President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 11, 2011 06:26 PM UTC
45 Comments
What would happen to the market for gilded bathroom fixtures?
How can they keep their driveway at Aspen heated, in case they want to jet in for a nice weekend getaway in ‘the (5000 sq ft) cabin’?
Poor and middle-class folks spend their unemployment insurance on piddly things like a mortgage, groceries and the kiddie’s school supplies? How uninspiring! Much better to build grand monuments to ego and wealth.
The Colorado Legislature should limit pension income exclusion and tuition program contribution deductions to those making less than $250,000 per year. This would raise tens of millions of dollars for Colorado.
It’s interesting to see the bipartisanship for the federal unemployment measure. Why doesn’t the same bipartisanship exist in the Colorado Legislature?
The idea that millionaires can collect UI benefits to pay for a European vacation is appalling. I was on UI off and on in 2008. It was a very thin lifeline, but without it I would have missed several mortgage payments.
One question though – I though that somebody who voluntarily leaves a job was ineligible for UI benefits. Am I wrong? If so, it seems like a reasonable limitation that would get bi-partisan support.
so it’s up to the state for the most part to define eligibility. I would be interested to see which states account for most of these millionaires receiving benefits. It wouldn’t be hard for a state to add a means testing standard to their criteria.
I’m not surprised that millionaires are able to game the system. Business owners who define themselves as full-time employees are unlikely to file an appeal against themselves to deny benefits on the basis that they left employment voluntarily.
but the quote in the press release states:
“According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, as many as 2,840 households who have reported an income of $1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008. This included more than 800 earning over $2 million and 17 with incomes exceeding $10 million. In all, multimillionaires were paid $5.2 million in jobless benefits”
and the amount is a bit less than $6,500 a year per household, which is within the realm of possibility.
Some of this could be spouses of high wealth individuals who are laid off from relatively ordinary jobs and receive ordinary benefits.
From an administrative perspective, my inclination is that the last thing that we need to do is to require the 9 million people receiving unemployment benefits at any time time (and more in any given year) to fill out more paperwork certifying that they aren’t millionaires even though 99.96% of them are not. It doesn’t take much extra paperwork burden to erase the savings from the new rule. The whole point of unemployment administratively, is that it isn’t means based – you have to show that you were laid off and they you are trying to get a job and that you don’t have one. You pay in, you get a payout. This paperwork is bad enough as it is without unemployment bureaucrats to train to evaluate financial forms and having millions of people fill them out. If the cost of preparing the additional paperwork, training staff to evaluate it, and having them evaluate it (with probably new computer programing expenses to boot) is more than $2 per unemployment claim, the savings is entirely lost, and even at $1 per unemployment claim, half the benefit is lost.
It would make more sense administratively to deal with this issue as a surtax of perhaps 55% on unemployment benefits (on top of the 35% income tax rate they already pay since unemployment benefits are ordinary income), which would leave a little room for state and local income taxes, on people with an AGI of more than $1 million (or perhaps anyone in the top 35% tax bracket), and applying the proceeds of that surtax to the unemployment insurance trust fund.
Genius, if somebody is making $1 million a year, they are employed. How the heck would you get jobless benefits if you were earning that much?
“bill that would no longer allow for the payment of federal unemployment compensation to persons earning over $1 million per year”
You’ll figure it out eventually.
I mean BJ not understanding about the whole earning thing. It’s like he’s only programmed to process the master list of Borg talking points and if something isn’t specifically covered his processor freezes.
Is that someone who claims to be an academic doesn’t even bother to do basic research and learning before making an idiot of himself.
now you’ve gone and done it. Sh@t — now I’ll have to try to put that genie back in the bottle, and restore the space-time continuum you’ve disrupted.
Beej — over here boy! It’s really very easy: It’s all the fault of Obama and the leebruhls. Understand now?
(Don’t make me clean up your mess again Twitty — one time only buddy.)
He just needs a reboot.
I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to see the logical fallacy here. Let’s try this again, real slow.
If you are EARNING $1 million per year, you are EMPLOYED. Thus you do not qualify for UNEMPLOYMENT compensation, making this bill SILLY. Comprende?
You really are the stupidest human on earth, aren’t you?
Let’s make it real simple. Unemployment payments are based on what you earned while you were employed. That’s what they’re talking about, you stupid git.
it probably doesn’t click until you’ve had a real job.
And know the difference between earned and unearned income.
And a horrible use of tax payers dollars. And droll, it doesn’t click because I’ve never taken unemployment. I’ve been working since I was 15.
You might actually seek to educate yourself before removing all doubt about your abilities.
Not a handout from the government.
Not a handout. I pity the future of your party if people like you represent the future of it’s intellectual capital.
I understand you guys are sensitive about how you talk about your theft, but “appropriation” isn’t much better. What if I decide to “appropriate” your house tomorrow?
TA
not general funds.
I’ve never taken it either (thank goodness) and have been working just as long. Hurray for ignorance!
… that keeping society from the sort of descent into chaos like the Hoover years is a very wise use of our tax dollars. But I only think that because I understand history and human nature better than you.
because if those millionaires don’t get their checks from the gub’mint, they’re going to be rioting in the streets.
You missed the point, dumbass. Try reading it again – you weren’t talking about millionaires in the comment to which I replied, and therefore neither was I.
Question: Do I support this or no? The answer is probably not what you assumed it to be.
And insurance can be bought from the gov’t – what does the “I” in “SSI” stand for?
As others have told you, you’re ignorant. Go and research this stuff, you with your big ass elite higher education, and then come and talk.
What does the “N” on Nebraska’s football helmets stand for?
Knowledge.
http://www.redstate.com/bjwils…
He is twisting what David was trying to say. If this is a conclusion that ‘conservatives’ come up with, it seems to not be worthwhile to try to reason with them! I guess Republicans are not part of American society.
And I posted it on Pols also, but I’m glad you’re giving redstate the traffic.
It’s Supplemental Security Income
He didn’t know and he wasn’t going to look it up…
They shouldn’t be getting Social Security, either!
Because then it’s no longer a strait insurance deal and that makes it easier to break the connection between the taxes collected and benefits paid.
FDR set it up this way for a very good reason.
They should, however, also contribute like the rest of us. No SSI “bonus” where you only contribute on part of your wages and not at all on other forms of income. (dividends)
remove the cap on social security and make it less regressive, and that would pay for it without having coverage lessened.