What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

 

[hadit]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

 

[danielpalos]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

Yes, there will because more people will be circulating more capital; general taxes are generated almost any time money changes hands.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

No. That is just You begging that question. What fraud, waste, and abuse are you referring to? Means tested welfare is more prone to fraud, waste, and abuse.

 

[hadit]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

Yes, there will because more people will be circulating more capital; general taxes are generated almost any time money changes hands.

The law you cite doesn't address that. You just put it in because it sounds good.

 

[hadit]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

No. That is just You begging that question. What fraud, waste, and abuse are you referring to? Means tested welfare is more prone to fraud, waste, and abuse.

And that's exactly what this will be. You can't take a narrowly defined, employer tax supported insurance program and turn it into a massive welfare program that covers everyone under the sun and expect it to be as efficient as it was.

 

[danielpalos]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

Yes, there will because more people will be circulating more capital; general taxes are generated almost any time money changes hands.

The law you cite doesn't address that. You just put it in because it sounds good.

Yes, it does. You simply miss the point, right winger. The law of large numbers says it all. Large numbers is what generates the multiplier. Any limits to those large numbers reduce the multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

No. That is just You begging that question. What fraud, waste, and abuse are you referring to? Means tested welfare is more prone to fraud, waste, and abuse.

And that's exactly what this will be. You can't take a narrowly defined, employer tax supported insurance program and turn it into a massive welfare program that covers everyone under the sun and expect it to be as efficient as it was.

How would it be abused? You simply making up a narrative doesn't mean what you allege it does. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are mostly just fraud, waste, and abuse that have done even less and cost more.

 

[hadit]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

Yes, there will because more people will be circulating more capital; general taxes are generated almost any time money changes hands.

The law you cite doesn't address that. You just put it in because it sounds good.

Yes, it does. You simply miss the point, right winger. The law of large numbers says it all. Large numbers is what generates the multiplier. Any limits to those large numbers reduce the multiplier effect.

I really don't think you understand what you're talking about. I've posted a link to the definition of the law and it doesn't support your assertion. You could post a link that does support it, you know.

 

[hadit]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

No. That is just You begging that question. What fraud, waste, and abuse are you referring to? Means tested welfare is more prone to fraud, waste, and abuse.

And that's exactly what this will be. You can't take a narrowly defined, employer tax supported insurance program and turn it into a massive welfare program that covers everyone under the sun and expect it to be as efficient as it was.

How would it be abused? You simply making up a narrative doesn't mean what you allege it does. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are mostly just fraud, waste, and abuse that have done even less and cost more.

We know it would be abused because we've seen the pattern of abuse in every welfare program we've created. It's human nature to take what's freely available. You thus can't claim the multiplier you keep thinking you'll get because the program WILL fundamentally change. It simply doesn't matter how much you want it to be true.

Think about it. UC as currently structured provides temporary relief to workers laid off from jobs through no fault of their own. It is means tested and time limited. That means that most of the recipients are people that have already been working and thus are more likely to get off the program as quickly as possible, and eventually everyone on it gets taken off, which puts less strain on the program. You want to change that into a new welfare program that pays people who are not working for whatever reason for however long they don't work. You haven't specified that it would be temporary and you don't want any means testing on who would receive the benefits (unless of course you define the tests). That means that the program would be providing long term payouts to people that have no intention of ever working or who start working, decide they'd rather not, quit and stay on the program forever. That puts a lot of strain on the program. You would have to take a lot more money out of the economy to make those payments and it simply won't do what you wish it will do. The ONLY way what you want would possibly work is if all the people on the program only stay on it as long as they actually NEED it, and that's not going to happen.

 

[danielpalos]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

Yes, there will because more people will be circulating more capital; general taxes are generated almost any time money changes hands.

The law you cite doesn't address that. You just put it in because it sounds good.

Yes, it does. You simply miss the point, right winger. The law of large numbers says it all. Large numbers is what generates the multiplier. Any limits to those large numbers reduce the multiplier effect.

I really don't think you understand what you're talking about. I've posted a link to the definition of the law and it doesn't support your assertion. You could post a link that does support it, you know.

You simply don't understand the concept. Yes, the law as written supports my assertion since anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation. The homeless, for example, who don't have any money would then be able to qualify for unemployment compensation and participate in our market economy in a more consistent manner. Any local economy would benefit including local small businesses.

 

[danielpalos]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

No. That is just You begging that question. What fraud, waste, and abuse are you referring to? Means tested welfare is more prone to fraud, waste, and abuse.

And that's exactly what this will be. You can't take a narrowly defined, employer tax supported insurance program and turn it into a massive welfare program that covers everyone under the sun and expect it to be as efficient as it was.

How would it be abused? You simply making up a narrative doesn't mean what you allege it does. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are mostly just fraud, waste, and abuse that have done even less and cost more.

We know it would be abused because we've seen the pattern of abuse in every welfare program we've created. It's human nature to take what's freely available. You thus can't claim the multiplier you keep thinking you'll get because the program WILL fundamentally change. It simply doesn't matter how much you want it to be true.

Think about it. UC as currently structured provides temporary relief to workers laid off from jobs through no fault of their own. It is means tested and time limited. That means that most of the recipients are people that have already been working and thus are more likely to get off the program as quickly as possible, and eventually everyone on it gets taken off, which puts less strain on the program. You want to change that into a new welfare program that pays people who are not working for whatever reason for however long they don't work. You haven't specified that it would be temporary and you don't want any means testing on who would receive the benefits (unless of course you define the tests). That means that the program would be providing long term payouts to people that have no intention of ever working or who start working, decide they'd rather not, quit and stay on the program forever. That puts a lot of strain on the program. You would have to take a lot more money out of the economy to make those payments and it simply won't do what you wish it will do. The ONLY way what you want would possibly work is if all the people on the program only stay on it as long as they actually NEED it, and that's not going to happen.

You are simply assuming that would be the case. The point is, it would be too simple to be subject to fraud, waste, or abuse in a large scale manner. Being able to bear true witness about simply being unemployed would mean less need to cheat the system. Removing the time limit would also remove the need to try to game the system for more short term benefits since a person could stay on unemployment until they get sufficiently qualified for a decent job as soon as they are ready not subject to some arbitrary limit that has no basis in market based reality.

You also miss the point that anyone on unemployment compensation could be someone not on more expensive means tested welfare. A cost savings.

 

[hadit]

You are trying to prove your point by inventing money. You claim that by giving $182 billion in tax dollars the worker's tax burden will go down. That is pure fantasy.

More people circulating more money means somebody will be making more profit, and potentially hiring more employees. Along with more people generating more indirect tax revenue due to the law of large numbers.

Hmmm, the "law of large numbers".

" The law of large numbers, in probability and statistics, states that as a sample size grows, its mean gets closer to the average of the whole population"
Law Of Large Numbers Definition.

Would you care to explain how that law means more people will generate more tax revenue? Or maybe admit it just sounded good so you put it in your post?

It used to be called the law of averages. The larger the sample size the more accurate the statistics produced.

Either way, it doesn't prove that there will be more tax revenue.

Yes, there will because more people will be circulating more capital; general taxes are generated almost any time money changes hands.

The law you cite doesn't address that. You just put it in because it sounds good.

Yes, it does. You simply miss the point, right winger. The law of large numbers says it all. Large numbers is what generates the multiplier. Any limits to those large numbers reduce the multiplier effect.

I really don't think you understand what you're talking about. I've posted a link to the definition of the law and it doesn't support your assertion. You could post a link that does support it, you know.

You simply don't understand the concept. Yes, the law as written supports my assertion since anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation. The homeless, for example, who don't have any money would then be able to qualify for unemployment compensation and participate in our market economy in a more consistent manner. Any local economy would benefit including local small businesses.

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

 

[hadit]

You can't claim a multiplier of 2 because you're changing the program to match other welfare programs. And no, economic activity cannot be expected to double because you've first taken a massive amount of money out of the economy.

Not at all. It is just more comprehensive coverage that is all. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State. The multiplier has already been measured at two. The reason for that is because the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. That means local economies will benefit the most. The reason why it will still generate a positive multiplier is that those receiving that income will be circulating that capital and paying general taxes on it, and possibly even income tax.

It also means that less money will be needed for regular welfare benefits which only generate a multiplier of .8.

Sigh. You still persist in your delusion. Again, you can't claim a factor 2 because you are turning an insurance program into a massive new welfare program with all its accompanying fraud and waste.

No. That is just You begging that question. What fraud, waste, and abuse are you referring to? Means tested welfare is more prone to fraud, waste, and abuse.

And that's exactly what this will be. You can't take a narrowly defined, employer tax supported insurance program and turn it into a massive welfare program that covers everyone under the sun and expect it to be as efficient as it was.

How would it be abused? You simply making up a narrative doesn't mean what you allege it does. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are mostly just fraud, waste, and abuse that have done even less and cost more.

We know it would be abused because we've seen the pattern of abuse in every welfare program we've created. It's human nature to take what's freely available. You thus can't claim the multiplier you keep thinking you'll get because the program WILL fundamentally change. It simply doesn't matter how much you want it to be true.

Think about it. UC as currently structured provides temporary relief to workers laid off from jobs through no fault of their own. It is means tested and time limited. That means that most of the recipients are people that have already been working and thus are more likely to get off the program as quickly as possible, and eventually everyone on it gets taken off, which puts less strain on the program. You want to change that into a new welfare program that pays people who are not working for whatever reason for however long they don't work. You haven't specified that it would be temporary and you don't want any means testing on who would receive the benefits (unless of course you define the tests). That means that the program would be providing long term payouts to people that have no intention of ever working or who start working, decide they'd rather not, quit and stay on the program forever. That puts a lot of strain on the program. You would have to take a lot more money out of the economy to make those payments and it simply won't do what you wish it will do. The ONLY way what you want would possibly work is if all the people on the program only stay on it as long as they actually NEED it, and that's not going to happen.

You are simply assuming that would be the case. The point is, it would be too simple to be subject to fraud, waste, or abuse in a large scale manner. Being able to bear true witness about simply being unemployed would mean less need to cheat the system. Removing the time limit would also remove the need to try to game the system for more short term benefits since a person could stay on unemployment until they get sufficiently qualified for a decent job as soon as they are ready not subject to some arbitrary limit that has no basis in market based reality.

You also miss the point that anyone on unemployment compensation could be someone not on more expensive means tested welfare. A cost savings.

1. It would not be simple. You would still need means testing. You would, for example, have to prove you are of age, and not over retirement age (have you considered that?). You would have to prove you are a citizen. You would have to prove you are not otherwise employed. All of these require bureaucracy to be enforced.
2. Simply being able to declare you're unemployed and them take you at your word most certainly means MORE incentive to cheat the system, not less, because you could be working a job or jobs and attempt to collect this new welfare payment in addition to the other payments you get.
3. Removing the time limit merely opens to door for those who would stay on it permanently.

Basically, you're creating a brand new, massive welfare program that would have all the same problems and inefficiencies current welfare programs have. You seem to think people are noble and will only take these payments until they are able to work again, but at the same time you destroy your premise by stating that you want to give payments to people who have never worked and never intend to work. You want to pretend a program that temporarily helps industrious people can permanently support non-industrious people with the same efficiencies.

THAT is why your fantasy is only a fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

A plain reading and understanding of the federal doctrine supports my assertion. Employment is at the will of either party. Show me where any form of employment is not assumed to be at-will in an at-will employment State.

Denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is what right wingers love to do while alleging to be for Individual Liberty and natural rights according to free market Capitalism ideals, in socialism threads.

 

[danielpalos]

1. It would not be simple. You would still need means testing. You would, for example, have to prove you are of age, and not over retirement age (have you considered that?). You would have to prove you are a citizen. You would have to prove you are not otherwise employed. All of these require bureaucracy to be enforced.
2. Simply being able to declare you're unemployed and them take you at your word most certainly means MORE incentive to cheat the system, not less, because you could be working a job or jobs and attempt to collect this new welfare payment in addition to the other payments you get.
3. Removing the time limit merely opens to door for those who would stay on it permanently.

Basically, you're creating a brand new, massive welfare program that would have all the same problems and inefficiencies current welfare programs have. You seem to think people are noble and will only take these payments until they are able to work again, but at the same time you destroy your premise by stating that you want to give payments to people who have never worked and never intend to work. You want to pretend a program that temporarily helps industrious people can permanently support non-industrious people with the same efficiencies.

THAT is why your fantasy is only a fantasy.

Most of that already happens. And there are already income reporting requirements. For example, if you already make the equivalent or more than the minimum wage through passive income you could be considered self-employed. A minor would need to petition for emancipation to be considered an adult. And, there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We have a naturalization clause and that means all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.

EDD could receive employment information from people who are employed with an employer for simple verification purposes. Additional metadata for the general welfare should be a good thing. That process would be simpler than employers having to actually maintain individual accounts for their employees or having to litigate unemployment benefits, which also cost time and money for the employer.

Removing the time limit means we should have no one falling through the cracks and homeless since there is no time limit for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

There should only be time limits on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[hadit]

1. It would not be simple. You would still need means testing. You would, for example, have to prove you are of age, and not over retirement age (have you considered that?). You would have to prove you are a citizen. You would have to prove you are not otherwise employed. All of these require bureaucracy to be enforced.
2. Simply being able to declare you're unemployed and them take you at your word most certainly means MORE incentive to cheat the system, not less, because you could be working a job or jobs and attempt to collect this new welfare payment in addition to the other payments you get.
3. Removing the time limit merely opens to door for those who would stay on it permanently.

Basically, you're creating a brand new, massive welfare program that would have all the same problems and inefficiencies current welfare programs have. You seem to think people are noble and will only take these payments until they are able to work again, but at the same time you destroy your premise by stating that you want to give payments to people who have never worked and never intend to work. You want to pretend a program that temporarily helps industrious people can permanently support non-industrious people with the same efficiencies.

THAT is why your fantasy is only a fantasy.

Most of that already happens. And there are already income reporting requirements. For example, if you already make the equivalent or more than the minimum wage through passive income you could be considered self-employed. A minor would need to petition for emancipation to be considered an adult. And, there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We have a naturalization clause and that means all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.

EDD could receive employment information from people who are employed with an employer for simple verification purposes. Additional metadata for the general welfare should be a good thing. That process would be simpler than employers having to actually maintain individual accounts for their employees or having to litigate unemployment benefits, which also cost time and money for the employer.

Removing the time limit means we should have no one falling through the cracks and homeless since there is no time limit for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

There should only be time limits on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

It's a brand new, massive welfare program. Do you still maintain the fantasy that current UC law supports your assertion that it should pay every person the MW for not only not working but never working, forever?

 

[hadit]

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

A plain reading and understanding of the federal doctrine supports my assertion. Employment is at the will of either party. Show me where any form of employment is not assumed to be at-will in an at-will employment State.

Denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is what right wingers love to do while alleging to be for Individual Liberty and natural rights according to free market Capitalism ideals, in socialism threads.

And you've never cited any court case that affirms that understanding. Every time you cite the text of a law it doesn't apply. You invent relationships between laws that are not there. No one takes you seriously about the law.

 

[danielpalos]

1. It would not be simple. You would still need means testing. You would, for example, have to prove you are of age, and not over retirement age (have you considered that?). You would have to prove you are a citizen. You would have to prove you are not otherwise employed. All of these require bureaucracy to be enforced.
2. Simply being able to declare you're unemployed and them take you at your word most certainly means MORE incentive to cheat the system, not less, because you could be working a job or jobs and attempt to collect this new welfare payment in addition to the other payments you get.
3. Removing the time limit merely opens to door for those who would stay on it permanently.

Basically, you're creating a brand new, massive welfare program that would have all the same problems and inefficiencies current welfare programs have. You seem to think people are noble and will only take these payments until they are able to work again, but at the same time you destroy your premise by stating that you want to give payments to people who have never worked and never intend to work. You want to pretend a program that temporarily helps industrious people can permanently support non-industrious people with the same efficiencies.

THAT is why your fantasy is only a fantasy.

Most of that already happens. And there are already income reporting requirements. For example, if you already make the equivalent or more than the minimum wage through passive income you could be considered self-employed. A minor would need to petition for emancipation to be considered an adult. And, there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. We have a naturalization clause and that means all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.

EDD could receive employment information from people who are employed with an employer for simple verification purposes. Additional metadata for the general welfare should be a good thing. That process would be simpler than employers having to actually maintain individual accounts for their employees or having to litigate unemployment benefits, which also cost time and money for the employer.

Removing the time limit means we should have no one falling through the cracks and homeless since there is no time limit for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

There should only be time limits on our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

It's a brand new, massive welfare program. Do you still maintain the fantasy that current UC law supports your assertion that it should pay every person the MW for not only not working but never working, forever?

Not brand new since it can use existing legal and physical infrastructure through equal protection of the laws. Why would anyone want to be poor forever under Capitalism when they could learn how to do something that could make them rich enough to not need unemployment compensation. And, people circulating capital is a good thing under Capitalism since Capital must circulate to achieve a multiplier effect. Even if it were as You claim, unemployment compensation would still be better than means tested welfare due to a higher multiplier and greater convenience to market participants in our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

This is where you're pretending things. UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion. First, you're mixing two things up. We were talking about the law of large numbers and now you're talking about anyone and his dog being able to collect welfare payments. Second, UC law, as currently written, most certainly does NOT support your assertion that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation", and do you know how I know that to be true? I know it to be true because it clearly lays out the criteria you have to meet in order to collect, and nowhere does it indicate that "anyone who is unemployed in an at-will employment State could qualify for unemployment compensation" as you wish it would. IF it did, the whole thing would have gone broke a long time ago trying to support all the current welfare recipients and everyone who decided they just didn't want to work. So no, your idea doesn't have support in current law.

A plain reading and understanding of the federal doctrine supports my assertion. Employment is at the will of either party. Show me where any form of employment is not assumed to be at-will in an at-will employment State.

Denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is what right wingers love to do while alleging to be for Individual Liberty and natural rights according to free market Capitalism ideals, in socialism threads.

And you've never cited any court case that affirms that understanding. Every time you cite the text of a law it doesn't apply. You invent relationships between laws that are not there. No one takes you seriously about the law.

Right wingers merely insist on appealing to ignorance of the law.

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.