why does anyone need any Cause to quit under any form of employment at will, in order to receive unemployment compensation? Shouldn't EDD have to prove, for-Cause employment to require a Cause for unemployment compensation?
Only if we as a society decide to have such compensation, then you must be treated equally under the law, the is no right to unemployment compensation. Only if we pass a law saying so..........do you ever think we will? And that being said even employees fired for cause very often collect as the employer does not contest the claim in order to avoid litigation over it where arbitrators usually side with the employees. I once had an office manager get caught hiding checks in her desk and not processing invoices, she quit before she could be fired, applied of unemployment compensation and the company did not protest to avoid such litigation and to hopefully make her more likely to spend her time seeking other employment.
All I've been saying is that the rules under which unemployment compensation is made available are more than fair, and if anything the primary objective should be to provide the absolute minimum of support to ensure the recipient diligently and quickly seeks new employment. If unemployment benefits are to be provided for 26 weeks to someone who loses their job for no cause of their own, then no government assistance should be available for 26 weeks when one quits their job by their own free choice. But this thread was about "Taxation and Wealth" so could we try get it back on topic?
Why does Labor not enjoy equal protection of the law regarding employment at will, regarding unemployment compensation? You know, from a class warfare perspective, it is about the perception that Labor, as the least wealthy, are not really worth their privileges and immunities under our form of Capitalism. - - - Updated - - - I believe unemployment compensation should be funded through general forms of taxation and solve for a social dilemma in order to promote the general welfare.
I merely claim it is up to EDD to find a for-Cause employment relationship in our at-will employment State, to deny and disparage our privilege and immunity to unemployment compensation. It is about the rule-of-law, versus the rule-of-State-law. We should be simplifying government to lower our tax burden. Why complain about taxes if you support complex government and the Expense that goes with it.
People enjoy equal protection under the law. People equally have a right to choose not to be employed. People equally do not have a right to collect insurance if they do not meet it's terms. That you have a right to destroy your car, doesn't mean you have a right to collect insurance if you do. Same with unemployment insurance.
That has been on my mind for several days also. What danielpalos seems to be suggesting is the equivalent of insuring your car or house and then when it needs costly repairs just set it afire and let the insurance company replace it. Employment at will allows either party equal freedom to end their relationship. Unemployment compensation on the other hand works like any other insurance policy which pays only when you are not at fault. Quitting a job tells me you don't need the income, otherwise you would find a replacement job prior to quitting. While I agree that government should 'promote' the general welfare, it should in no way at all 'provide' the general welfare of any able bodied persons of sound minds.
That is the problem. As a social safety net, unemployment compensation is more cost effective than means tested welfare. Why whine about taxes, Person on the right.
The most cost effective means of eliminating the problem would be mass execution. Efficiency isn't the only consideration. And I'm not complaining about taxes. I complain about them being different for some people than for others. If we all matched each other dollar for dollar, that frustration would not exist.
Why such Darwinism in modern times; everybody knows the Right can't handle morals from the Age of Iron. - - - Updated - - - You are missing the point; you may not have to pay as much in taxes, with more market friendly, public policies.
It is no wonder the right has nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost. - - - Updated - - - Y'all wish.
A small business (S-corp) work for their company and pay themselves a paycheck. The owner pays into UE just like they pay the employees UE but if their business fails the owner (who pays UE) can not collect unemployment. I was surprised to learn that.
Shareholders in S Corporations who work in the business are employees just like anyone else who works for the business. As such, the employees are generally entitled to all of the same benefits including unemployment compensation and workers comp coverage (if the company buys it) and other employee benefits. Shareholder/employees sometimes deduct their benefits in a different place on their tax return though. Can an "S" Corporation Owner File for Unemployment?. Although Americans usually think about financial downturns hitting employees, owners of businesses can find themselves looking for work, too, when their company closes down. Depending upon the corporate structure, state laws and the circumstances surrounding a business closure, a business owner may be entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Some owners of an S corporation are eligible to receive unemployment benefits, although only if they meet requirements. The Internal Revenue Service allows businesses to organize as S corporations, which allows all income and debt incurred by the company to be spread among its shareholders, where it’s taxed individually rather than on a corporate level. The IRS also allows S corporation owners who are materially involved – taking a hands-on role in daily business – to pay themselves reasonable salary as any other employee. These wages are subject to all state and federal payroll taxes, including unemployment taxes. S corporation owners who only took profit distributions, and didn’t receive wages, haven’t contributed to unemployment taxes, so they aren’t eligible for unemployment insurance.
Why not, in any at-will employment State. Is Labor as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism, not worth it.
California is an at-will employment State. I am implying we could solve simple poverty and capitalisms natural rate of unemployment. Don't believe in equal protection of the law for the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism? Why not; are the least wealthy, not worth it.
Of course we could eliminate poverty simply by giving everyone however much money they needed to pay for their needs and wants. The natural rate of unemployment has more to do with excess population than capitalism. Are you claiming we should have one set of laws for the wealthy and another for the poor? I believe laws should apply equally to all, and our unemployment compensation laws are applied equally. Those who lose their jobs by no fault of their own are entitled to unemployment compensation and those who quit or lose their jobs for legitimate reason are not.
