It's all taxable

[alienlovechild 75]

Yes, you have to be working for at least a year before drawing. Sometimes longer, depending on how that States program is structured. I have no idea why you would not have applied for your benefits later on when you had earned them.

I went to college or worked abroad for two years and couldn't draw benefits not sure how to say it any simpler. Most college programs take more than a year. Full-time students can't draw benefits but dropping out of college to draw UI wasn't for me.

This was close to my situation.

"Can I collect unemployment after working abroad for a foreign company and being laid off?

I worked abroad for a foreign company and was made redundant. I live in NYS. Can I collect unemployment? When I applied online, there is only the option to enter the tax id of the employer so i can go no further. it is nearly impossible to get a live person on the phone in Albany. What do you think?

Hi Jo,

I think no. Unemployment in the US is funded by US employers. You must have enough wage credits in the last eighteen months from working in "covered employment" to be eligible. And your most recent separation from covered employment must be qualifying."

http://www.unemployment-tips.com/can-i-collect-unemployment-after-working-abroad-for-a-foreign-company-and-being-laid-off.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess that's how Congress feels about it!

Is there any other way to feel about it?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Is there any other way to feel about it?

Well, Reinhard, you know there usually is more than one way of looking at things. Your comment has got to me thinking!

Unemployment isn't welfare (no matter what some may contend). It's paid from an insurance fund, but it's got a different level of risk management than other types of insurance. For instance, car insurance covers events that can't be foreseen such as accidents. Employers pay into UI to cover the events of their employees losing their jobs through no fault of the employee. In other words, it's "worth it" to the employer to pay higher premiums to their state UI fund over the cost of retaining those employees. In my opinion, by the Federal government floating extensions of UI, they aren't really propping up those out of work. For certain those who receive checks benefit. But the Fed is subsidizing the companies who put people out of work. The premiums paid into the fund by business can't possibly cover the amount of workers displaced. Continued extensions of unemployment is, in some way, the Fed telling business "go ahead and let people go" and we, the government, will continue to put some money into the pockets of these people so that the whole system doesn't come crashing down, thereby eventually shutting the businesses who put the workers out of work. (whew long sentence).

Since other monies from insurance claims aren't taxable, it's strange to me that UI is considered taxable. I've never thought it was fair, even before this current nationwide financial crisis. But, since the money is intended as income to take the place of wages, perhaps that is why it is treated differently. Your example though of a couple earning over 100K including UI gave me something to think about.

Perhaps earning from UI should be treated similar to earnings from jobs, dividends, etcetera of people on Social Security. IE, if the combined household income is over a certain threshold, then UI is taxable. If below that threshold, it is not taxable.

[james&olya 1,121]

Since other monies from insurance claims aren't taxable, it's strange to me that UI is considered taxable. I've never thought it was fair, even before this current nationwide financial crisis. But, since the money is intended as income to take the place of wages, perhaps that is why it is treated differently. Your example though of a couple earning over 100K including UI gave me something to think about.

Perhaps earning from UI should be treated similar to earnings from jobs, dividends, etcetera of people on Social Security. IE, if the combined household income is over a certain threshold, then UI is taxable. If below that threshold, it is not taxable.

Simple reason it is different. UI premium paid by employer is not taxed by government, it is a pre-tax benefit. Other insurance you have was paid for with after-tax earnings (except employer paid medical insurance).

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Simple reason it is different. UI premium paid by employer is not taxed by government, it is a pre-tax benefit. Other insurance you have was paid for with after-tax earnings (except employer paid medical insurance).

UI isn't paid for by the employee.............it's paid by the employer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

IE, if the combined household income is over a certain threshold, then UI is taxable. If below that threshold, it is not taxable.

And that's the way it is, isn't it? UIB factor into income just like other earned income. Yes, I see UIB as earned income since you gotta put in a certain amount of qualifying work in order to be eligible for this benefit. What bothers me a whole lot more is that passive income is treated favorably in terms of taxation than earned income - with earned income being that for which you have to get up in the morning.

UI isn't paid for by the employee.............it's paid by the employer.

Sure but it's still paid pre-tax.

[james&olya 1,121]

UI isn't paid for by the employee.............it's paid by the employer.

Isn't this exactly what I said? Or are you just agreeing with me for emphasis!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Isn't this exactly what I said? Or are you just agreeing with me for emphasis!

Hahahaha I don't know! Maybe I'm confused by what you have written?

The employee has paid no tax on it - because they haven't contributed the money. I'm betting the employer has not paid tax on it either as it's probably written off as an expense.

And that's the way it is, isn't it? UIB factor into income just like other earned income. Yes, I see UIB as earned income since you gotta put in a certain amount of qualifying work in order to be eligible for this benefit. What bothers me a whole lot more is that passive income is treated favorably in terms of taxation than earned income - with earned income being that for which you have to get up in the morning.

That is how SS income is treated though. As long as the household income is below a certain threshold. UI isn't treated that way.

[james&olya 1,121]

And that's the way it is, isn't it? UIB factor into income just like other earned income. Yes, I see UIB as earned income since you gotta put in a certain amount of qualifying work in order to be eligible for this benefit. What bothers me a whole lot more is that passive income is treated favorably in terms of taxation than earned income - with earned income being that for which you have to get up in the morning.

I have to agree completely here, though this is really a totally different question. I think this policy has more to do with campaign financing than anything else. Simply put, we do have the best government MONEY CAN BUY! People that are well enough off to have 'passive' income also have money to spare to invest in their favorite bought and paid for politician! Tax policy than just happens to get written for their benefit! And the rest of us are just too dumb or passive to stand up and make our votes count by throwing these crooks out of office!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As long as the household income is below a certain threshold. UI isn't treated that way.

How is it treated differently? You mean that a person drawing nothing but UI and stays below the threshold for federal income taxes that this income is taxed anyway? I don't think that's the case.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't see the issue. You pay taxes starting at a certain income level. How that income is obtained is secondary. Why should a household where one works and takes home 100K while the other draws 12K in UIB (combined income of $112K) pay less taxes than a household where two people work and take home a combined 110K? How would that be fair?

It isn't. Which is why NONE of us should pay income tax. Thats fair for all. Replace it with the FAIR TAX

I have no doubt Rebecca paid income tax if she says so. There are lots of reasons for this

1. Poor tax preparation

2. Very few deductions

3. More than one income

A married couple can have well over $100,000 income and pay NO TAX simply by having enough deductions and credits or sheltering their income in tax free investments. We get the "hope Credit" for two students, that's $5600 off or TAX bill after all deductions and it doesn't "zero out" like a lot of credits.

The FACT is that 47% of households in the United States do not pay any income tax. Levels of deductions and credits vary, of course.

It is also true that a person that was on UI for a substantial amount of time in a given year is very unlikely to pay any income tax if they have common tax deductions and credits

making too much of any one person's tax obligation is nothing to base an opinion on.