Millionaires Got $80 Million In JOBLESS Benefits

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by xShane, Apr 5, 2013.

  1. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #1
  2. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #2
    Damn... And I thought NZ was bad, with people continuing to have kids while on welfare so that they'll get a bigger dole.
     
  3. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
  4. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #4
    See thats the whole issue here, if it's based on the taxes being payed than yes those people can rightfully claim those benefits, nothing worth the drama in it.

    How would you (legally) define how many $ one can have earned to claim jobless-benifits ? How about those just a few $ above the limits ?
    Should it matter wether someone is married or has children ?

    What timeframe is used for determining wether someone can claim or or not ?

    See that would create some much extra bureaucracy and legal cost (as people will challenge those descisions) that just paying those few millionaires their $11,455/year is peanuts.

    There are much bigger fish to fry.......
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Any evidence of this actually happening?
     
  6. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #6
    This can happen anywhere, if benefits aren't means tested. :(
     
  7. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #7
    So, then why do we still hear major discussions about people who aren't millionaire's receiving benefits? And we hear constant moaning about spending, but when something comes up where the spending is absolute waste, we're told "Oh, it's just not worth it!" We try to tackle welfare queens, but not rich people receiving unneeded benefits. How on earth are we going to fix anything if we can't tackle the real issues?
     
  8. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #8
    Guess what, those aren't a big enough issue to be tackled with extra bureaucracy :eek:

    Both can be easily used as talking point by politicians not willing to go after the real issues.
     
  9. NT1440, Apr 6, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2013

    NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    We won't. That's the whole point.

    The name of the game in multinational corporations is take as much as you can, the peons will deal with the shell of a country we leave behind, as well as bail us out when our top heavy institutions "mess up."
     
  10. Aspasia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Halfway between the Equator and North Pole
    #10
    Don't be so quick to judge. Quoting from the article you cited:

     
  11. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #11
    Most low level millionaires in this country are heavily leveraged small business owners. When they they are assessed for eligibility and have no liquid assets and are bankrupt but have fairly paid the appropriate taxes, why shouldn't they get UI benefits?
     
  12. mrsir2009, Apr 6, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2013

    mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #12
    Yep - I've seen people in my town having children while they're on the benefit. The deal that the government gives people who are on the DPB is that they'll support them till their youngest child is 5 yrs old, then they have to go out and actively seek at least part time work (as they'll be able to work while their kids are at school). That's fair enough in my opinion.

    Having more children, however, ensures that the parent can stay on the dole (as they'll have a kid under 5 yrs old). And not only that, but they get an extra $XXX per week for the extra kid. And while, I guess, you can't directly say that people have extra children while on welfare so that they'll get a bigger dole that you can stay on longer, I believe that it is. I mean, having more children while you're unemployed and on the DPB is extremely irresponsible. There's no excuse for it. Why should the government, and subsequently the taxpayers, have to fork out even more money each week because someone decides that they want to have another kid when they're in no financial position to?

    [EDIT: This article's a bit old, I think, but it's got some stats in it that gives you a picture about how things are over here: http://www.getfrank.co.nz/editorial/media/the-dpb-the-unfortunate-experiment]
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    If they paid their taxes and were unemployed I don't see why they wouldn't get the benefit. I mean they paid for it. I think we are focusing on people too much, corporations are the ones defrauding the taxpayers.
     
  14. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #14
    I don't have a report, just a random conversation. My friend's girlfriend works in Alabama right now providing opportunities to low-income families. One thing they offer is a grant for households with I believe at least four children. A woman called up, asked for the grant, and was told she wasn't eligible because she had three children. A month or two later, she called back and said she was pregnant, did that now qualify her for the grant or did the child need to be born first.
     
  15. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Location:
    DC
    #15
    Because they have assets they can liquidate maybe? Maybe they would not get full price but if they went low enough those assets would be sold ASAP.

    That argument of 'everyone without a job can get unemployment' MIGHT hold more weight under one situation. If the republicans (which, yes, has a positive correlation with wealth) were not trying to take it (and other social programs) away from the people who are relying on it.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    If they were gaming that, surely they'd have a child every 4 years or so?


    Children aren't free to look after...
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    You willing to make that a standard for everyone? Assets must be liquidated before being able to get UI benefits?
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    This is so anecdotal it could be a coincidence. You're making the claim that they had the child to get a (I'm sure relatively small) grant - that's a pretty big claim.
     
  19. mrsir2009, Apr 7, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2013

    mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #19
    In a lot of poorer communities they do. My auntie's-ex-husband's-daughter had 4 kids to one man, two to another, and now she's pregnant again to a third man. All on the DPB. It's a good thing for all those kids that her dad's got money, as he was having to step in on a weekly basis to buy food and pay the bills to stop the power getting cut off, as the doll money was all getting pissed away on cigarettes and alcohol... Which supports my next point:


    Of course - But the fact that NZ has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world suggests that a lot of the welfare doesn't reach the children, doesn't it? Since welfare isn't yet regulated very well here (they give cash instead of food stamps) that $XXX per week that's supposed to be going to the upkeep of the child could easily be going to the pub or the pokies. That's why schools in a lot of the poorer areas here provide free breakfast & lunches for their children out of the school's budget - Because half of them are coming to school hungry every day.
     
  20. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #20
    We have that here in Germany for people applying for 2nd grade benefits (once their normal jobless-insurance runs out after 12-24 months) and calling a it a bureaucractic nightmare wouldn't even start to describe it.
     
  21. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #21
    Yep. And yet most probably accurate. Sad and mindblowing, yes. But no less true.
     
  22. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Location:
    DC
    #22
    Above a certain level of assets, why not?
     
  23. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    What about, say, Department of State services? Like, say you get kidnapped, should you pay to be rescued if you have a certain amount of money?
     
  24. xShane thread starter macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #24
    One should be rescued no matter what. *After* the incident, if they can afford a certain reasonable fee, then yes.

    It works the same way with medical services such as ambulances and other emergencies.
     
  25. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    Um. Don't they already pay taxes for that?

    Or is it all of a sudden if you have money you have to pay more for the government services that you already pay for?

    Only because they won't be able to get money from other people.
     

Share This Page