"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/19/12 8:25 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...

On 7/18/2012 3:12 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/18/12 4:01 PM, amdx wrote:
Type in "how do I qualify...
and your search engine will fill in with what Americans
are searching for, mostly how to get something from the
taxpayers.

41% of all births are paid for by taxpayer money.

1 in 3 live in a household that receives food stamps,
subsidized
housing, cash welfare or medicaid.


http://www.staged.com/video?v=Klmb

Mikek


Google Query: How do I qualify to be an ignorant, ill-informed,
right-wing asshole...

Response: See amdx


You're operating at the intellectual level of JustHate, Meyer,
Bilious
Bill, fella. I'm sure they will give you reach-arounds.

I showed you something you didn't want to see,
so rather than refute the numbers, you attack me.
Oh, I get it, there is no refuting the numbers.
Attack the messenger.
I don't mind a good argument, I might learn something,
but all you do is name call. That's useless.
Mikek

It's bad to want to qualify for the unemployment insurance that
*I* have
paid into for 30 years?



If you are an employee, unemployment insurance is paid for by your
employer through state and federal payroll taxes. Now the payroll
taxes
your employer pays probably are figured into the compensation you
receive, but you are not likely be paying directly for your own
unemployment insurance. When I had employees, I paid the tax on
their
behalf, and while I don't recall the exact number, it wasn't a large
amount per person.

Well, if you are the sole employee, the monies that you would have to
pay would go to you if you didn't have to pay them. Also, if you were
an
employee, the money that the employer has to pay in would go to the
employees instead.
-------------------------------------------

Sorry , but that's the standard answer of an employee, not an
employer.

First of all, as Harry and I have stated, the cost to the employer
isn't
gigantic, and, in my experience as a company owner with 70 employees
the cost of unemployment insurance per employee wasn't really even
considered in the individual's compensation. As an employer, you
have
some control on the unemployment taxes you pay. If you carefully
consider the need to expand, based on your company's business level,
the number of unemployment claims are minimal and the taxes you
pay reflect that. If you run a haphazard organization, hiring and
letting
people go on a regular basis, you are going to pay more.

It's also the reason that some unemployment claims are challenged and
unemployment benefits may *not* be approved. If an employee is
fired or let go for a serious reason, they *may* not collect, nor
should they.

Some may jump on me for this but in my experience usually the
employee who is let go for cause ... meaning unreliable, unqualified,
disruptive or other reason unique to the individual is usually given
the benefit of the doubt and is allowed to collect without objection.

The only person I ever replied in the negative to the state's notice
of a fired employee's application for benefits was a case where he
was caught molesting a female employee. He didn't get benefits
and he was damn lucky the female didn't file charges against him.