What would a socialist America look like?

[WinterBorn]

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

Also, voluntarily quitting a job is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

 

[WinterBorn]

It should run out because the burden for paying for unemployment compensation comes from additional payroll taxes. If it is not just a temporary thing, let it be paid for by the entire population.

Also, it should run out because the program is not structured for people to stay on it forever. The means testing should be done when it is not just a stop-gap, temporary thing.

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

you miss the point; we could be greatly reducing that cost through equal protection of the law. Disgruntled employees could simply quit rather than have to litigate.

They can quit now. They simply do not collect unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not all we are discussing. If there are those who cannot be employed, because of their own inabilities or because of a natural unemployment rate, they should be on welfare, not UC.

employment is at will; forcing people to work is illegal in any at-will employment State.

 

[danielpalos]

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

it is about being legal to our own laws.

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

employment is at the will of either party. that is a federal doctrine and State law.

Yes it is. But there is no federal doctrine or state law that states that someone who voluntarily quits a job should be paid.

employment is at will; compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

 

[danielpalos]

why should it run out if employment is the will of the parties involved; not your misguided moral will.

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

Also, voluntarily quitting a job is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

in right wing fantasy?

 

[danielpalos]

why not change the ways and means that tax is collected so that it is more market friendly? there is no need for our current regime. a general tax would be much more convenient.

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

you miss the point; we could be greatly reducing that cost through equal protection of the law. Disgruntled employees could simply quit rather than have to litigate.

They can quit now. They simply do not collect unemployment compensation.

why be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers?

it could open the door to litigating perception.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not all we are discussing. If there are those who cannot be employed, because of their own inabilities or because of a natural unemployment rate, they should be on welfare, not UC.

employment is at will; forcing people to work is illegal in any at-will employment State.

No one said anything about forcing anyone to work.

Forcing others to give you their money is also illegal in almost all instances.

 

[WinterBorn]

And "moral will", misguided or otherwise, has no relevance to the topic.

it is about being legal to our own laws.

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

employment is at the will of either party. that is a federal doctrine and State law.

Yes it is. But there is no federal doctrine or state law that states that someone who voluntarily quits a job should be paid.

employment is at will; compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is your fantasy of being paid for doing nothing. And your desire to avoid the means test that comes with welfare. Unemployment compensation is designed and intended as a way for people to temporarily get paid while they find other work. That is why there is a time limit. After that time limit is what welfare is for. If unemployment compensation becomes a career, there will be means testing in that too.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because if you decide to stay unemployed, you no longer get unemployment compensation. Just like if you voluntarily quit your job you don't get unemployment compensation.

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

Also, voluntarily quitting a job is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

in right wing fantasy?

In federal doctrine and state law. Shouldn't we be legal in the way we distribute tax dollars?

 

[WinterBorn]

Because the current system serves those in a temporary spot better. But if you want to combine welfare and unemployment compensation, I am sure we could work out a means testing that would work for both.

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

you miss the point; we could be greatly reducing that cost through equal protection of the law. Disgruntled employees could simply quit rather than have to litigate.

They can quit now. They simply do not collect unemployment compensation.

why be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers?

it could open the door to litigating perception.

Nothing I said is illegal under federal doctrines or state laws.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not all we are discussing. If there are those who cannot be employed, because of their own inabilities or because of a natural unemployment rate, they should be on welfare, not UC.

employment is at will; forcing people to work is illegal in any at-will employment State.

No one said anything about forcing anyone to work.

Forcing others to give you their money is also illegal in almost all instances.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; not your right wing appeal to ignorance and emotion.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about being legal to our own laws.

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

employment is at the will of either party. that is a federal doctrine and State law.

Yes it is. But there is no federal doctrine or state law that states that someone who voluntarily quits a job should be paid.

employment is at will; compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is your fantasy of being paid for doing nothing. And your desire to avoid the means test that comes with welfare. Unemployment compensation is designed and intended as a way for people to temporarily get paid while they find other work. That is why there is a time limit. After that time limit is what welfare is for. If unemployment compensation becomes a career, there will be means testing in that too.

that is Your story not My story.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party. simply requiring a work ethic lowers demand and depresses wages.

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

Also, voluntarily quitting a job is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

in right wing fantasy?

In federal doctrine and state law. Shouldn't we be legal in the way we distribute tax dollars?

it is about capitalism, and the laws of demand and supply. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is lawful and is more cost effective in any market based economy. Why increase the Cost of Government and take it out on the Poor, right wingers?

 

[danielpalos]

no, it doesn't. it is inconvenient, expensive, and prone to litigation.

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

you miss the point; we could be greatly reducing that cost through equal protection of the law. Disgruntled employees could simply quit rather than have to litigate.

They can quit now. They simply do not collect unemployment compensation.

why be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers?

it could open the door to litigating perception.

Nothing I said is illegal under federal doctrines or state laws.

A federal doctrine and State laws claim employment is at the will of either party.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not all we are discussing. If there are those who cannot be employed, because of their own inabilities or because of a natural unemployment rate, they should be on welfare, not UC.

employment is at will; forcing people to work is illegal in any at-will employment State.

No one said anything about forcing anyone to work.

Forcing others to give you their money is also illegal in almost all instances.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; not your right wing appeal to ignorance and emotion.

If you are unemployed for longer than the time limits on unemployment compensation, you draw welfare. We don't redesign the entire unemployment compensation system.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nothing I have suggested is illegal under our laws.

But it is also about pulling your own weight and not requiring that others pay you for nothing.

employment is at the will of either party. that is a federal doctrine and State law.

Yes it is. But there is no federal doctrine or state law that states that someone who voluntarily quits a job should be paid.

employment is at will; compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is your fantasy of being paid for doing nothing. And your desire to avoid the means test that comes with welfare. Unemployment compensation is designed and intended as a way for people to temporarily get paid while they find other work. That is why there is a time limit. After that time limit is what welfare is for. If unemployment compensation becomes a career, there will be means testing in that too.

that is Your story not My story.

That is the truth of our discussion.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

Also, voluntarily quitting a job is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

in right wing fantasy?

In federal doctrine and state law. Shouldn't we be legal in the way we distribute tax dollars?

it is about capitalism, and the laws of demand and supply. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is lawful and is more cost effective in any market based economy. Why increase the Cost of Government and take it out on the Poor, right wingers?

What you want is not about supply and demand. YOu don't want to supply anything. You simply demand a paycheck, after quitting a job. That is not what UC is designed for. It is what welfare is designed for.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, unemployment is prone to litigation. But that allows employees to have their say.

you miss the point; we could be greatly reducing that cost through equal protection of the law. Disgruntled employees could simply quit rather than have to litigate.

They can quit now. They simply do not collect unemployment compensation.

why be illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws, right wingers?

it could open the door to litigating perception.

Nothing I said is illegal under federal doctrines or state laws.

A federal doctrine and State laws claim employment is at the will of either party.

Yes it is. You keep saying that like I am arguing with you about it.

But federal doctrine and state laws have limitations on unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is at the will of either party. And if you choose to walk away from a job, you also walk away from the paycheck. If your employer chooses to get rid of you, they get rid of your labor too.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

Also, voluntarily quitting a job is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

in right wing fantasy?

In federal doctrine and state law. Shouldn't we be legal in the way we distribute tax dollars?

it is about capitalism, and the laws of demand and supply. Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is lawful and is more cost effective in any market based economy. Why increase the Cost of Government and take it out on the Poor, right wingers?

Also, you going on welfare does not increase the cost of gov't. The welfare system is set up for longer terms and greater volume.

And the poor? With the tax system we have in place, the poor pay little or no taxes. However, when businesses have to pay more payroll tax, they compensate by raising prices. Payroll taxes are part of the cost of doing business.

 

[danielpalos]

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what we are discussing.

No, that is not all we are discussing. If there are those who cannot be employed, because of their own inabilities or because of a natural unemployment rate, they should be on welfare, not UC.

employment is at will; forcing people to work is illegal in any at-will employment State.

No one said anything about forcing anyone to work.

Forcing others to give you their money is also illegal in almost all instances.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; not your right wing appeal to ignorance and emotion.

If you are unemployed for longer than the time limits on unemployment compensation, you draw welfare. We don't redesign the entire unemployment compensation system.

that law is in conflict with State laws and a federal doctrine regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

State law or federal law must be supreme in any conflict of laws.