Do you consider unemployment benefits welfare?

Wasn't sure if this belonged in the alley or the roundtable.

I'd like to get an array of opinions on this question. I'm not sure where I stand.

Part of me says that any money from the govenment is welfare, and taking the money would make me a hypocrit, as my political leanings are definitely to the right.

The other part of me knows that I am required to pay into unemployment benefits through taxation against my will, and my employer is required to match it against his will. Is not claiming unemployment benefits the same as not claiming your Social Security?

My wife was recently laid off recently, and I'm torn.

A penny for your thoughts.

 

All you are doing is getting back some of your own money that wasn't spent on a study of the effects of mold on the moon.

 

As long as she's following the rules (actively seeking employment)I see no correlation between unemployment benefits and unconditional handouts like welfare.

 

Don't let pride or political affiliation get in the way of whats neccessary. I'm sure you won't stay on the system or bilk it like some others do with the welfare system. IMO, the answer to your question is no, its not the same. Its meant to get you by until you find another job. Don't forget, and someone with more knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think taxes are taken out of unemployment so you need to make sure you claim it at the end of the year. Or not, in the end its all dice.

 

no.

when you file for unemployment, the employer can protest. or at least it used to be that way. (i used to work for the state employment security commission, in both louisiana and oklahoma.) if the employer can show they had just cause to fire you, you can be denied benefits. since there is a big difference between laid off and fired, and the right of the former employer to protest, its not an automatic thing.

and has been pointed out, the conditions that must be followed while collecting unemployment of looking for work is a big difference too.

edit to add: with welfare, we dont have the right to go down to dhs and protest someone getting welfare because they are a lazy bum.

 

I hear ya. I guess the biggest moral dilimma (sp?) for me is that I know that we could get by on just my income. So if we don't really need it (albeit it would reduce the stress factor around here), is it wrong to take it?

Is there a portion of our taxes (can't remember what each of the F.I.C.A. letters stand for) that are specifically set aside for unemployment benefits? Would not taking unemployment benefits be the same as not taking a social security check, since I was forced into this retirement plan?

It was a legit layoff. Her employer moved HQ's and laid everyone off that didn't want to relocate to Wisconsin, which was just about everyone. They weren't bastards about it, gave a decent notice, a decent severance.

Thanks for the good comments here guys. Anyone on the other side of the fence here?

ADD Moment: Women's beach volleyball in the rain is awesome.

 

i knew i was forgetting to address something....

i cannot remember the formulas now (which is sad since in oklahoma i worked in the division of employment security that worked with the employers) but yes, the employers are required to pay, so essentially, the laid off person is collecting from the taxes collected specifically for that purpose.

but the govt does other things in regard to employment security and unempoyment benefits other than collecting and distributing unemployment funds. when there was a large layoff, other divisions such as jtpa would do their thing and automatically go in and work with the laid off workers to train, educate, and help people find employment as a part of unemployment benefits. jtpa would use their counselors and staffers to help the laid off workers update resumes, work on interview skills, etc. or if a laid of person needed training to update skills, that would be part of the benefits package in a large layoff situation. jtpa had pretty tight rules for who was elegible to enroll for assistance, but it was for assistance in getting training to get help getting back to work, not just paying someone to sit around on their ass.

and before i start getting hounded on about "big govt" remember that all of these things were part of what taxes paid for to get people back to work and keep them off of welfare.

since i posted twice, do i get my two cents? :grin:

 

no. but as i stated above, it might be possible to get assistance in the form of something other than a check. a layoff situation like that might make her eligible for job training. either updating skills or branching out into another area. if that is something she wants to do, take advantage of it if available. job counselors at an unemployment office can generally tell a worker about whats available.

i mean, she doesnt have to do anything. just saying that benefits can often be more, or something other than, a check.

i can always count on tf to bring babes into any conversation. :hihi:

 

If you are eligible, take it and use it well. The situation you are in is what that money is intended for. Getting fired for the reasons you described is through no fault of your wife. Ideally, maybe that money would come from a church. I wouldn't mind donating money to assist my neighbors in situations such as yours.

 

Good on ya for giving it some thought, though. I have relatives who can't spell past a four letter word but know how to milk this system in an amazing (and larcenous) way.

Assuming larcenous is really a word...

Edit: Yep, just checked. Phew...