Moral dilemma with new covid unemployment package

[Teacher Terry]

I like to live my life with integrity so definitely would not take it.

 

[Sunset]

OP - You should take it, as a taxpayer who is paying taxes and will be paying more in the future for this spending, I want you to take it so I know my share went to somebody other than Boeing (for more share buybacks or other Boeing CEO benefits)

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. If you feel you don't need it take the money and buy food for a local food bank. Help some of the people who are going to fall through the cracks and not get bail out money.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

OP - You should take it, as a taxpayer who is paying taxes and will be paying more in the future for this spending, I want you to take it so I know my share went to somebody other than Boeing (for more share buybacks or other Boeing CEO benefits)

Good point. This taxpayer agrees with you as well.

 

[RetiredAt55.5]

OP - You should take it, as a taxpayer who is paying taxes and will be paying more in the future for this spending, I want you to take it so I know my share went to somebody other than Boeing (for more share buybacks or other Boeing CEO benefits)

After this train wreck virus is in the rear view mirror, I expect my taxes at all levels will rise (local, state, and fed). This level of unemployment is going to be devastating to their income tax revenue.

1/2 of our local income tax goes to the school district, so that reduction of revenue will no doubt cause the separate school property tax to increase.

And my state colleges had to refund some money this semester (50% of fees, meal plan, and dorm). They'll have to make that up somehow, and good luck if they try going back to the state begging for yet more money than they currently get.

 

[foxfirev5]

Take it and spend it. They'll just print more. Anyway feel confident that you will pay it back in the long run.

 

[target2019]

Take the money and spend it in a way that relieves someone else's pain.

 

[Dtail]

I think she should take what she's entitled to. Her taking the money doesn't mean someone else goes without. And it is an opportunity to give to charity. So it's a win-win all around.

+1

 

[DrRoy]

If she voluntarily gave up her job then I would not expect that she qualifies.

 

[Luck_Club]

Unintended Consequences

If she voluntarily gave up her job then I would not expect that she qualifies.

That is my understanding as well, and the situation I found myself in when leaving 1 employer for another only to have them change the terms of the job drastically.

This "$600" above normal unemployment booster was, according to Secretary Munuchin, "the easiest and quickest way to get money into peoples hands". One party tried to put language to the effect of "up to" or "not to exceed" current wages but was being blocked by the other party. Not trying to be political just stating facts.

The sad thing is though it is your moral dilemma with regard to extra spending money, it is the poorest of society that will be most significantly damaged by this "unintended Consequence"

My thoughts and logic:
It is the weakest "laziest" workers that will take the 4 month gift horse and ride it as long as they can. Not realizing that at the end of the 4 months, when the music stops there won't be any chairs for them. Thus they will come out the other side of this still not having a job, and needing to rely on the much lower state unemployment payments until they run dry.

On the positive side it can be argued that those same "weak" workers have poor financial management discipline and will likely spend every penny of the windfall on stuff. So in the end it may actually really help in jump starting the economy.

 

[CRLLS]

I would take the UI money for as long as she feels uncomfortable going into work, and not feel one bit guilty. That is exactly how the law was intended. If it was meant to be distributed on a needs basis, it would have been written that way. You never really know how long this might last.

 

[jollystomper]

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it.

Personally, I would have a tough time taking it.

I was in a similar situation when I retired. Because Megacorp wanted me to stay several months longer that was intended, the deal was that I would get severance/benefits package (and a couple of other bennies) as if I had been laid off. Technically, I could have also filed for state unemployment, using the documentation that was generated by the Megacorp system. But my personal feeling was, I do not need this, it will not make a difference in my life, I have gotten way more in my career than I deserve, there are others who truly need it.

So I am not saying do not take the money... just that if I were in the situation, my conscience would not let me. Of course, everyone has to answer to their own conscience.

 

[Ready-4-ER-at-14]

I voted for taking the money.

By the time the first check arrives, one or both of you or many of us here might not still be around.

Once you get it, you can always send it back, give it to any number of charities begging hard right now, or simply give it all in a paper bag to some small business when they hopefully reopen in x months.

 

[Chuckanut]

Another option is to apply for the benefits and then donate the proceeds to charities in your area. That way you don't personally benefit but your community does.

+1

I would guess that if you don't apply for the money it will be spent anyway. Use it to help somebody. If you have a neighbor who is unemployed take her to the store and buy her a few bags of groceries. Or help another one pay for child-care now that the schools are closed.

 

[OldShooter]

Eh... employees don't pay into unemployment... only employers pay unemployment tax. Were you thinking of something else?

Well, the employers write the checks, as they do for work comp and 1/2 of social security. But in all three cases the checks are for the benefit of the workers. Economists will point out that these are labor costs/part of pay as much as the hourly or salary pay is.

One of my hot buttons, in fact is people that call these "taxes" and then argue that they are regressive. They are insurance premiums and the workers get the money back less whatever the bureaucrats waste. So only the bureaucrats' part, above a reasonable administrative cost, is a tax.

So as far as I am concerned, it was her money and she has a right to the insurance payments. If she want to do something charitable with the proceeds that is a very nice thing. The fact that her money is being supplemented in the current case muddies the argument a bit but I think it is still sound.

 

[jim584672]

Take the money and stimulate the economy, do your duty citizen.

 

[ivinsfan]

I don't understand how this is even a question. Do we get to not pay taxes to the local school district because we don't have kids in school?

All of a sudden people are talking about ethics and integrity? And some people say take it and then tell you what to do with it so you won't feel guilty!

It's all helicopter money anyway....

 

[davebarnes]

Take the money and stimulate the economy, do your duty citizen.

Exactly.
Also. We have paid into the insurance program for 70+ years.

 

[pb4uski]

What maykes you think that you have paid? And for 70+ years? How old are you?

Breaking news. Employers pay for unemployment insurance, not employees.

 

[Ready]

What maykes you think that you have paid? And for 70+ years? How old are you?

Breaking news. Employers pay for unemployment insurance, not employees.

Any time I negotiated a compensation rate for 1099 related work I bumped up my hourly rate to compensate for the taxes I would have to pay that an employer would otherwise pay on a W2 paycheck. So effectively an employer is establishing the rate they will pay W2 employees based on the total cost to hire that employee, including taxes. So while the employer may be writing the check, you are still the reason the money is flowing to the government.

 

[Keim]

So while the employer may be writing the check, you are still the reason the money is flowing to the government.

Well said. If I didn't have to budget 25 to 30% for taxes I could pay my employees that money.

 

[pb4uski]

Any time I negotiated a compensation rate for 1099 related work I bumped up my hourly rate to compensate for the taxes I would have to pay that an employer would otherwise pay on a W2 paycheck. So effectively an employer is establishing the rate they will pay W2 employees based on the total cost to hire that employee, including taxes. So while the employer may be writing the check, you are still the reason the money is flowing to the government.

Makes sense... but that still doesn't mean that employees pay unemployment taxes. If when calculating your 1099 rate did you include unemployment taxes? If so, good for you... I'm not sure if I would remember to

Well said. If I didn't have to budget 25 to 30% for taxes I could pay my employees that money.

You could.... but would you? IOW, as a hypothetical, let's say that the government reduces FUTA from 6% to 4%.... would you increase what you pay employees by the 2% difference? In any event, you pay the tax, not your employees.

 

[Rianne]

Our spending level has decreased, drastically. I don't think that will change anytime soon. So we're planning ways to donate, help a family member and figure out where it will help most.

 

[Jerry1]

I collect all the free dough I can. Always. No guilt. I don't cheat, but I get what I can.

I'm with Robbie on this. There are rules and if you follow them you're doing the right thing. This is not a moral issue. Same with taxes, ACA income limits, etc. The vast majority of us have no input on the rules. It is not your fault that the system was set up without recognizing various situations.

As other's have said, if you don't need the money and it makes you feel good, do something with it to help someone out. As was also pointed out, it's stimulus. Using it verses saving it is very appropriate too.

 

[OldShooter]

... Breaking news. Employers pay for unemployment insurance, not employees.

@pb4, your position on this amazes me.

Let's start with some things I think we can agree on. First, all of the so-called "payroll taxes" are in fact insurance premiums whose benefits are always paid to employees. Second, all of these insurance premiums are physically paid (ACH or by check) by the employer, including the so-called "withholding" items. The government through the payroll deduction system pretends that "withholding" items are paid by the employee but in fact the items are not optional. The "employer paid" premiums are not optional either. The direct wages paid plus the various insurance premiums are costs to the employers associated with hiring the employee. That's why you accountants call them "direct costs." Some of the direct costs are paid by the employer and the government pretends that some are paid by the employee, but substantively they are identical: Mandatory insurance premiums.

Now forget the unemployment debate here for a minute and concentrate on Social Security. Half of SS is paid by the employee and half is paid by the employer. For self-employed 100% is paid by the individual.

OK so far? Agreement?

I think you are collecting SS and you were not self employed. By your logic, then, I think you would have to agree that half of what you are collecting is illicit and you have no right to it because it was "paid" by your employer. It is only the self-employed that have a right to 100% of their SS checks.

I'm not even sure how your logic would apply to me, since I was both the employer and an employee. But I'm not bothered by that because (from experience) I know that all of these insurance premiums are simply labor costs despite the fact that they wear different color clothes.