7 ms·

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let

by NateDad 12y ago

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let alone car payment, food, health insurance, etc. And yes, people should have emergency funds... but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

mod 12y ago
I don't think the "social safety net" was intended to keep wealthy people wealthy. It's to ensure basic needs are met. If you want to remain wealthy, you should probably not count on unemployment to play a role in that.
- angersock 12y ago
  I think your definition of wealthy needs some serious, serious readjustment.
  - Yakimoto 12y ago
    Maybe you should consider adjusting your understanding of poor too.
- showsover 12y ago
  And in Belgium, you are wrong about that. If you take home 1500€ net each month, and lose your job, social security first gives you around the same 1450 - 1500. After a few months (I think 3 or so) it goes down to 1300 or so, until you get a maximum of X where X is around the minimum living wage. This is to ensure that people don't have to sell or move immediately after being fired. Which makes sense.
  - markcampbell 12y ago
    This example is flawed. What is the max take home pay of someone on unemployment benefits in Belgium? In Canada under EI (employment insurance) it's about $500 per week (~$2000 CAD per month).
cylinder 12y ago
...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? I don't think "debt service on assets" is a universal human right. And why would someone have a mortgage just out of college if they can't even save 3 months first? Either way, $698/week is a lot. Do you know how much these European countries and Canada pay under their "safety net?" It's probably closer to $1500 per month. They certainly don't give a shit about anyone covering their mortgage. Basic shelter and food, that's it.
- bmelton 12y ago
  The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in. Anecdotal, but one of my older buddies was laid off. He's been earning north of $250k for over 30 years. He had savings, but assuming he didn't, his max withdrawal would be $698 a week, and only for 6 months, which is a max withdrawal of ~$18k, which is right around what he paid in to unemployment in a year. Ignoring that he'd been paying in ~$15k for years (or, I guess, half of that for awhile, as the pay-in percentage used to be lower), then he's not taking taxpayer dollars, he's taking his own money back. Or at least, a fraction of it, because the state made a lot more off of him than he made off of the state. If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him. Otherwise though, the compelling reason that unemployment should be enough to cover one's mortgage is because it is specifically designed to prevent homelessness, as the taxpayer cost of allowing him to go homeless because he had a few week lapse between employment and unemployment benefits is substantially higher than simply giving him more of his own money back.
  - Jare 12y ago
    >If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him That's not how "social safety nets" work. They tend towards being zero-sum in monetary terms, which means that some people will "win" (those worse off, hopefully) and some will "lose". The idea is that such devices help balance and stabilize society, which means we all actually win.
    - 12y ago
pbh101 12y ago
>but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? Absolutely. This was my first priority. This is personal finance 101 (though I'd replace 'salary' with 'expenses'). I realize not everybody is able to do it, but for many in this forum it would be an issue of prioritization.
MichaelBurge 12y ago
Don't you have reserve money to get a mortgage in the first place? My bank was hesitant to loan without 3 months of mortgage payments in reserve.
markcampbell 12y ago
3-6 months of salary is not the measurement. You need an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. That amount is easily achievable for someone who is a few years out of college which is generally someone who is young, no mortgage, and no dependents. If someone wants to make the commitments of mortgages or dependents, then that's on them and they still need to have that 3-6 month emergency fund, except the amount will be higher because of the added responsibilities.
knweiss 12y ago
> but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't. Actually, I did and it was a top-priority for me.

by NateDad 12y ago

mod 12y ago

I don't think the "social safety net" was intended to keep wealthy people wealthy. It's to ensure basic needs are met. If you want to remain wealthy, you should probably not count on unemployment to play a role in that.

angersock 12y ago
I think your definition of wealthy needs some serious, serious readjustment.
- Yakimoto 12y ago
  Maybe you should consider adjusting your understanding of poor too.
showsover 12y ago
And in Belgium, you are wrong about that. If you take home 1500€ net each month, and lose your job, social security first gives you around the same 1450 - 1500. After a few months (I think 3 or so) it goes down to 1300 or so, until you get a maximum of X where X is around the minimum living wage. This is to ensure that people don't have to sell or move immediately after being fired. Which makes sense.
- markcampbell 12y ago
  This example is flawed. What is the max take home pay of someone on unemployment benefits in Belgium? In Canada under EI (employment insurance) it's about $500 per week (~$2000 CAD per month).

cylinder 12y ago

...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? I don't think "debt service on assets" is a universal human right. And why would someone have a mortgage just out of college if they can't even save 3 months first? Either way, $698/week is a lot. Do you know how much these European countries and Canada pay under their "safety net?" It's probably closer to $1500 per month. They certainly don't give a shit about anyone covering their mortgage. Basic shelter and food, that's it.

bmelton 12y ago
The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in. Anecdotal, but one of my older buddies was laid off. He's been earning north of $250k for over 30 years. He had savings, but assuming he didn't, his max withdrawal would be $698 a week, and only for 6 months, which is a max withdrawal of ~$18k, which is right around what he paid in to unemployment in a year. Ignoring that he'd been paying in ~$15k for years (or, I guess, half of that for awhile, as the pay-in percentage used to be lower), then he's not taking taxpayer dollars, he's taking his own money back. Or at least, a fraction of it, because the state made a lot more off of him than he made off of the state. If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him. Otherwise though, the compelling reason that unemployment should be enough to cover one's mortgage is because it is specifically designed to prevent homelessness, as the taxpayer cost of allowing him to go homeless because he had a few week lapse between employment and unemployment benefits is substantially higher than simply giving him more of his own money back.
- Jare 12y ago
  >If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him That's not how "social safety nets" work. They tend towards being zero-sum in monetary terms, which means that some people will "win" (those worse off, hopefully) and some will "lose". The idea is that such devices help balance and stabilize society, which means we all actually win.
  - 12y ago

pbh101 12y ago

>but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? Absolutely. This was my first priority. This is personal finance 101 (though I'd replace 'salary' with 'expenses'). I realize not everybody is able to do it, but for many in this forum it would be an issue of prioritization.

MichaelBurge 12y ago

Don't you have reserve money to get a mortgage in the first place? My bank was hesitant to loan without 3 months of mortgage payments in reserve.

markcampbell 12y ago

3-6 months of salary is not the measurement. You need an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. That amount is easily achievable for someone who is a few years out of college which is generally someone who is young, no mortgage, and no dependents. If someone wants to make the commitments of mortgages or dependents, then that's on them and they still need to have that 3-6 month emergency fund, except the amount will be higher because of the added responsibilities.

knweiss 12y ago

> but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't. Actually, I did and it was a top-priority for me.