Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, that is the problem with laws that are not only repugnant to our Constitutions but also enable extremes of poverty and make means tested welfare more expensive due to the extensive administration costs.The State does because it is State public policy.That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.
They cannot punish you for quitting. But they do not have to pay you.
The state does not punish you, penalize you, or hold you liable. You are free to quit. That does not mean the state will be responsible for providing you assistance until you find another job. They certainly will not be responsible for providing you assistance if you are not even looking for a job.
From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Welfare is already the biggest expenditure. Lowering that cost is what we are trying to accomplish, and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in that market.So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Like requiring the tax payers pick up the tab for someone simply deciding they don't want to work and thinking they should be free of the consequences?
No, it simply does not mean that at all. That's something you imagined that it means, and is the core of your problem. No one else believes that.That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.
Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Welfare is already the biggest expenditure. Lowering that cost is what we are trying to accomplish, and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in that market.So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Like requiring the tax payers pick up the tab for someone simply deciding they don't want to work and thinking they should be free of the consequences?
That is why nobody should take right wingers as seriously as the "gospel Truth". Fallacy is not an equivalent.No, it simply does not mean that at all. That's something you imagined that it means, and is the core of your problem. No one else believes that.That is not what employment-at-will is about. It is legal to quit on an at-will basis. That means there can be no legal or moral prejudice regarding any public policies affecting by at-will employment laws.There doesn't have to be any cause to let you go or for you to quit, but you do need a cause to collect UC.
I read it a while ago but didn't save the link and now I having difficulty finding it again.Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Do you have a link for that?
And if means testing cuts out just a couple of people every year, it has more than paid for itself.
You seem to think we should pay people just because they want the money. Welfare is for those who need help to survive. Not for those who just want more money but can take care of themselves without help.
How did you reach that conclusion? I am advocating for a form of full employment of resources using existing legal and physical infrastructure to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.Welfare is already the biggest expenditure. Lowering that cost is what we are trying to accomplish, and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in that market.So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Like requiring the tax payers pick up the tab for someone simply deciding they don't want to work and thinking they should be free of the consequences?
That is a lovely sentiment. But it is bullshit.
Claiming that you want to lower welfare costs sounds great. But all you are really doing is creating another welfare system and claiming it will reduce the actual welfare, while it will increase the expenditures if you look at a combination of welfare and your altered version of UC.
I read it a while ago but didn't save the link and now I having difficulty finding it again.Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Do you have a link for that?
And if means testing cuts out just a couple of people every year, it has more than paid for itself.
You seem to think we should pay people just because they want the money. Welfare is for those who need help to survive. Not for those who just want more money but can take care of themselves without help.
And, you misunderstand the whole point. It is about promoting and providing for the general welfare by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in our market based economy. Means tested welfare is truer Socialism.
How did you reach that conclusion? I am advocating for a form of full employment of resources using existing legal and physical infrastructure to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.Welfare is already the biggest expenditure. Lowering that cost is what we are trying to accomplish, and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in that market.So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Like requiring the tax payers pick up the tab for someone simply deciding they don't want to work and thinking they should be free of the consequences?
That is a lovely sentiment. But it is bullshit.
Claiming that you want to lower welfare costs sounds great. But all you are really doing is creating another welfare system and claiming it will reduce the actual welfare, while it will increase the expenditures if you look at a combination of welfare and your altered version of UC.
Anyone who is in poverty should be able to qualify for it. Why do we have any homeless at all?I read it a while ago but didn't save the link and now I having difficulty finding it again.Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Do you have a link for that?
And if means testing cuts out just a couple of people every year, it has more than paid for itself.
You seem to think we should pay people just because they want the money. Welfare is for those who need help to survive. Not for those who just want more money but can take care of themselves without help.
And, you misunderstand the whole point. It is about promoting and providing for the general welfare by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in our market based economy. Means tested welfare is truer Socialism.
And, of course, it does not take into account the money saved by refusing welfare for those who do not need it.
Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment anyway. Solving for that means full employment of resources and more efficient market based activity, which can mean more consistent revenue for any local economy.How did you reach that conclusion? I am advocating for a form of full employment of resources using existing legal and physical infrastructure to solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner.Welfare is already the biggest expenditure. Lowering that cost is what we are trying to accomplish, and solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in that market.So what. There is no requirement that employers pay all of it. More optimum funding can be easily accomplished.From that employer not from the State.Equal protection of the law is an express right not a reward.No. You are confusing not being punished with being rewarded.
You are protected from retribution for quitting. But you voluntarily left a job, so you voluntarily left the paycheck.
The employer pays the overwhelming majority of the UC payments.
Like requiring the tax payers pick up the tab for someone simply deciding they don't want to work and thinking they should be free of the consequences?
That is a lovely sentiment. But it is bullshit.
Claiming that you want to lower welfare costs sounds great. But all you are really doing is creating another welfare system and claiming it will reduce the actual welfare, while it will increase the expenditures if you look at a combination of welfare and your altered version of UC.
How is offering UC for those who quit a job advocating for full employment? There is no incentive for work. Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
You miss the point. Sweatshop capitalists would have to pay more or increase their operational efficiency through other means.Quite the opposite, it would provide incentive for people to quit their job.
Anyone who is in poverty should be able to qualify for it. Why do we have any homeless at all?I read it a while ago but didn't save the link and now I having difficulty finding it again.Why do you believe that? Means testing is the most expensive option. One study I read says the hour equivalent cost of welfare is about fourteen dollars an hour. It is one reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.Yes, it does. Simply filling out that form is "expensive".Means testing does not make it more expensive.
No, it is not. The person filing out the form is not a state employee. And whatever minor administrative cost there is would be quickly covered by any single refusal of welfare benefits due to having adequate means to support themselves.
Do you have a link for that?
And if means testing cuts out just a couple of people every year, it has more than paid for itself.
You seem to think we should pay people just because they want the money. Welfare is for those who need help to survive. Not for those who just want more money but can take care of themselves without help.
And, you misunderstand the whole point. It is about promoting and providing for the general welfare by better ensuring full employment of capital resources in our market based economy. Means tested welfare is truer Socialism.
And, of course, it does not take into account the money saved by refusing welfare for those who do not need it.
Equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed can solve simple poverty and our homeless problem.
