stook1
Master Builder
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 3,928
- Reaction score
- 10,359
You are to hot headed to read my post No where did I say not to give unemployed people a stipend.
What I said is that the stipend should not have been a fixed amount and been a percentage of your original pay.
Read what I posted again after you chill out.
I even gave examples but let me go over it again.
Current plan everyone on UI gets $300 extra per week no matter what. I said it should have been X% whatever that is even say 50% so you make $200 a week you get an extra $100 a week you make $500 a week you get an extra $250 a week.
So I Never Ever said that people on unemployment should not get anything. I clearly said it should have been a percentage and not a fixed number.
Yes and for sure on the original plan of fixed $600 I think it is insane that.
Worker A who was making $10 per hour so total $400 a week now gets to take home $1000 per week. You see this is 2.5 times his original take home pay yes insane.
Worker B who was making $30 per hour so total $1200 is now taking home $1800 per week.
How is this fair??? why does worker B not also get to take home 2.5 times his original pay??? Why not??? He has bills too probably more bills and same chance of losing that roof over his family.
Should have been a percentage like I said say 50%.
Worker A who was making $10 per hour so total $400 a week now gets to take home $600 per week.
Worker B who was making $30 per hour so total $1200 is now taking home $1800 per week.
The more you make the more you get this is fair and encourages everyone at any level to get back to work while also helping them out in a time of need.
The original political rationale was that red states generally offered stingy unemployment benefits (and min wage) which created a negative incentive during the pandemic when the public health motivation at the time as to ensure citizens' safety. Could it have been more targeted to be less beneficial for higher wager earners? Perhaps. But what you are complaining about at the bottom end of the pay scale is primarily a function of there not being a living min wage in some/many parts of the country and also not having a substantial enough safety net for unemployed people.
I don't think your proposal sufficiently addresses these inconsistencies at the state level.