Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.
That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.
economics is not complicated.
Way to make things much worse. A real money saver that was. DERP!
You are great at dodging questions.
And you're great at ignoring his many failures.
Do you think he saved money by withdrawing from Iraq like he did?
Sorry but you haven't answered my question. I don't have time for your dodging.
The answer is, as long as it takes. Moron!
Keep explaining how Obama's weak ass recovery was so awesome.
So indefinitely we pay to police Iraq. Amazing.
Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.can you cite a State labor code that states that?Employment is at-will.
Unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.
too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.
it is about being legal to our own laws
Exactly!
Our laws say, unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.
Requirements in IL
In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:
You must meet the wage requirement. Then, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) examiners will look at the circumstances of your dismissal and other issues to determine eligibility. When you file for benefits, you must register with the IDES’s job search website.
- You must meet the wage requirement by having earned enough wages from an employer covered by the unemployment law in the past 18 months
- You must be unemployed through no fault of your own.
- You must be able and available to work
- You must be allowed to work in the US legally and be an Illinois resident
Eligibility Requirements Explained
Able and Available to Work
You must be physically and mentally able to work when you file your initial claim. You must be available to accept suitable employment; a job you are trained to do, capable of performing and one that pays a similar salary to your own. The longer you’re unemployed, you’ll be expected to accept jobs that pay less.
Unemployed Through No Fault of Your Own
Your actions or decisions cannot be the cause of your separation from work. If the shop moved to a new city or the employer had no work for you, you may be qualified if otherwise eligible.
Wage Requirement and the Base Period
The IDES will observe if you have any wages from “covered employers.” Covered employers are businesses required to pay unemployment insurance taxes. Some occupations and employers are not covered. If you worked for one of these employers, you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance.
The state will look at your wages over a 12-month period called “the base period.” Your base period will be the first four out of the last five quarters you worked prior to the date you filed your initial claim for benefits.
This chart shows the base period.
Additionally:
The IDES may require additional information from you regarding your claim if there are separation issues and your employer protests the benefit award, or you provided information they could not confirm. You may even be called after a weekly certification. You must respond when they request to speak with you in person or face loosing benefits.
- You must earn at least $1,600 during the base period
- Excluding the quarter where you earned the most money, you must have earned at least $440.
Unemployment Benefit Amount in Illinois
The IDES will use the base period wages to calculate your weekly benefit amount (WBA). The amount will equal 47% of the average of your wages in the two highest earning quarters of the base period divided by 26 (the maximum amount of weeks you may receive benefits is 26).
You may claim dependents on your claim, just as you would for taxes. However, you can only claim either a spouse as a dependent or children, not both.
The state provides a chart to allow you to estimate your Illinois WBA. This chart includes the maximum amount you can receive. As of 2017, the max WBA for an individual is $449. The max with a spousal dependent is $535. The max WBA using children as dependents is $613.
Illinois Unemployment – Know Your Rights
Yes, Illinois really is an employment-at-will state. To that point, Illinois courts follow the employment-at-will legal doctrine in deciding "discharge cases."
"Employment at will" means there is mutual freedom by both the employer and the employee to end the employment relationship....Yes, Illinois is Still an Employment-At-Will State! | Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
yup.Yes, it did.it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.dudette, are you really this naive or are you just playing dumb?
So the argument is about working welfare. WELFARE. what part of that word confuses you?
Capitalism didn't fail in 1929.
Nope.
That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.
economics is not complicated.
You are jumping ahead. One step at a time please. Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more. You don't think more people making good money is good? You don't think the economy would grow? You want people dependent on government?
Let's stop the loser attitude and discuss what would really help people out of poverty and grow the economy.
Why are you reading things in my post that I didn't say? Where did I state that higher profits preclude higher pay for workers? I never said that.
What I said is that profits are irrelevant to employee pay. If you are only worth X amount of money for your work, then that's all you're worth regardless of what the company makes or what they pay their CEO. That is unless you have profit sharing as a benefit.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.
That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.
That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So we have had soaring profits which would allow for better wages. That is my point.
That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.
economics is not complicated.
You are jumping ahead. One step at a time please. Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more. You don't think more people making good money is good? You don't think the economy would grow? You want people dependent on government?
Let's stop the loser attitude and discuss what would really help people out of poverty and grow the economy.
Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more.
Compare WalMart's profit to the money they currently pay employees.
Get back to us.
don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.can you cite a State labor code that states that?too much irony for hypocrites? it is about being legal to our own laws instead of merely, "harassing" less fortunate illegals for their illegalities.
it is about being legal to our own laws
Exactly!
Our laws say, unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.
Requirements in IL
In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:
You must meet the wage requirement. Then, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) examiners will look at the circumstances of your dismissal and other issues to determine eligibility. When you file for benefits, you must register with the IDES’s job search website.
- You must meet the wage requirement by having earned enough wages from an employer covered by the unemployment law in the past 18 months
- You must be unemployed through no fault of your own.
- You must be able and available to work
- You must be allowed to work in the US legally and be an Illinois resident
Eligibility Requirements Explained
Able and Available to Work
You must be physically and mentally able to work when you file your initial claim. You must be available to accept suitable employment; a job you are trained to do, capable of performing and one that pays a similar salary to your own. The longer you’re unemployed, you’ll be expected to accept jobs that pay less.
Unemployed Through No Fault of Your Own
Your actions or decisions cannot be the cause of your separation from work. If the shop moved to a new city or the employer had no work for you, you may be qualified if otherwise eligible.
Wage Requirement and the Base Period
The IDES will observe if you have any wages from “covered employers.” Covered employers are businesses required to pay unemployment insurance taxes. Some occupations and employers are not covered. If you worked for one of these employers, you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance.
The state will look at your wages over a 12-month period called “the base period.” Your base period will be the first four out of the last five quarters you worked prior to the date you filed your initial claim for benefits.
This chart shows the base period.
Additionally:
The IDES may require additional information from you regarding your claim if there are separation issues and your employer protests the benefit award, or you provided information they could not confirm. You may even be called after a weekly certification. You must respond when they request to speak with you in person or face loosing benefits.
- You must earn at least $1,600 during the base period
- Excluding the quarter where you earned the most money, you must have earned at least $440.
Unemployment Benefit Amount in Illinois
The IDES will use the base period wages to calculate your weekly benefit amount (WBA). The amount will equal 47% of the average of your wages in the two highest earning quarters of the base period divided by 26 (the maximum amount of weeks you may receive benefits is 26).
You may claim dependents on your claim, just as you would for taxes. However, you can only claim either a spouse as a dependent or children, not both.
The state provides a chart to allow you to estimate your Illinois WBA. This chart includes the maximum amount you can receive. As of 2017, the max WBA for an individual is $449. The max with a spousal dependent is $535. The max WBA using children as dependents is $613.
Illinois Unemployment – Know Your Rights
Yes, Illinois really is an employment-at-will state. To that point, Illinois courts follow the employment-at-will legal doctrine in deciding "discharge cases."
"Employment at will" means there is mutual freedom by both the employer and the employee to end the employment relationship....Yes, Illinois is Still an Employment-At-Will State! | Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:
It's weird, none of the standards is, "I just don't want to work"
Capitalism failed in 1929. Hoover was replaced with the more socialist FDR, and his brand of socialism, to bailout capitalism.yup.Yes, it did.it is a social safety net because capitalism failed in 1929, and we need socialism to bailout capitalism like usual, in modern times.
Capitalism didn't fail in 1929.
Nope.
I wish you could back up your claim....but you can't
That's why you don't understand business. Wages are not tied to profits or success unless you have profit sharing. If your company is doing well, you can exercise your option to buy stock in the company if you wish to share in their good fortunes. But in most cases, you get paid a certain wage for your particular job no matter how the company does.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?
Sorry but it's a fact, plenty of profits for high wages. You don't understand labor. If Walmart paid more they would have a better business. But hey you are defeated. The best we can do is hope to keep bad jobs. Loser mentality.
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
Walmart's job is not to improve the economy. That's not why they started their business. Walmart opened up to sell goods and services for a profit. That's it.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So now you are completely dodging questions. Can you just answer the question?
And why is that, because you want to feel like you're absolutely right? You don't want to hear anything but "yes" or "no" because elaborating would piss on your parade? You just want to read or hear what you want and go no further.
That's fine if you want a myopic view on everything, but you learn and understand more if you look at the entire picture.
As to your question, yes the economy would be better if people had more money. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? If you think you are making a point, then make it already.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So Walmart and all it's success doesn't know of your little secret? Sorry, but why don't I believe that?
I'll tell you why, it's because the unions told Democrat leaders to spread the word around that all Walmart jobs are low paying garbage jobs. What they don't tell you is Walmart offers the best possibility for advancement. Low level Walmart jobs pay the same as Target or K-Mart. Walmart pays their management pretty well, they pay their truck drivers pretty well, they pay their office staff pretty well, they pay their warehouse people pretty well.
Don't believe Democrat politicians, they are all born liars.
As for what a company pays their employees, yes they could pay better wages, but why should they? They can get the same work done for less money and keep their investments attractive at the same time.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
I think they are starting to get it, they have recently made improvements.
So yes they could pay more, thank you. Now do you agree this would strengthen the economy? Imagine people having more to spend. Imagine fewer on welfare. Imagine more people paying income tax and appreciating the ideas of small gov and lower taxes.
so if walmart pays its employees more, what happens next? They have to raise prices. When they raise prices they sell less stuff. When they sell less stuff they don't need as many employees. So the end result is more people collecting unemployment.
economics is not complicated.
You are jumping ahead. One step at a time please. Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more. You don't think more people making good money is good? You don't think the economy would grow? You want people dependent on government?
Let's stop the loser attitude and discuss what would really help people out of poverty and grow the economy.
Remember there are plenty of profits to pay more.
Compare WalMart's profit to the money they currently pay employees.
Get back to us.
Why Wal-Mart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise
don't like being legal to a federal doctrine and your own State laws?Administrative law is subject to the supreme law of the land of the State, and any necessary and proper statutes legislated by your elected representatives to office.can you cite a State labor code that states that?it is about being legal to our own laws
Exactly!
Our laws say, unemployment benefits are for those laid off.
Not for quitters or never workers.
Requirements in IL
In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:
You must meet the wage requirement. Then, the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) examiners will look at the circumstances of your dismissal and other issues to determine eligibility. When you file for benefits, you must register with the IDES’s job search website.
- You must meet the wage requirement by having earned enough wages from an employer covered by the unemployment law in the past 18 months
- You must be unemployed through no fault of your own.
- You must be able and available to work
- You must be allowed to work in the US legally and be an Illinois resident
Eligibility Requirements Explained
Able and Available to Work
You must be physically and mentally able to work when you file your initial claim. You must be available to accept suitable employment; a job you are trained to do, capable of performing and one that pays a similar salary to your own. The longer you’re unemployed, you’ll be expected to accept jobs that pay less.
Unemployed Through No Fault of Your Own
Your actions or decisions cannot be the cause of your separation from work. If the shop moved to a new city or the employer had no work for you, you may be qualified if otherwise eligible.
Wage Requirement and the Base Period
The IDES will observe if you have any wages from “covered employers.” Covered employers are businesses required to pay unemployment insurance taxes. Some occupations and employers are not covered. If you worked for one of these employers, you will not be eligible to collect unemployment insurance.
The state will look at your wages over a 12-month period called “the base period.” Your base period will be the first four out of the last five quarters you worked prior to the date you filed your initial claim for benefits.
This chart shows the base period.
Additionally:
The IDES may require additional information from you regarding your claim if there are separation issues and your employer protests the benefit award, or you provided information they could not confirm. You may even be called after a weekly certification. You must respond when they request to speak with you in person or face loosing benefits.
- You must earn at least $1,600 during the base period
- Excluding the quarter where you earned the most money, you must have earned at least $440.
Unemployment Benefit Amount in Illinois
The IDES will use the base period wages to calculate your weekly benefit amount (WBA). The amount will equal 47% of the average of your wages in the two highest earning quarters of the base period divided by 26 (the maximum amount of weeks you may receive benefits is 26).
You may claim dependents on your claim, just as you would for taxes. However, you can only claim either a spouse as a dependent or children, not both.
The state provides a chart to allow you to estimate your Illinois WBA. This chart includes the maximum amount you can receive. As of 2017, the max WBA for an individual is $449. The max with a spousal dependent is $535. The max WBA using children as dependents is $613.
Illinois Unemployment – Know Your Rights
Yes, Illinois really is an employment-at-will state. To that point, Illinois courts follow the employment-at-will legal doctrine in deciding "discharge cases."
"Employment at will" means there is mutual freedom by both the employer and the employee to end the employment relationship....Yes, Illinois is Still an Employment-At-Will State! | Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C.
In order to be eligible for Illinois unemployment benefits you must meet the following standards:
It's weird, none of the standards is, "I just don't want to work"
Capitalism failed in 1929. Hoover was replaced with the more socialist FDR, and his brand of socialism, to bailout capitalism.yup.Yes, it did.Capitalism didn't fail in 1929.
Nope.
I wish you could back up your claim....but you can't
Heard of inflation? Reagan added 1.8 in "good times". That's how we got good times, a sham. Obama's debt was 80-90% averting a depression and helping the victims. Great job, GOP. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.Still waiting.
You're waiting for a list of Presidents that dealt with bigger problems than Obama had?
What are you, 12?
Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan.
And plenty more. And none of them added $9+ trillion to the debt while delivering such a weak recovery.
That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.
Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.
Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.
Reagan almost tripled the debt,
I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?
Reagan was a sham by '89. S+L bubble, huge debt.Reagan almost tripled the debt,
I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?
Obama didn't triple it.
I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.
Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.
Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.
Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.
View attachment 120730
Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.
View attachment 120731
Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?
Turned around a recession. Lowered unemployment. Got us through the housing bubble. Saved the auto industry. Didn't start any new wars. We were in much better shape when he left than when he started. But that is the same for Reagan. Both had good with bad.
Gorbechev did that, dupe.Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.
Reagan almost tripled the debt,
I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?
Obama didn't triple it.
I know, he only added $9.3 trillion.
Made things worse in the middle east and gave us the weakest recovery in at least 70 years.
Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems. The Middle East mess was made worse by Bush. Could have easily turned into a depression, I'll take a recovery.
Reagan and his voodoo economics created our debt problems.
Reagan rebuilt the military and won the Cold War. Shrunk government as % of GDP.
Freed hundreds of millions from Communism. And look at real GDP.
View attachment 120730
Obama took a stable Iraq....fucked it up. Lost Egypt and Libya.
Thank goodness the military kicked out his buddy Morsi.
Added $9.3 trillion to the debt and had crappy GDP.
View attachment 120731
Is there anything Obama was good at? I mean besides wrecking race relations?
Heard of inflation? Reagan added 1.8 in "good times". That's how we got good times, a sham. Obama's debt was 80-90% averting a depression and helping the victims. Great job, GOP. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.Reagan almost tripled the debt, started incredibly stupid ME chaos with his pal Saddam, and left Booosh a corrupt S+L mega bubble. We're lucky he didn't bring back Soviet hard liners with his bs bluster. Thank god for Gorby. Then 35 years legacy of pander to the rich ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure, dupes. And the bs New BS GOP propaganda machine and the zombie racist GOP. That obstructed the Obama recovery for no reason but hate.You're waiting for a list of Presidents that dealt with bigger problems than Obama had?
What are you, 12?
Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan.
And plenty more. And none of them added $9+ trillion to the debt while delivering such a weak recovery.
That is funny. Reagan had no wars and started our debt problem.
Reagan had a double dip recession, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and a Cold War to fight.
It's true, Reagan added $1.8 trillion to the debt, won the Cold War and had awesome GDP growth.
Obama added $9.3 trillion to the debt, lost Iraq, Syria and Libya and had sucky GDP growth.
Reagan almost tripled the debt,
I know. Reagan added $1.8 trillion. Awful! Obama added $9.3 trillion, no big deal, eh?
