state benefits and working

First, let me tell you that I, myself, am unemployed and collecting unemployment benefits. This is the 3rd time that I will be starting over in the last 9 years, because of companies moving out of state. So, to go over your 3 scenarios... Case #1...Sorry, but I agree with the state in not giving him benefits because he has a large amount in his savings. Why should the state support him when he can support himself, with what he has. Once that runs out, then that's when the state should kick in the benefits. We are all in the same boat as him... we will all be living a less luxurious retirement then we thought we'd have. But, that's what you save money for...in case something does happen and you have to use it....So tell your buddy that this is the time! Case #2... Could it be that what they would earn with a cleaning job would be less then what they are collecting right now? If that is the reason, then I don't blame them. Why should they take a job that pays them less? I certainly wouldn't accept any job that is less then what I am collecting from the state..that would be kind of stupid. If the state would compensate the difference, than we would have more people willing to take any job they could find. If I am collecting $400 a week, and the cleaning job is only going to be $200 a week..then the state should compensate the difference...they would still be saving money, and it would motivate more people to take lesser paying jobs, until they found something with a higher pay. Unfortunately when the benefits where out, they are still stuck at the $200 Level, and how can anyone survive with that. I would do it only when I had to - and that would be when my benenfits are done. Case #3...Certainly if mothers out there are having children for the sole purpose of not having to work..then Welfare should be doing something about that. However, how can welfare or you prove that these people are doing that. Is it possible that these single parents are divorcees, or the father of their children moved out on them, and left these mothers to raise their children? If this the case, I don't blame them. I don't believe any state agency should force a parent to go to work full time, until their child is of school age. Who has the right to tell me that I cannot raise my child, and instead I have to put them in the hands of a child care service...just because I got divorced, or my children's father walked out on us. Why should my children sufer because of these circumstances. So, the bottom line is...there are two sides to every story...before we can quickly judge somebody's situation, we need to know every detail of it...and not just assume we know what's going on.

Hi You forgot those that are underemployed that had to take a paycut. I took a paycut in April of 2009 and had to go out and get a 2nd job working the weekends to try to make up for it. There are many that cannot find 2nd jobs and remain employed but making less than they were before. The ones that refuse to work should have to undergo state physicals to show they are capable of working and those that keep getting pregnant should start losing benefits after the 2nd child and still not working. That would deter them from having more. If they do have more then they would have to work for the state watching kids in the welfare offices. That way they can bring their kids with them. Unfortunately there will always be people that try to take advantage of the system and the working class will have to support them. It is not fair.

I will agree with you that these benefits are being misused but sometimes it is hard to point fingers when we can't walk in the other persons shoes. I think the worst part of the issue is the system that controls these benefits. I know of some examples where people who were really needy couldn't receive help because of circumstances similar to the guy you talk about who had too much in his savings. Then, I know of other circumstances where people who really could do without this extra help just seem to keep receiving it without question. I am not saying that these type of programs are wrong because there are people who really need help but I think that the people controlling these programs misuse them although I don't know what their reasons are. As far as my taxes being spent on this type of misuse; I must say that I am used to it. The government has always used taxes as they see fit and I sometimes wonder if it really represents what the majority wants. Democracy is supposed to allow the people to govern themselves by elected representation but do you see anybody being elected for office or even able to run for office unless they have lots and lots of money?

well unemployment benefit has to be there but i agree that there are certainly people taking advantage, and also those that need it. so situation A - well a certain level of savings i think should preclude you from getting benefits, however the level is pretty low right now isn;t it? B - why is the job centre not on their backs? it has been with people i know who would like to work but are over qualified or too old (in the minds of employers) so how come they are getting away with this? C - that is ridiculous but i wouldn't know how to stop people doing this.