Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[danielpalos]

lol. only story tellers have no clue about economics.

the infrastructure already exists. full employment of resources is what makes it more cost effective.

Duplication of systems is never efficient or cost effective.

And it is certainly not more cost effective to revamp an entire system to avoid a simple means test. And if you do manage to revamp the unemployment system, there will be a means test added.

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

Both will require means testing if unemployment compensation becomes what you want. There is no way that state and federal agencies will do otherwise. The reason there is no means testing now is that it is, by nature, short term.

nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.

The other criteria aside, even with the extension of benefits created by Congress after the recession, the longest time you can draw unemployment is 73 weeks. That is about 1.5 years. After that you have to find a job.

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.

 

[WinterBorn]

A system already exists to provide what you want. What could be simpler.

And why do you insist on it being unemployment compensation instead of welfare. If you quit a job and don't look for another, why not draw welfare. Why do you care where the money comes from.

you have no solution to the issue of homelessness. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Yes, I do. I have already explained it. You dislike it because it does not help you draw an unemployment check for nothing.

Unemployment compensation is a market friendly solution. You have nothing but command economics.

No, it is not a market friendly solution. It places an increasing tax burden on businesses. It requires that they spend more money supporting employees who quit or were fired for cause. And while the current system is short term, you want to make it open-ended. That means businesses spend more and more without getting anything in return. They have to raise prices of their goods and services to compensate for the increased expenses.

yes, it is a market friendly solution Because more people will be circulating more money. That money ensures liquidity and will be taxed once, if not several times as it changes hands in any local economy.

No, it is not market friendly. It punishes employers for the actions of their employees. Those employers are then forced to raise prices as the cost of business goes up.

 

[danielpalos]

means testing is expensive and requires its own bureaucracy.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is based on market based metrics not means testing.

Quitting a job and not looking for another is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

Means testing is not expensive. You fill out a form listing your income and assets. Most are never verified. If it turns out that you lied on the form, you are prosecuted. The welfare system does not search bank records ect. They have you fill out forms, which they file.

And if you think open-ended unemployment compensation when you are not looking for a job, would not add a mean test, you are laughably wrong.

why should Labor Have to get fired to collect unemployment?

employment is at the will of either party.

EDD must show proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation. it really should be that simple.

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Duplication of systems is never efficient or cost effective.

And it is certainly not more cost effective to revamp an entire system to avoid a simple means test. And if you do manage to revamp the unemployment system, there will be a means test added.

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

Both will require means testing if unemployment compensation becomes what you want. There is no way that state and federal agencies will do otherwise. The reason there is no means testing now is that it is, by nature, short term.

nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.

The other criteria aside, even with the extension of benefits created by Congress after the recession, the longest time you can draw unemployment is 73 weeks. That is about 1.5 years. After that you have to find a job.

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.

I offered no excuses. I simply reminded you of the length of time you can draw unemployment.

 

[WinterBorn]

Quitting a job and not looking for another is not part of the natural rate of unemployment.

Means testing is not expensive. You fill out a form listing your income and assets. Most are never verified. If it turns out that you lied on the form, you are prosecuted. The welfare system does not search bank records ect. They have you fill out forms, which they file.

And if you think open-ended unemployment compensation when you are not looking for a job, would not add a mean test, you are laughably wrong.

why should Labor Have to get fired to collect unemployment?

employment is at the will of either party.

EDD must show proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation. it really should be that simple.

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

 

[danielpalos]

I do a lot of work with the homeless. The chronic homeless are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs and alcohol. Not all of them, of course. But I would dare say most.

I suppose one could make a stretch and blame their addictions on the violation of natural rights. It is my deeply held conviction a significant proportion of the opioid crisis is due to the fact that publicly traded drug companies, like all public companies, are under constant pressure by their stockholders to keep growing.

There are only so many people in this country who actually need opioids. The drug companies have flooded our country with more than is necessary, thus deliberately causing the crisis.

And that ultimately feeds the homeless crisis.

Well said. Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check. Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

You want to pay someone for doing nothing, regardless of their situation. Both G5000 and I are talking about helping the homeless with the issues that caused their situation, thereby helping them back into being a productive and independent member of our society.

Your solution is far more like socialism than what either of us have said.

it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.

We are not discussing morality. If we were, your desire to live off the labor of others would certainly come into the conversation.

it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no duplication of service; one addresses market based phenomena and the other requires means testing.

Both will require means testing if unemployment compensation becomes what you want. There is no way that state and federal agencies will do otherwise. The reason there is no means testing now is that it is, by nature, short term.

nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.

The other criteria aside, even with the extension of benefits created by Congress after the recession, the longest time you can draw unemployment is 73 weeks. That is about 1.5 years. After that you have to find a job.

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.

I offered no excuses. I simply reminded you of the length of time you can draw unemployment.

when Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends. There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well said. Solving the homeless crisis in this country involved far more than a check. Substance abuse help and mental illness help are critical.

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

You want to pay someone for doing nothing, regardless of their situation. Both G5000 and I are talking about helping the homeless with the issues that caused their situation, thereby helping them back into being a productive and independent member of our society.

Your solution is far more like socialism than what either of us have said.

it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.

We are not discussing morality. If we were, your desire to live off the labor of others would certainly come into the conversation.

it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality.

I am discussing economics. YOu were the one who brought up morality. So don't try and blame me for it.

 

[danielpalos]

why should Labor Have to get fired to collect unemployment?

employment is at the will of either party.

EDD must show proof of for-cause employment to deny or disparage unemployment compensation. it really should be that simple.

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

no, you don't.

 

[WinterBorn]

Both will require means testing if unemployment compensation becomes what you want. There is no way that state and federal agencies will do otherwise. The reason there is no means testing now is that it is, by nature, short term.

nope; employment status under our form of capitalism versus means testing.

The other criteria aside, even with the extension of benefits created by Congress after the recession, the longest time you can draw unemployment is 73 weeks. That is about 1.5 years. After that you have to find a job.

there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine, only results.

I offered no excuses. I simply reminded you of the length of time you can draw unemployment.

when Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends. There is no provision for Excuses in the federal doctrine.

So you think there should be no time limit on unemployment compensation?

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism not Socialism, right wingers!

You want to pay someone for doing nothing, regardless of their situation. Both G5000 and I are talking about helping the homeless with the issues that caused their situation, thereby helping them back into being a productive and independent member of our society.

Your solution is far more like socialism than what either of us have said.

it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.

We are not discussing morality. If we were, your desire to live off the labor of others would certainly come into the conversation.

it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality.

I am discussing economics. YOu were the one who brought up morality. So don't try and blame me for it.

no, you aren't. you are discussing your view on morality, not economics.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why should an employer continue to pay you when you stop working?

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

no, you don't.

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

You want to pay someone for doing nothing, regardless of their situation. Both G5000 and I are talking about helping the homeless with the issues that caused their situation, thereby helping them back into being a productive and independent member of our society.

Your solution is far more like socialism than what either of us have said.

it has Everything to do with Economics not your alleged morality.

We are not discussing morality. If we were, your desire to live off the labor of others would certainly come into the conversation.

it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality.

I am discussing economics. YOu were the one who brought up morality. So don't try and blame me for it.

no, you aren't. you are discussing your view on morality, not economics.

You have only to look at the various quotes above to see that is a lie. When I addressed your comment "it has to do with economics, not Your misguided morality" was the very first time I spoke of morality.

 

[WinterBorn]

The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:

1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?

 

[danielpalos]

They shouldn't. We need to change the way we collect taxes for unemployment compensation.

A general tax should be enough.

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

no, you don't.

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

 

[danielpalos]

The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:

1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?

Employment is at the will of either party. A federal doctrine is more supreme than any State law on this issue.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

 

[WinterBorn]

The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:

1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?

Employment is at the will of either party. A federal doctrine is more supreme than any State law on this issue.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Now, please answer it. Which of those would you change or eliminate?

 

[WinterBorn]

So you want to change who is eligible for unemployment compensation. Now you want to change the source of its funding?

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

no, you don't.

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

 

[danielpalos]

The standards and requirements for Unemployment Compensation are as follows:

1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?

Employment is at the will of either party. A federal doctrine is more supreme than any State law on this issue.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Now, please answer it. Which of those would you change or eliminate?

those laws may need to be challenged in Court.

 

[danielpalos]

you have to be able to understand the concepts, to appreciate it.

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

no, you don't.

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

not now.