Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Loses Unemployment Check Because of Ads
Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate, unemployed New York lawyer recently had her unemployment benefits greatly reduced because of the incredible $1/day she was earning via ads on her blog. "The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' — during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely. She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75)."
...too incredulous to believe. Especially in New York.
Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.
Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?
i mean what is unemployment if you are recieving money.
It's underemployment, der.
"It's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force."
Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends. I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Comment removed based on user account deletion
$189.35 of which were sympathy clicks by her boyfriend
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Considering minimum wage is $7.25/hr, that's not just a crappy job, that's in violation of Federal law.
Or, more likely, it wasn't a job.
I mean seriously? Is she THAT green from college? I did the same thing with a temp job for ONE DAY for just under $50 bucks and the state pulled my benifits and "held them" for a few months. All because my grandpa didn't get their mail:P Luckly I got another job in a week after but still.
To be frank, you don't tell the government ANYTHING unless you can fill out all those bubbles on a form. Unless the guys your working for has you fill a W-2, just "forget" about it. I mean, sure she is trying to pass the bar and dosn't want to put any tanit on her record. If that was the case, she shouldn't of signed up for addsence during her unemployment:P
What happened to the old one?
It's her fault. Anybody with the tiniest bit of common sense realizes that trying to explain something like this to an un-fireable government bureaucrat is a losing battle. Why would she report the income? That's really just a dumb move on her part. That reminds me... my car inspection has expired. Maybe I should call the DMV and tell them...
I don't respond to AC's.
You're unemployed. A friend gives you $20 to help move some furniture. You've now received money and are no longer unemployed.
Yeah...that makes sense...
Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job. If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?
This is my sig.
Pity the blogger removed the advertising, I reckon traffic is about to skyrocket for a few days...
Back in 2000 I was denied unemployment benefits because I made the mistake of telling the interviewer I had tried to get some contract positions. Never mind that I DIDN'T GET THEM, simply the fact I was now "an independent contractor" meant I was employed.
Never tell them anything. No, woe si me; I'm unemployed and unemployable, I simply don't know what I am going to do...
now that her story is getting some wide coverage.
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
I do wish her well, though...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it, I can't say.
People just liked it better that way.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
The whole tax system is a mess that few understand even professionals. Last year H&R Block prepared my taxes as they've done since circa 1990, and the woman kept insisting I don't owe Oklahoma any taxes because I live in Virgina. I said "Yes but I *worked* in Oklahoma and you pay where you worked, just like I did last year when I worked in California, or the prior year when I worked in Florida." She said I was wrong and those previous years need to be fixed. I said I was right. She said I was wrong and then got her manager to back her up, which made me think maybe I was wrong after all.
Long story made short - They fucked up. Oklahoma fined me, Virgina happily swallowed the ~$6,000 in extra taxmoney, then I filed amended forms (or actually H&R did) saying I owed OK not VA. I paid Oklahoma the taxes I owed, and Virgina refused to recognize the amended forms, and they did eventually return the money, minus a fine.
H&R Block cost me $600 in their mistakes.
I will eventually get my revenge.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And so, after removing the ads from her blog (they weren't really earning much money anyway) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..
I bet she's thrilled.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
Cool! Let me move my supermarket headquarter over there.
First rule of business. Pennies add up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's still around; it's in middle England.
As if our current system is just spectacular, huh?
Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?They already do -- ever heard of Medicare? In fact, some of the loudest objections to the "Public Option" are from people who believe it will reduce the quality of the Government sponsored healthcare they already receive! Fucking greedy hypocrites!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The majority or lawyers do not come from big name law schools or on the partner-track in a big-name firm. They grind out contracts for businesses at very modest wages. thats when they can find a position.
We just found ourselves an honest lawyer.
Good thing to see the system is taking care of it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
I do wish her well, though...
Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future, and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.
As for the red tape, knowing the law can be of very little use, especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply don't care what you think the law is; they've been doing it like this for years. Piss them off? Opps, your file is missing a key form. Please send it in again (so I can shred it). Threaten to sue? Go ahead, it'll be years before you get a verdict.
P>Not all are like that, but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"What do ya mean you can't give me a colon exam?"
"You're only 25 - come back when you're 40."
"But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24, and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties."
"Too bad. The government has to cut costs."
Later I develop colon cancer at age 26. (This is based on an actual story from the UK where the "NICE" organization routinely denies preventative medicine, and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented.)
BTW -
- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30, the doctor said it's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $20. Who says HMOs are not customer friendly?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This is the sort of nonsense that drives the American distrust of beaurocrats.
The plans of well meaning liberal Senators will eventually have to be implemented
by civil servants with varying degrees of competence and empathy that have no
interest in being effective or efficient and infact will be rewarded by being as
inefficient as they can and growing their own personal fiefdom.
This is best captured by the "spend your budget this year or lose it next year" approach to money.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Technically your right. Also, technically, you should report that 20 bucks you made on your 1040 as well and pay taxes on it. I worked with the Texas Workforce Commission and allot of the "on the ground" people don't put in those small amounts. The paperwork is just insane. Takes 15 minutes to fill out the paperwork and for it all to go though the channels to do that 20 dollar removal off your next check than it does to just ignore it:P
Maybe you should spend less time "commenting" and more time doing your job.
And don't give me that "oh, i'm on break or posting from home" crap. That just means you're not dedicated enough!
You know, if you tea baggers want to whine about big government, why aren't any of you smart enough to start with the biggest expenditure and the biggest waste: the military?
I don't respond to AC's.
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
Hey, that statement looks eminently libelous to me! Maybe more money will soon be headed her way!
#DeleteChrome
The part where it could be Buffalo or Uttica. ...I guess all of that noise about the rest of the state being pissed off
that Hillary's Senate opponent wasn't aware of the rest of the state
actually has some merit to it. [snicker]
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I've been unemployed for about 2 years now. I live in backwater Reno, NV and had worked in the gaming industry. Two strikes against me, I know. I had been in Silicon Valley for many years, but wanted a cheaper/nicer place to live. Its nice here, but if you make more than $100,000/year, they think you're some overpaid wallstreet crook.
Anyways, during the course of my job hunt I formed an LLC so I could accept 1099 work rather than just FT W2. I add a line to my contact letter that says, "I am available for full-time W2 employment, as well as contract-based 1099 projects." That's it. That's the whole deal.
Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company, and are SUING me for 1 year's back unemployment. Uh, I don't have $12,000 sitting around guys. That's because I'm UNEMPLOYED.
I'm guessing that the state is just broke, and looking for every excuse they can to deny any benefit they can.
I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too. Interesting.
H&R Block employs housewives and other part-time workers to fill out tax forms. They go through a brief training period, something like 4 weeks at their own expense. They are then "qualified" to work in an H&R Block office preparing tax returns.
If using H&R Block has only cost you $600, you are lucky indeed unless your income is less than maybe $30,000. Anything more than that, especially with anything that is even remotely complicated - like multiple states, rental property, etc. you are playing with fire trusting H&R Block.
A real tax preparer would be paying the $600 in fines if they screwed up. A real tax preparer wouldn't have made the mistake in the first place. It does not require a CPA to fill out tax forms as CPA is something entirely different. You need someone that is good at tax preparation. Often these people are also a CPA but being a CPA doesn't mean they know anything about taxes.
Every year you are required to pay tribute to the government and doing it improperly can result in jail time. Do you really want to trust that to some part-time worker that managed to pay the fee to take the H&R Block class?
oh wait...
I don't respond to AC's.
If she'd registered as self employed, it would've worked out fine.
you'd think a lawyer would know that...
So all we have to do is give everyone in the country $1/day and voila: 100% employment rate!
I was under the impression that H&R Block simply hired trained monkeys that input your information into their software, rather than actual trained tax accountants.
Offtopic, but have you found anyone reliable? I've always preferred to do my own taxes, but this year my hand will likely be forced, due to marrying a K-1 Visa holder, plus some other fun issues.
The government better keep it's hands OUT OF MY MEDICARE!
they did eventually return the money, minus a fine.
YOU HAVE PAID TOO MUCH MONEY.
YOU ARE NOW ASSESSED A $500 FINE.
Alternatively:
Pay too much money?
That's a paddlin'.
That's alright, in college I once got an "overpayment" refund from Virginia for $60 and change (on a $200-240 tax bill, as I remember). As a college student I foolishly cashed the check and spent the money. Four years later, I got a letter stating I underpaid my taxes by that $60, and I then owed them that money plus penalties and interest (close to $100). I didn't keep the letter or a copy of the check, so I was stuck paying. I count it as a $40 life lesson in proper record keeping. :-)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
A similar thing happened to my Mom a while ago. She was injured on the job and taking L&I pay. With all her spare time I helped her set up a blog. Eventually she put Google ads on it and started raking in the big bucks (to the tune of about $3/month). After a few months of this, L&I got wind of it and claimed that this proved she was no longer injured and therefore entitled to no benefits.
She fought this decision and (eventually) won by pointing out that, even though her ads were 'making' money, she had never been paid since her ads never equaled $100 or more (as required by Google). If she had ever reached the $100 mark (even if it had taken years) she probably would have been out of luck.
But in her case, it all worked out well in the end. Her injury was due to and incident of workplace violence where her employer had been warned of the danger multiple times in the past (but did nothing to protect their people). She settled just a few days ago for $500K.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
What, you think it takes hours a day to make posts to a blog? I'm sure people can do a decent post a day in less than 15 minutes.
Besides, there's only so much time in a day you can spend looking for a job before going crazy, even posting to a blog might seem like a break.
You're unemployed. A friend gives you $20 to help move some furniture. You've now received money and are no longer unemployed.
Yeah...that makes sense...
does it make sense, No
is it the law, Yes. (although I've never heard of a state that didn't pro-rate your unemployment)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
-- Know your Rights
Don't forget to check out numbers 1 & 3
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
For anyone interested in what and where the blog in question is: http://stlmealdeals.blogspot.com/. It is not law related, it has to do with restaurant deals in the St Louis area which is where she recently relocated to. Reference: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/stl-jobwatch/uncategorized/2009/10/re-located-to-st-louis-nyc-lawyer-learns-the-price-of-honesty/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Commenting on how others spend their time is my job, you insensitive clod!
I have to return some videotapes...
A friend of mine was laid off several weeks ago and he was supposed to start teaching a small class at a local university in NYC just as a lecturer making a nominal amount per week for 2-3 hours of work (perhaps 100-200 or so / week, spread over two days).
Since NYS unemployment law counts a partial day of work as a full day, regardless of how much money it is, he had to withdraw from teaching the course because his loss in unemployment benefits greatly exceeded his income as a lecturer.
You just have to love incentive misalignment -- it's a government specialty.
I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I didn't pay my taxes. They didn't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.
True story.
I once received a speeding ticket for $120 (going 65 in a 55 while trying to get away from a tractor trailer who was speeding and swerving into my lane). Paid the fine, and called it a day.
A few months pass and I receive a Failure to Appear notice. Not wanting to be arrested, I show up in court at 9:00 am as instructed with my bank statement and a copy of the cancelled check. Around 11:00 am I get to present my documentation to the bailiff and am told that I must wait while the matter is investigated. Around 4:00 pm, the judge calls on me and proceeds to tell me that the Court has no record of my payment, and that a cancelled check is not proof of anything. I'm fined $350.
Sitting the entire day in court I listened to people (many of whom were repeat offenders) lie their asses off and get reduced fines (typically in the $100-200 range) or nothing at all. Me, I've never been arrested and it was the only moving violation I'd received during 20 years of driving, yet I received one of the largest fines of the day.
Moral of the story? There isn't one. Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies.
The only people that believe this sort of nonsense are those that have never actually seen a person without a well-paying job.
OK, let's say you were working somewhere and they paid healh insurance. You lose your job and now have no insurance. Better not get sick, right?
Well, as it turns out, it doesn't exactly work that way as all the poor people know. No insurance? Fine. Show up at the hospital ER and wait. You don't have a job, so you can wait, well, all day. And you probably will because everyone else is there for the same reason. No, you can't go to your private physician unless you can pay. But you can get the same treatment that the rest of the poor people get.
If you do not have some life-threatening condition when you show up at the ER in your nice suburban town, you may indeed be referred to a different hospital. If you have no way to get there, you will get transported there - without the rest of your family that came with you to wait. But you are going to end up at a hospital where you will receive appropriate care. It may not be convenient and it may not be efficient but we do not have poor people dying in the streets because they are kicked to the curb from hospitals because they can't pay.
Indeed, we do have people sitting at home going "Woe is me" in nice suburban towns because their private doctor wouldn't see them without getting paid and they were told to go to the County hospital in some nasty part of town when they showed up at the ER without insurance and a cut on their finger. They would never demean themselves to go to "County" because that is where the poor people go.
With unemployment and welfare folded into one smooth curve, there're no perverse incentives and we don't have to pay an army of bureaucrats and lawyers to figure out who doesn't deserve assistance.
Have YOU ever heard of Medicare? Or the VA?
They're shit.
Just because they're out there doesn't mean that proponents of government-run health care should be pointing to them as shining beacons.
Veterans get shit health care, and VAs get shut down all the time because they are vastly underfunded - even though much of their funding comes from private donations.
Medicare doesn't cover all the necessary health costs someone on Medicare needs covered, not by a long shot. And in terms of true money in / health care out, it's possibly the LEAST efficient ever.
The VA and Medicare are fucking paragons of "just getting by" and "passing the buck to the next generation". Even when it "works" many vets simply have no access to care and Granny is stretching her prescription to cover 2 months instead of 1.
I'm not saying that the government can/can't run health care.
I'm not saying the government should/shouldn't run health care.
I'm saying that the proponents love to point to those examples, but those examples are such bullshit. They should be an argument for the opponents, not the proponents.
But the opponents of health care reform won't dare raise a voice against the VA or Medicare because they get most of their support from older people. Older people will be confused by any critique of the government's handling of the VA and Medicare, and will perceive it as an attack against the systems they depend on.
Thus, the opponents can't point out the bullshit in the proponents' argument "look we already has it - if you didn't like it why do you support it here?".
I, not giving a shit, am free to point out the bullshit no matter where it comes from.
What part of "New York" confuses you?
Not sure, mate. We get a few odd confused impressions about what it is from down here in Melbourne, best way to describe it is "two cities divided by a common language" [citation somewhere, can't be buggered to chase it up]. But there are a few clues - $30 for lunch (can you do that in NY nowdays?) vs. the guilty $6 sandwich here makes me think an underemployed lawyer in New York may be making more absolute than your average corporate exec down here. It's about proportion, I guess, but ... I've also heard people from New York say "everything west of the East River is camping out". That's not really arrogant, is it? Probably not indicative.
You go ahead and dream of your electric sheep though, I don't mind. Just don't electrocute yourself by standing in a wet paddock. XD
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
They changed it because the Americans wanted to be subjects of the English king and not an independent settlement.
Apparently they changed their minds a century later.
I call bullshit.
1) Florida has no income tax.
2) From the H&R block website: "With the H&R Block Guarantee included in every tax return, if penalty and interest charges are owed due to H&R Block's error, those penalties and interest on federal, state and local returns are paid. If the IRS audits your client, an H&R Block representative will assist in answering questions regarding your clients return."
Good luck with your revenge.
Misdirected personal rage much?
I hear there is an honest, unemployed lawyer in New York. See if she can practice in Virginia, and sue Block.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
You too can support a 1st world unemployed person, all it costs is 1$ a day to feed these poor non working people.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm with William Shakespeare on this one.
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I was one of the myriad aerospace workers who lost his job last year. After a couple months, my friends started saying "why don't you just get something simple to make a few bucks and give you something to do?" Simply, I told them that I'd have to give up the unemployment benefits, which were more than twice what I'd make with some random hourly job in town. It made more financial sense to NOT get a temporary job while I was looking for a new full time job. After four months of going crazy doing nothing but looking for work, I finally got a new job. Shortly thereafter, I receive a W2 from the state telling me I had to pay income tax on my unemployment benefits. What a wonderful world.
Here, your benefits run out in six months, unless you have contract or side work (anything less than full time). In that case, your unemployment check is reduced by your earnings, to zero if you exceed your benefit amount.
The system handles it automatically and it was fabulous when I transitioned from full time to part time work--I had benefits to fall back on (for a couple years, as I did rather well) and something to carry through the slow months (August and December in that field).
This method would be a real boon to anyone starting a business too.
Glad I didn't live in NY!
Give every family in the country $500/week for a year. Still save money over the Economic Stimulus plan.
Somewhat tangential to the story, but how many people do make a living on checks from google adsense? I've looked around and not been able to find any good info on whether it's worth trying to make a website to make some money off adsense.
Florida doesn't have an income tax.
-- nolesrule
No. Actually taxes are based on both where you live and where you work. That is, you are subject to their income tax rules if you live OR work in the state. Most states have built into their tax codes methods to avoid double taxation between states. The majority of these are via a credit on the resident state tax return for taxes paid to the non-resident state. Or, in other words, the state where you WORK gets the tax money. So for example, if you were a resident of Colorado on a temporary assignment in Texas, you would pay Colorado income tax on that money, because there's no income tax from Texas to generate a credit. If you were a resident of Colorado on a temporary assignment in California, you would file a tax return for both California and Colorado. You would pay the California taxes, and then apply taxes paid to California as a credit on your Colorado return and end up not paying Colorado income tax (so long as California has equal or greater tax rates than Colorado, otherwise Colorado would take the difference.)
There are certain exceptions. For example a few states have reciprocal agreements. As you experienced, Pennsylvania and New Jersey have a reciprocal agreement. What that means is the states have an agreement not to tax each other's residents. So Pennsylvania residents that work in New Jersey will pay only Pennsylvania income tax and New Jersey residents that work in Pennsylvania will pay only New Jersey income tax. But this is the EXCEPTION not the RULE. In fact, Pennsylvania only has reciprocal agreements with 6 states (Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia) - had you worked in any other state with an income tax you would have paid income tax to the state you worked in. And the majority of states have no reciprocal agreements at all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Right???
WHOOSH! www.theymightbegiants.com
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
... professionals. Last year H&R Block ...
H&R Block are "Tax preparers", not accountants. If you worked in more than two states over five years, for all that is holy GET A REAL ACCOUNTANT!
Professionals *DO* understand tax liabilities. That's why they deserve the $. H&R Block aren't professionals, and you get better guidance with a software box than the minimum-wage seasonal worker who prepares your return at H&R block.
Oh, and check your agreement with H&R block, too. Depending on state, you mgiht be able to bill them for that $600. (If it was an accountant in NY, you definitely could.)
Well, most emergency treatment you can get by showing up at an ER. And while they do bill you, they effectively have no way to force you to pay. Medical expenses remain the largest cause of bankruptcy's which means those bills don't get paid. However, it is limited. Broken bones and gun wounds will get treated easily. Organ transplants and some cancer treatments you'll get refused treatment (though they'll probably give you pain meds to help you go out peacefully.) It really depends on how expensive the treatment is and whether it requires immediate treatment or if it just slowly kills you. The cheaper and more urgent it is the more likely they will do it without payment. The more expensive and less urgent the more likely they'll require payment up front. Hence the reason we always have news articles about some insurance company "killing" someone by not paying (because the hospital wouldn't do it without payment.) So basically, if you are without insurance and become seriously ill you're probably going to go bankrupt and you may be refused treatment.
Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?
The story is not about a poorly RUN system. It's about a poorly DESIGNED system. Whole different ball of wax.
In some cases if a single source of income earns you less than $500 a year, you may not have to report it. But the 1099 Form would be filled out anyway and a copy sent to the IRS that unemployment could see as income.
In this economy being self-employed and working freelance and having web advertising and blogs might be the only way some people are able to get a job and earn income. She needs to offer her services on those freelance web sites if unemployment cuts her off and earn enough to start up her own small business. Then the small business earns the web advertising and it does not count for her personal income, as long as she doesn't pay herself a salary, the small business can earn income and pay off the house bill if the home is used for the small business. She just would have to file business taxes separate from her personal taxes.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
All government bureaucrats are usually idiots — what makes you think, Feds are any brighter?
Hey, I have an idea! Let's turn health care over to these people — just to see, if they perform better this time, than they did with public schools and highways...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yeah if you paid FL income tax you sure were being ripped off.
FL, TX, AK, NH, TN, SD, WA, NV, WY, all have NO STATE INCOME TAX.
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
Didn't you pay for tax insurance? That way if H&R Block butchers your tax filing and you get sued or owe money, they would have someone from H&R represent you and pay part of the fees and back taxes.
H&R Block is basically temporary workers who only work tax season and they use H&R Block's tax software to file the taxes for you and charge you $300 or more for the service. You can buy the H&R Block Taxcut software which does the same as the software the H&R Block Employees use, or use the TurboTax software instead. They both have a tax insurance option as well, but cost less than the $300+ H&R Block and other tax companies charge. If you are computer savvy enough to fill out electronic forms and wizards then you can use your own tax software like TaxCut or TurboTax to file your own taxes. They are programmed to catch mistakes like working in a State and not paying taxes on it, but the software that H&R Block uses for employees does not have that sort of failsafe and depends on the worker to know the tax laws.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
How on earth do you plan on getting revenge? How could you get revenge?
Qxe4
Well, duh. That's how unemployment works: if you earn any money at all during a week, your benefits are reduced by at least that amount (maybe more, depending on things like how many hours you worked). Anybody who's had to deal with working short-term jobs while collecting unemployment knows this headache well. Yes, that means that it's not in your best interest to have any income at all while trying to collect unemployment, unless that income's more (after taxes and such) than your unemployment benefits. This leads to an unpleasant balancing act trying to meet the "looked for N jobs this week" requirement while not getting stuck with a job that'll only last a couple of days and won't pay enough to make up for the lost benefits.
All I can say to this lawyer is, welcome to the world most people have to deal with.
Actually yes lawyers can be unemployed. I worked as a programmer in a law firm, and a lawyer was hired as a programmer because he claimed he couldn't find work as a lawyer. I trained him on Visual BASIC, Crystal Reports, and ASP 2.0 VBScript programming. After six months working as a programmer, he claimed he couldn't handle it, and that the job was too stressful and he quit and got hired as a lawyer by a rival law firm. I don't know why a lawyer would want to work as a programmer without any programming experience, but as I taught/tutored him in programming he taught me a bit about lawyers and the law. Unless a lawyer is well known, or working for a major law firm, they can suffer from periods of unemployment. Since he got a job working as a programmer for the big law firm we both worked in, it helped a rival big law firm hire him on. He couldn't get a job at my employer as a lawyer so he applied for a programmer position, as he had entry level knowledge and I was always given the task to train new programmers to get them up to speed because I have a lot of experience and worked in a college computer lab training students and debugging programs, and other jobs where I trained programmers like when I was a federal contractor for the US Army before that.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
You're probably thinking of the requirement to issue a 1099-misc (which is $600/year) or the requirement to pay self employment tax on self employment income ($400/year). There is no "don't have to report if less than $500/year" law. Due to the rounding done on a tax return, you effectively don't have to report anything less than $0.50 (because it rounds to 0) but otherwise you are legally required to report income regardless of amount. Now, despite the fact you're supposed to report all income in practice a lot does not get reported. Anything received in cash where an information document is not filed to the IRS often is not filed simply to avoid paying tax on it. Interest and dividend income under $10 is often not reported because no 1099-int or 1099-div is filed for amounts under $10 (in a tax system where most people just dump all the 1099's and w-2's at their tax person's office people simply don't think about it, it's not intentional tax evasion and most of the time makes no difference anyway.)
You can eat a very filling $5 lunch two blocks from Wallstreet, I know, I've done it. There are a number of pizza shops that sell slices as big as your chest for a couple of bucks and sell soda by the can for like $1. You can also go one block over and get the Kobe burger and a glass of nice French red for $500, but I'm pretty sure you can do that in any world capital.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It's taxable whether or not you're in the trade or business if you receive $20 for doing some work. If you're not in the trade or business it's not subject to self employment tax. So it would end up on line 21 instead of line 12 of the 1040. Income is income from whatever source derived, and is taxable unless specifically exempted.
What if you get > $10.00 interest on a bank account over the course of a year? Would unemployed people be better able to collect unemployment benefits if they emptied their bank account right after losing their job?
What, she loses the ability to check her unemployment?
Oh, upon reading TFS I see they mean she lost her unemployment cheque.
Stupid cultures different from mine.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
"Moral of the story? There isn't one. Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies."
and people want their health care to be run like this..ha!
They decided, for her, that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on...
No, they didn't. Unemployment insurance is NOT welfare. The labor dept in this case did exactly what they were supposed to -- enforce the law as written.
The law is crazy and dumb, but that's not the Labor Dept's fault. It's the legislature's.
It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage. Under the current proposals, they will tell you whether you're insurance is sufficient, and if not, will fine you for not having the proper coverage. Eventually, as government continues it's reckless spending, more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt. Then, you will decide to get the best coverage available so you won't be fined, and that will result in being taxed for having a "luxury" plan.
This would be BETTER and LESS WASTEFUL if we actually had a real welfare state -- the gov't guarantees a rock-bottom standard of living for everyone (food + shelter + healthcare), and every dollar you make beyond that is progressively taxed until you're supporting yourself. (progressive: very little % tax on the 1st dollar, slightly increasing % tax on the last dollar. You know, like how the system works now until about 250,000.) Why are we wasting our nation's wealth in shifting this woman from "unemployment" to "welfare", anyway? Send her a check, tell her to go volunteer if we need to, and ever, ever, EVER take a dollar away from her for a dollar she earns.
If you want to go full bore SMART, we could even abolish the minimum wage and require complete portability of employer-provided healthcare benefits, to untether the market from our social engineering The republicans SHOULD be making these last two proposals -- but since they're focused on scare tacticsk they aren't.
Not sure why this is marked as troll.
I get the biggest kick out of the pro-medicare, anti-national health care people.
Why so wasteful big spender? Make it $1/month. Since it is a gain, they are gainfully employed and need no befits at all. Every 6 months or so, they can eat!
it's only a lawyer for $YOUR_CHOICE_OF_DEITY sake.
Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
"I got stuck with about $1,000 in travel expenses when I was in college because I had to go to another state for an operation. There were perfectly good doctors here in NY. No reason I couldn't have the operation here. "
If the government was running your healthcare, you may not be able to get your operation at all. Would you rather have no operation (because of long waits) or $1000 in travel expenses?
also, the amount of money in taxes that you will have to pay every year (not just once) will be much more in the long run.
"My wife requires a good amount of medication to stay alive. She can't work. She's disabled, according to the government, so they cover her medical expenses. This is great, because there's no way in hell I could afford to pay for all her medication and doctors and whatnot. The problem is that I can't get a raise, or she's off disability, and we have to pay for it all. I can't add her to my insurance, because they won't cover her pre-existing condition. And my income would have to more than double in order to pay all her bills. So I've had to turn down several raises now, just to keep my wife insured by the state, so we can afford to keep her alive."
Your wife has it good now, because the system isn't overflowing with people. If we get universal health care, this will change.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country like Sweden or France where the average tax rate is 70%, which doesn't include V.A.T and the large amounts tacked on to everything you buy.
My health care overhaul plan would state that no employee of the Federal Government may enjoy any health care that is any way better than that enjoyed by the lest privileged citizen. That'd sort THAT mess out fast enough.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
People attempt to use loopholes all the time - the difference between the people and lawyers is that layers tend to be good at it.
Regarding the need for lawyers - it will always exist, even without such a complex legal system. A lawyer isn't simply about knowing the law, but also presenting a case with confidence and consistency - a professional presence.
I fight a lot of traffic tickets. Despite knowing quite a bit about the law, I still hand the cases over to a traffic lawyer - I need someone who is capable of going toe to toe with judges, officers, and DA - people who have a lot of experience intimidating the public.
I also use a lawyer because it's more efficient - it costs me more in time and lost wages to fight a traffic citation than it costs to hire someone to do it for me.
The Govt. is sure efficient at cost savings. They should run ALL of health care in addition to unemployment.
I agree. After years of doing turbo tax myself, and messing up once due to not understanding tax law, I decided to pay "the professionals" to do it for me.
I payed H&R something like 175 dollars to do the taxes, and then got a bill from the state saying it was messed up and I owed 250 dollars more..... jerks.
Oh, and the original "mess up" that happened is just as odd imo. I was working in a state with no state income tax. Through that job, I had a 401k (or 403b, I forget). At any rate, I got a new job in a state with income tax. Before I left the old state, I received a cash payout of all the money in my 401k. Just a check in my hand, earned in a state with no state income tax.
I took that check with me to the new state, and the day I moved into my new apartment, I cased the check to help cover my first/last month rent/moving expenses.
Come tax time, the new state decided they wanted something like 20% of that check because it was income deposited into my account while living in their state..... nevermind it was earned and already taxed under the the old states tax laws. If I cashed the check one day earlier in the old state, I would have saved 7,000 dollars.....
I call this the law of Assholes.
Assholes ruin everything for everyone else. They go searching for ways to be just annoying enough to be an "asshole" but take great care and diligence to make sure that they don't run afoul of any rules/laws that might be in place.
It doesn't matter where you draw the rules/laws, they are assholes, and will always exploit the current version to perfection.
Then, somebody comes along and says "There ought to be a law" because of some asshole somewhere. There is no cure for assholes, because they will always exist. And passing ridiculous rules/laws to prevent them from being assholes is stupid as it is pointless.
I know one asshole, when confronted about being an asshole ("you're ruining it for everyone else"), said "I don't care, I'm just playing by the rules". And when the rules changed because of the asshole, it diminishes us all. They don't care about "everyone else" which is why they are assholes.
They just need to have their asses kicked.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Too many people don't seem to know the rules for reporting income on their taxes. Until they've been audited that is.
Support SETI@home
they did eventually return the money, minus a fine.
YOU HAVE PAID TOO MUCH MONEY.
YOU ARE NOW ASSESSED A $500 FINE.
Alternatively:
Pay too much money?
That's a paddlin'.
I can actually see the justification in that. You've got to figure that some desk jockey is going to have to spend some time investigating your claim that you've mistakenly paid taxes and then at least two higher tier desk jockeys will have to sign off on it. If they didn't fine you for wasting their time then the extra personnel costs for investigating one-off cases would fall on their own tax payers.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
When you pay the government you need to get a government form as a receipt. A cancelled check means nothing to a government - only a government form has meaning.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Government bureaucracies aren't the only kind. You haven't lived until you've been raped by a corporate bureaucracy.
Support SETI@home
Hang on, who TOLD them about the blog ?
Self inflicted I'm afraid. I recently played the game here in the UK and declared 3 days work I had done in the previous 2 weeks (Thur, Fri and following Mon). Their response ? Oh, Well our week runs from signing day to signing day (Tue) so that means you have to sign off. Great. so much for being honest. Last fucking time. (BTW, declaring work done means you get no money but don't have to spend 3 weeks re-signing on and waiting a month for money to live on) - tl; dr; don't work for agencies.
So all we have to do is give everyone in the country $1/day
The really great thing about it is you only have to give them a dollar a day for something-like 18 months. After which time, they'll no longer be eligible for unemployment benefits.
No longer eligible for benefits == No longer counted as unemployed.
According to this recent article:
So... the official unemployment rate is hovering just under 10%, and yet a third of those people have been unemployed for at least 6 months.
That "just under 10%" figure is a blatant fucking lie, and the government knows it but won't change their official metrics because honesty is just too damned discouraging. The real unemployment rate is well into the double digits.
The government wants you to try to find work, even temp work. After all, any money they don't have to give you is a good thing in their book and temp work can lead to permanent work and so on. So the way it works here is you have to report everything you make. Whatever you make is deducted from your benefits. So if you got work for a week and made more than your benefits, you'd get no benefits that week. Next week no work, you get full benefits, the week after you got a small job that paid $50, you'd get your benefits less $50. Benefits only stop when you get regular work.
This is win-win. The state wins because it pays out less, and maybe you get off UI faster. You win because it extends your benefits time (any time they aren't paying out) and maybe you get off UI faster.
Seems really stupid to have a "You make any money you don't get UI," system. That'll do nothing but encourage people to either lie about what they make, or to avoid going and getting any work unless it is regular work.
Had problem with people like this on forums I've run. Habitual line steppers. They want to know right where the line is so they can dance right up to the edge of it. Then they always try to play the victim when yelled at. Making complex rules doesn't work either, they just keep it up. As such, on the forums I've worked on the rules got simplified: Don't be an asshole. I (or the other admins) am the arbiter of what that means. Over all, it works much better since everyone, including assholes, seems to understand it. While there is occasional bitching about vagueness (from assholes), seems to be that adults over all get the idea of what being an asshole is.
Now I'm not saying such a system would work for the courts, just affirming what the parent is saying that assholes are the problem and that complex rules don't seem to help.
Worse than me!
I was out of the country during tax season, meaning by tax law I had an additional 2 months to file my taxes. I can simply state that in my return.
But HR Block insisted that I needed to revoke my US citizenship to file 2 months late (wtf?). The rep also contradicted the instructions on the forms, even when specifying the form number and asking for a clarification.
In effect, the rep refused to make any statements on my form, was fairly rude, and then the IRS came at me with fees.
An *hour* on the phone with the IRS, and they agreed to waive the fees. Actually, that IRS call was fairly peaceful/civil, albeit long.
Moral of the story: HR doesn't hire anyone familiar with tax law. So treat their advice as such.
Ranting this out made me feel better =)
For two reasons: First off is that we are continually working to simplify programming. One of the goals that many new languages and IDEs and so on work towards is easier development. That is the point behind something like a rapid application development IDE like Visual Studio, one of the major points behind a managed language like C#. So there very much is an effort to make things simpler in computer programming for humans. There is a long way to go, but it is being worked on and there has been progress. We've gone from having to program in binary machine language with switches on the original computers to visual development environments in a quasi-English language now.
Law seems to be going the other way. As time goes on laws become more complex, more onerous. A great example is copyright law. This is one average people need to deal with, yet the law on it is so complex that the issues are confusing to even those educated in it. It just keeps getting worse too.
The second reason is that computers work in a certain way and that is just how things are. Computers understand the world in a particular fashion, one very different from humans. A good example would be that computers, at a fundamental level, don't understand ambiguity. Everything in a CPU is deterministic. The state of everything is precisely known, and based on the instructions given the next state is perfectly predictable. Well that puts constraints on how things have to be explained to the computer. It is also what makes the computer so useful to us.
It isn't really complexity, it is extremely simplicity however in a way humans aren't good at thinking. The complex part for humans is clarifying our ideas to a way the computer can understand.
At the very least law should be working towards a simpler state. However it isn't, it is fast getting more and more complex.
I've had people actively tell me that small amounts of interest are not required to be reported. I've ignored them, but they aren't making an accidental mistake, they have failed to understand the requirements.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Here in Sweden a blogger (without any income from the blog at all) got the verdict that blogging is an occupation and therefore he must either quit blogging or loose his unemployment check.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/arbetslos-bloggare-kraver-besked-om-a-kassa-1.842969
That's outrageously offensive and it doesn't make sense. Money changes hands all the time among friends that isn't taxed. There are some things that the government just needs to stay out of. A person should have the right to try to make money with their writing without having to worry about the government taking it away. Granted, that if you make over a certain amount, you should report that because it's the right thing to do; but otherwise they should leave people alone.
http://www.squidoo.com/freelance-writing-1 http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/284881/kurt_evans.html
I contacted H&R block and they said, "Oh, I see what you did (looking @ web-based filing records)... checked option "X" instead of "Y"". Of course, I've filed with that software before and after that year, and always checked "Y" (as evidenced by no massive refund). I can even comfortably say I distinctly /remember/ checking "Y". Nonetheless - I have no proof, while they can make any proof they need to show how it wasn't their fault.
Net result: H&R block will have cost me about $800 in fees, plus a couple thousand dollars in refunded money that I no longer have. Needless to say, I will be taking screenshots of every page this year... and /hoping/ that they again make the same mistake so I can catch them at it. Then I'll get /my/ revenge...
Some how I found a site, not quite what I was looking for, that mentions submitting filings on IBM 3480 or 3490 tape cartridge. Perfect!
I think I'd like to do this just to see the look on the face of the state employee that has to take such a cartridge...
Let it never be said California is some how behind the times technologically!
Ok Perhaps I'm missing something obvious...
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
I've been on unemployment. You supposed to report the amount that you earn from any other work during the time you are being paid. Basically the state says "okay we figure you need X to survive per month" and then gives you X and subtracts any other money you've made during that time.
It's really not that difficult. The key is to fill out the paperwork and follow the instructions. If you get actual people involved in that process you're bound to screw it up.
If you really want to, pay your hosting bill with the money you made from adsense, and then you have no income to report. ;)
or else!
Another way Unemployment screws business owners. I agree that there should be some method to help a person between jobs. But unemployment as it exists is so wrong it should be scrapped and started fresh. Everytime an employee draws it hits the company. I agree with this if it's a fire, if it's a voluntary quit we're paying for someone not wanting to work. Things I have personally seen from the business employer side in the last few years :
People wonder why jobs are outsourced? I hire a contract overseas and I don't have to worry about staffing issues or ex employees costing the company when they quit and don't want to work. Or why small businesses are dying. Oftentimes the small business owner stops paying themselves first to keep things going. Once things get really slow they're really out of luck.
Louis Kelso's idea of a basic income removes the need for many job protections. A basic income almost passed under Richard Nixon, promoted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.html
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://www.basicincome.com/
http://www.michaeljournal.org/lesson1.htm
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_O._Kelso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan
One is being put in place in Brazil:
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=974
"""
A senator from Brazil, Suplicy was the sponsor of the "Citizen's Basic Income" legislation that was signed into law last year. The law is grounded in the concept that an unconditional and guaranteed minimum income is the simplest and most effective step toward the eradication of poverty. It will be implemented gradually in Brazil beginning this year."
He said today: "All people -- regardless of their ethnicity, gender, whatever -- should be able to share in the wealth of the nation. This should be done in a way that is just and provides for dignity and real freedom. Ensuring a guaranteed unconditional income does several things: It ends bureaucracy of reporting and checking on people. It eliminates the stigma attached to getting resources from the government. It does not penalize someone for earning money from a job. And it removes uncertainty."
"""
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"These are great straw men you keep demolishing. Are any of them related to reality in any way?"
It's not straw man if it's the truth. Take a look at any country with universal health care. It's convenient to call anything you don't agree with "straw men".
The truth cannot be hidden forever. No matter how much you try.
"Government bureaucracies aren't the only kind. You haven't lived until you've been raped by a corporate bureaucracy."
The difference is that you always have another choice with a corporate bureaucracy. When the government is in control you not only have no other choice, but you can go to jail if you don't comply.
I had this happen to a friend of mine last year. They lost their modest paying job and was unemployed for about 6 months. They were offered a part-time job that would pay less than the benefits, but at least it would get them out of the house and working again and hopefully networking with people to find a new full time job. However, after they spoke with the unemployment office, they were informed that even though they would be making very little money, they would receive next to nothing in unemployment benefits. Just to give you an idea of how crappy this system is, they were getting a little over $250 a week on unemployment, with this part time job they would have been making around $150 a week plus paying taxes, gas, lunch, etc and unemployment would stop. Where is the incentive to find a job?
Welcome to New York.
Yes, but what you are missing is the people who are costing the HMO the most money are YOU, the customer. They will let you go the moment you need their services or the moment they can deny you coverage for your life threatening condition. Any fallacy about the market correcting the problem or unscrupulous companies going out of business flies in the couple hundred year reality of free market economies. You can argue that in a perfect free market with no barriers to entry and no government regulation that that equilibrium would be reached but that's a pipe dream. Economists are worthless (witness the fact that one of this years winner for the Nobel in economics was the founding father of the movement that led to California's energy deregulation), I'll go with the cold hard fact that we have the most expensive healthcare in the world with some of the poorest results and that all the countries that beat us on that simple metric have socialized medicine.
Also witness the fact that Medicare has an overhead of low single digits vs the healthcare industry which is approaching 25% between overhead and profits.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Last I checked (Old) York is still in England.
An unemployed lady here in Norway was in the news recently because she lost most of her benefits:
It turned out that she had been elected to a (non-paying of course!) position on the local town council, a task which she did to the best of her ability.
(Here's a link, in Norwegian:
Lost benefits)
The problem was that each (evening) meeting of the council generated a few NOKs in compensation, supposedly to handle stuff like transportation costs.
So what happened was that she still had to declare that as income, whereupon she passed a (low) limit which caused her to lose a major part of her benefits.
To avoid this particular problem she did try to say no to those meeting expense monies, but that was of course impossible:
"You have been elected to the council so you are legally obligated to turn up for every meeting, and when you do you _must_ receive compensation. When the sum passes the limit, we then have to take away your benefits."
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
I've been unemployed before, but wasn't this bad. You get a form once per fortnight to fill, where have you applied for work, and related questions, as well as how much did you earn? If you've been unemployed for a while you build up kind of credit system where you may not get your benefits reduced at all. The other good part is you keep getting the forms for about 2 months of earning 'too much' before your officially cut off. So if you get a temp job picking fruit or whatever, as long as your income drops back off before the forms finish, everything keeps going without any hassle. Don't get me started of the rest of Centrelink though!
They're just finding exploits in the law, or nifty tricks and techniques.
Don't slashdotters love hackers?
There's a similar problem in the UK with our tax inspectors not understanding tax law properly - and we also have a pretty complicated system.
Though TBH the problem isn't the tax inspectors - it's that the government decided a few years ago it was cheaper to operate the tax office as a call centre manned by potplants whose only qualification is "Can you speak English (you're allowed three tries to get the answer right)?".
Historically, you would call your local tax office and the phone would be answered by someone who had been on all the training courses and knew what they were talking about - today your call is answered by some spotty teenager who's going off a single sheet of paper headed "Tax law for dummies!" where the law itself is a heck of a lot more complicated and to get to speak to someone who actually understands the regulations and will apply them properly is an exercise in itself.
No, your friend gave you a gift.
Unless you helped your friend move 651 times during the year, in which case you would have to report the last 20 bucks (over the annual 13k exclusion) as income, or your friend would have to pay gift tax on it.
On the other hand, if you happen to earn money by helping people move, you are employed, as a sole proprietor. You have liability for people's stuff as you move it. You definetely charge more than 20 bucks, and if you aren't mentally retarded, you incorporate to avoid personal liability.
A truly civilized nation doesn't let one neighbor swipe money from other neighbors' wallets. You don't have a right to force your neighbors to pay for your new Lexus. You don't have a right to make your neighbors pay for your new HDTV. Neither do you have a right to make your neighbors pay for your liposuction health bill.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Next time I'm unemployed, don't mention that I found 2 cents on the sidewalk.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Why are we all complaining? I did RTFA (shame on me!), and found absolutely zero evidence or sources to back up the author's claims.
And you don't think that system is broken?
A system where poor people have to sit in "Emergency Rooms" for treatment? Or wait till their condition deteriorates into an emergency?
It's cheaper if the USA just quickly killed their poor people who are sick, rather than do it slower like now. And more honest in some ways.
Yes I know if you actually give the poor preventative healthcare they might live way longer and cost the system more (everyone dies eventually - it's just postponing the inevitable).
But one would have thought that the most powerful country in the world could use some of its power to help its poor, needy and weak.
And worse - it seems that the US system still costs a lot even if it isn't giving decent treatment to that many...
No, they are NOT better. Not only do they not have incentive to give a shit about you, but once they take your money out of your paycheck, there's NO LAW that they actually have to PROVIDE ANYTHING. They are profit-driven and greedy. They choose, where, when, if, and what price they want to pay regardless of the bill, and the rest is up to you.
I had surgery over a year ago. I am still fighting with the insurance company to pay their portion of the bills, meantime, the bills have gone into collection and guess who's credit history is being affected, and I'll give you a hint -- it's not the insurance company's.
So, I go co-sign a school loan for my nephew, and guess what, DECLINED.
So, just so you've got this straight, my nephew is about to be thrown out of college because the insurance company didn't cover the portion of the bill they were supposed to, and as a result, my credit is toast.
Personally, I'll take SOCIALIZED medicine any day of the week! Because what we have right now is a steaming pile of crap that screws you no matter what. We are living in the United States of Bubba, because no matter what, whether you drop your soap or not, you get %$%#@!! up the ass.
So what exactly would the "free market" do for ME?
I mean, other than take all my money and then let me die as quickly as possible?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You only have to work two days to qualify for unemployment.
You can work full time for over a year and not qualify.
You can be disqualified for making over $4500 in three months. Thats 8.65/hr 40 hr/week
These are all true facts.
A truly civilized nation doesn't let one neighbor swipe money from other neighbors' wallets.
------------
So, a truly civilized nation allows one neighbor to die because he doesn't have "coverage"? A truly civilized nation allows his neighbor's children to starve?
Exactly what definition of "civilized" are you using?
I've never seen the "redneck's dictionary", but then again, that's probably because most rednecks are illiterate, as you have demonstrated.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I am quite happy to have a world with fewer programmers. The profession itself is evidence that computers are too complex.
Your parallel is amusing, but there is no outside force that necessarily requires you to use a computer (or need a tech). On the other hand, you may be imprisoned wrongly, be sued unjustly, or many other such things that require a lawyer.
Now granted, computer use is definitely becoming more prevalent in society, but the potential monetary and/or life-damaging consequences of not knowing how to use one pale in comparison to law.
Yes again, you could get screwed if you decide to do banking/gambling/etc online and don't take care of your PC, but none of those are a requirement at the moment. The closest thing I could think of would be having a computer hijacked and used for downloading illegal pr0n or some other such thing, but then we're back to the realm of law, and lawyers...
I don't know the specifics, but last time I checked the Canadian system did make allowances for getting a little side-income while on EI. Of course, it just ends up deducting from what you get in benefits. So you don't get screwed quite as badly (having benefits cut off entirely), but there's not much incentive to "do a little, get a little" in side work while trying to find a better job, best to just keep on that hunt for a real job.
One thing I seem to remember though is if you find another job that's significantly less pay than your last, you can get some supplemental income to even the difference...
This is why I keep personal and hobby web sites 100% non-commercial.
No, I will not work for your startup
Maybe it was business income?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
In MA, state income taxes must be filed with the Husbands SSN first on the taxes. My wife filed them once with her's first. Today, after 18 months and 3 corrective action forms, a dozen phone calls, 2 copies of my tax returns, 2 copies of the refund check they sent us, and a copy of the form they sent us to hit us for taxes on the refund - they sent me a letter saying that they will be happy to settle the unpaid back taxes for $1500.
I used to live in NY. Their unemployment at the time was based on a requirement that you not work for 5 days of a 7 day week. If you worked 3 days, you were not eligible for unemployment. They didn't ask how much money did you make, just did you make any. So getting $20 for shoveling the neighbors driveway was a full days work as far as their system is concerned. So I can certainly see them closing down someone who was making as little as $1 a day.
Fortunately, I now live & work in MA. They don't care how much you work, just how much you got paid. That works well when you're doing day work cheaply, you get to make 1/3 of your unemployment check without loosing any from the check. After that it's 1:1 loss from the check.
The bad part is that if your check goes to $0, they close your claim & make you reopen it - which takes 10-14 days. That doesn't work well when you're temping & working full time every 2-3 weeks. You spend 2-3 hours trying to reopen your claim each time.
I've been out of work for 11 months now. I'm dreading that form come tax time.
And yes, I've been in the same situation - even a 40hr junk job means I loose money at the end of the week. Why on earth would I spend 40hrs a week hating what I was doing when I could spend 2-3 hours a day looking for a job (takes that long to go through my temp agencies and the 5 or 6 websites I search) and make more?
What are you talking about? I was merely showing the two opposing viewpoints. I wasn't expressing personal opinion. Obviously, if there is a huge national debate about the issue, there are people who can see different sides of the coin. Hence the word confusion. Perhaps it was the incorrect word to use.
As far as your preconceived notions about me, I do not hang around Slashdot all day, I live in the country, and I've gone hunting far more times than you probably have(though I cannot prove it, as I do not know how often you go hunting, and you don't know how often I go hunting, and you are posting as an AC, so we will never know who goes more). No, I do not make Mennonite furniture(and since you called them mennonitish, I'm pretty sure you don't either). Cleaning your cannons? Give me a break. Calling your weapons cannons just makes you sound like a tool.
Next time you want to make claims about yourself(and accusations about others), don't post as anonymous. Be proud of who you are. Don't post as AC.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
Your simplistic view of how societies operate is quaint, and your 1:1 ratio of straw mans to sentences is impressive.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
...unfortunately, there are cases where lawyers do deliberately make legal language obfuscating. For instance a Harvard law professor who specializes in contracts could not make heads or tails of the contracts that credit card companies expect non-lawyers to sign. It is one thing to make a contract that the average joe off the streets can't understand, but you cannot make a contract that a Harvard law professor who teaches contracts cannot understand unless you are deliberately writing the contract so as to make it hard to understand.
Of course laws and contracts are not the same thing, but if it's happening in one, is it too much to assume that it might also be happening in the other?
If the Senate were forced to use that option, the quality of the care enjoyed by the least privileged citizen would rapidly improve, I believe...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?