correspoonding and slightly different rate of application.
There are two systems: state and federal

For the record, that is exactly what Ravi and I have been saying.

Say your rate is 5% and you have only one employee, you would pay $350 ($7000 X .05) to the state. Once you had reached $7000 of wages for that employee you would be finished with UE taxes for the year. Unless, in June the employee quits and you hire a replacement, you would then have to pay the 5% on her first $7000 of wages for the year.

Immie

 

[American Horse]

You do in fact have an unemployment tax in NY. See my last post. However, I would guess from this post of yours that you have paid into the account a sufficient amount to prevent you have having to make quarterly payment. My guess is the State of New York tells you each year how much you need to replenish that account annually.

Immie

Immie, what Jarhead said is fundamentally correct. How many employees do we have which fail to earn at least $7,000 per annum? Only people who don't remain employed would be a good guess, since it does not apply to part time workers; $7,000 (or $8,500, or what ever) is not a measure of income, it is just a baseline figure

 

[Jarhead]

I use a payroll service (a very good one mind you....Paychex). So I really dont pay attention to what they deduct from my account as my tax responsibility per employee.

But I do know one thing for sure. I have never had to pay a dime extra for those that have made unemployment claims.

My accountant has numerous times commented on my "ratio" and how "lucky" I am that I do not need to contribute to Unemployment insurance. When I had a pyroll of nearly 1M to when my payroill is what it is at now, my unemployment likability per claiom has not cost me a dime.

SO I do not understand how my existing GROSS employee payroll has any affect on an individuals unemploymenbt collected.

Bear in mind, the debate was whether unemployment is earned or an entitlement. Care4all said it was earned as it is part of their comepnsation. I said it is not earned as it is not at all part of their compensation. It is based on their LACK of comensation and based on their ioncome WHILE employed. But they do not pay into it while working and I do not pay into based on them working.

I am one of those dumb busness owners that hires professionals to do for me what I have little knopwledge or patience to do.

But two things I know. AN employee does not earn uynemployment but they deserve unemployment,

They do not earn berevement days, but they deserve berevement days.

 

[Immanuel]

You do in fact have an unemployment tax in NY. See my last post. However, I would guess from this post of yours that you have paid into the account a sufficient amount to prevent you have having to make quarterly payment. My guess is the State of New York tells you each year how much you need to replenish that account annually.

Immie

Immie, what Jarhead said is fundamentally correct. How many employees do we have which fail to earn at least $7,000 per annum? Only people who don't remain employed would be a good guess, since it does not apply to part time workers; $7,000 (or $8,500, or what ever) is not a measure of income, it is just a baseline figure

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Example: 5% tax rate, 1st $7000 of wages, 5 employees

You keep all employees throughout the year and you do not hire any other staff.

Your UE tax will be $7000 X .05 X 5 = $1750

One employee works one month (earns $3,500) quits and you do not rehire him.

Your UE tax will be ($7000 X .05 X 4) + ($3,500 X .05) = $1,575

You keep all five employees, but then in July due to growth you hire a sixth employee.

Assuming you are not cheap and you have already paid the original 5 employees more than $7000 each by June, you will now owe another $350 on the first $7000 of wages for the sixth employee.

So, it works out that you are paying UE Taxes based upon your current payroll at a rate that is calculated based upon your prior experience. If you have a good experience modification because you don't layoff employees then your rate will be lower and you will not pay as much. If you hire and fire and don't challenge the claims then your rate will go up. If you hire seasonal employees who when the season is over have to file UE claims you will probably pay a hire rate.

Edit: another example say you hire an employee middle of December. Chances are you won't pay that employe $7000 this year. You will thus pay based upon all of his wages for that year and begin on 1/1 paying taxes based upon the new year wages.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I use a payroll service (a very good one mind you....Paychex). So I really dont pay attention to what they deduct from my account as my tax responsibility per employee.

But I do know one thing for sure. I have never had to pay a dime extra for those that have made unemployment claims.

My accountant has numerous times commented on my "ratio" and how "lucky" I am that I do not need to contribute to Unemployment insurance. When I had a pyroll of nearly 1M to when my payroill is what it is at now, my unemployment likability per claiom has not cost me a dime.

SO I do not understand how my existing GROSS employee payroll has any affect on an individuals unemploymenbt collected.

Bear in mind, the debate was whether unemployment is earned or an entitlement. Care4all said it was earned as it is part of their comepnsation. I said it is not earned as it is not at all part of their compensation. It is based on their LACK of comensation and based on their ioncome WHILE employed. But they do not pay into it while working and I do not pay into based on them working.

I am one of those dumb busness owners that hires professionals to do for me what I have little knopwledge or patience to do.

But two things I know. AN employee does not earn uynemployment but they deserve unemployment,

They do not earn berevement days, but they deserve berevement days.

There is your answer.

Paychex is a good service. I believe they collect and pay your taxes with each payroll, correct?

You pay them to do the tax filings for you, right?

Unless you are meticulous and exam each bill from them, you will not see it as they will collect those taxes with the other payroll taxes you pay i.e Federal Withholding, SS Tax and Medicare. They also file the quarterly payroll reports for you i.e. 940 Unemployment and 941 Employer taxes (FWT, SS and Medicare). You pay them to do it for you.

That is a little more expensive than if you paid an employee to do it in house for you, but cheaper than doing so and having them (the employee) screw up and you having to pay fines and back taxes.

You should hire me. I'll do all of that for you... problem is... I sure as hell am not moving to NY so you have to come down here.

As for being a "dumb professional", that is not so dumb. If you don't know what you are doing and you miss something, you might just have the IRS knocking on your door one day telling you that you owe a hell of a lot more money than you have seen in your lifetime and that you have 30 days to pay up or they will shut your business down.

Immie

 

[American Horse]

You do in fact have an unemployment tax in NY. See my last post. However, I would guess from this post of yours that you have paid into the account a sufficient amount to prevent you have having to make quarterly payment. My guess is the State of New York tells you each year how much you need to replenish that account annually.

Immie

Immie, what Jarhead said is fundamentally correct. How many employees do we have which fail to earn at least $7,000 per annum? Only people who don't remain employed would be a good guess, since it does not apply to part time workers; $7,000 (or $8,500, or what ever) is not a measure of income, it is just a baseline figure

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Example: 5% tax rate, 1st $7000 of wages, 5 employees

You keep all employees throughout the year and you do not hire any other staff.

Your UE tax will be $7000 X .05 X 5 = $1750

One employee works one month (earns $3,500) quits and you do not rehire him.

Your UE tax will be ($7000 X .05 X 4) + ($3,500 X .05) = $1,575

You keep all five employees, but then in July due to growth you hire a sixth employee.

Assuming you are not cheap and you have already paid the original 5 employees more than $7000 each by June, you will now owe another $350 on the first $7000 of wages for the sixth employee.

So, it works out that you are paying UE Taxes based upon your current payroll at a rate that is calculated based upon your prior experience. If you have a good experience modification because you don't layoff employees then your rate will be lower and you will not pay as much. If you hire and fire and don't challenge the claims then your rate will go up. If you hire seasonal employees who when the season is over have to file UE claims you will probably pay a hire rate.

Edit: another example say you hire an employee middle of December. Chances are you won't pay that employe $7000 this year. You will thus pay based upon all of his wages for that year and begin on 1/1 paying taxes based upon the new year wages.

Immie

Immie

It is cumulative, and the limit is (in the case of Indiana) $7,000. per employee.

IE. If in the first quarter I had one employee and he earned 3,000 the rate would be applied against that amount.

If in the 2nd quarter the employee earned 3,000 again we would follow the same calculations.

If in the 3rd quarter the employee earned 3,000 again THIS TIME the rate would be applied against only $1,000 ( 3,000 + 3,000 + 1,000 = 7,000 ) and this would apply for all employees.

To me that is not applying the UI rate against total payroll but against a baseline limited to $7,000 per employee.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, what Jarhead said is fundamentally correct. How many employees do we have which fail to earn at least $7,000 per annum? Only people who don't remain employed would be a good guess, since it does not apply to part time workers; $7,000 (or $8,500, or what ever) is not a measure of income, it is just a baseline figure

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Example: 5% tax rate, 1st $7000 of wages, 5 employees

You keep all employees throughout the year and you do not hire any other staff.

Your UE tax will be $7000 X .05 X 5 = $1750

One employee works one month (earns $3,500) quits and you do not rehire him.

Your UE tax will be ($7000 X .05 X 4) + ($3,500 X .05) = $1,575

You keep all five employees, but then in July due to growth you hire a sixth employee.

Assuming you are not cheap and you have already paid the original 5 employees more than $7000 each by June, you will now owe another $350 on the first $7000 of wages for the sixth employee.

So, it works out that you are paying UE Taxes based upon your current payroll at a rate that is calculated based upon your prior experience. If you have a good experience modification because you don't layoff employees then your rate will be lower and you will not pay as much. If you hire and fire and don't challenge the claims then your rate will go up. If you hire seasonal employees who when the season is over have to file UE claims you will probably pay a hire rate.

Edit: another example say you hire an employee middle of December. Chances are you won't pay that employe $7000 this year. You will thus pay based upon all of his wages for that year and begin on 1/1 paying taxes based upon the new year wages.

Immie

Immie

It is cumulative, and the limit is (in the case of Indiana) $7,000. per employee.

IE. If in the first quarter I had one employee and he earned 3,000 the rate would be applied against that amount.

If in the 2nd quarter the employee earned 3,000 again we would follow the same calculations.

If in the 3rd quarter the employee earned 3,000 again THIS TIME the rate would be applied against only $1,000 ( 3,000 + 3,000 + 1,000 = 7,000 ) and this would apply for all employees.

To me that is not applying the UI rate against total payroll but against a baseline limited to $7,000 per employee.

$3000 a quarter!!!

Damn you're cheap! Remind me that I don't want to go to work for you. That is only $1000 a month. Cheapskate!

Think about your last sentence there. Say you hire an employee on December 15th. Since you ARE such a cheapskate, you are not going to pay that UE based on $7000 for that employee. You are only going to pay based upon the pittance you pay her for two weeks pay.

Immie

 

[American Horse]

$3000 a quarter!!!

Damn you're cheap! Remind me that I don't want to go to work for you. That is only $1000 a month. Cheapskate!

Think about your last sentence there. Say you hire an employee on December 15th. Since you ARE such a cheapskate, you are not going to pay that UE based on $7000 for that employee. You are only going to pay based upon the pittance you pay her for two weeks pay.

Immie

Oh come on Immie now you're being inane; I was just using figures that worked into 7,000 and required more than one quarter and less than 4 quarters to illustrate the cumulative nature.

My whole purpose in this was to show that the unemployment tax is not based on full gross wages, thus would not increase if the single employee earned $20,000 per quarter rather than 3,000 per quarter, but yes, that would've worked in my illustration too, just that all UT would've been paid in the first quarter, not requiring the next two.

 

[Ravi]

No one ever claimed it was based on full gross wages.

 

[Immanuel]

$3000 a quarter!!!

Damn you're cheap! Remind me that I don't want to go to work for you. That is only $1000 a month. Cheapskate!

Think about your last sentence there. Say you hire an employee on December 15th. Since you ARE such a cheapskate, you are not going to pay that UE based on $7000 for that employee. You are only going to pay based upon the pittance you pay her for two weeks pay.

Immie

Oh come on Immie now you're being inane; I was just using figures that worked into 7,000 and required more than one quarter and less than 4 quarters to illustrate the cumulative nature.

My whole purpose in this was to show that the unemployment tax is not based on full gross wages, thus would not increase if the single employee earned $20,000 per quarter rather than 3,000 per quarter, but yes, that would've worked in my illustration too, just that all UT would've been paid in the first quarter, not requiring the next two.

I knew that, but I simply could not resist giving you a bad time about it.

Immie

 

[Jarhead]

No one ever claimed it was based on full gross wages.

Read threads. Do not cherry pick individual posts to make a judgenment call.

I will make it easy for you.

And I am paraphrasing:

Care4all said that unemployment is earned as it is part of the employees compensation. I said it is not part of the employees compensation as it is based on the employees wages when they were employed but the employees compensation does not include anything about unemployment. I elaborated by saying that whereas unemployment insurance is catagorized as a cost of payroll, it is not part of payroll based on the employees slary while empoloyed.

Unemployment is not part of the employees compensation package. Benefits are, salary is, vacation time and personal days. Unemployment is like berevement days. Soemthing you get but not something you earn.