Bipartisan bill would prevent millionaires from taking unemployment checks - eviltoast
A bipartisan group of lawmakers from the House and Senate on Thursday introduced legislation to prevent millionaires from taking unemployment checks.

Um, how isn’t this a thing already? (Millionaire=people who earn $1M yearly)
Sorry for Fox News, but it’s the best source with this headline and it says it’s bipartisan so we should probably be good.

  • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
    2·
    11 months ago

    If it’s just the name’s that different and it goes to the state, it is a state tax. The arguments for not paying it and not paying for, say, medicare are about the same.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      11 months ago

      So in Flordia, where you are required by law to have hurricane insurance if you have a mortage, is that a tax?

      In Florida, hurricane insurance is required for people who own and carry a mortgage on houses or condos, including landlords, in the form of a windstorm insurance policy. The Florida legislature began requiring this policy, which is bundled into Florida homeowners, condo and landlord insurance policies at the time of purchase.

      Edit: Ones for houses, the other is for employment. Both are required by the state. There’s even state offered insurance as private are fleeing the state.

      Edit: Oh also, do you actually have a separate line for medicaid or medicare on your payroll slips for everyone? Our healthcare in Canada is just part of our regular taxes. There’s no line item for it.

      • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
        2·
        11 months ago

        Yes, I’d call Hurricane insurance a tax.

        Yes, Medicaid is definitely a tax. I was just making an example that having a different name shouldn’t bolster the argument that you shouldn’t pay something by any means.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          Weird, my inbox only flagged this as new 6h later even though I’ve opened the app a lot…

          I’m not saying they shouldn’t pay it, I’m saying they shouldn’t be denied the service they’ve paid for which is what the law is trying to do.

          I disagree that hurricane insurance is a tax, but if we assume that’s the case, then this law would in essence be, if your house is destroyed in a hurricane and you make $X we don’t actually cover your house anymore.

          I don’t think that’s right, and I disagree its a tax.

          Edit: I guess my car insurance is a tax too by your view as it’s mandatory and it’s even you’re required to get a minimum coverage from the province.

          Edit: and I guess if it wasn’t clear, I support them not paying it if they don’t benefit because I disagree its a tax, but I think they should be required to pay it and benefit from it. If you want to tax them more, raise their taxes. The law is bad. They paid for insurance and deserve it.

          • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
            1·
            11 months ago

            These laws are quite different as a house (and a car) is worth much more than a job, so your comparison doesn’t make that much sense., not to mention you actually have options with which provider you choose. Unemployment only has a single provider, and that’s the state. That one is definitely a tax, the other ones you may argue to not be.