Replies

The amount that amount the employer paid is a pittance, we the people picked up the tab:

3. State unemployment tax
State governments administer unemployment services and determine the state unemployment tax rate for each employer. (Some not-for-profit organizations—such as churches without schools—may not be required to pay state unemployment taxes. You should check with your state unemployment office to learn the specifics for your organization.)

Generally, states require that the employers pay the entire unemployment tax. Often, employers that have built up a large reserve in the state’s unemployment fund will have lower unemployment tax rates; conversely, employers with a small reserve (or no reserve at all) will have higher unemployment tax rates.

The unemployment tax rate is often applied only to the first $7,000 of each employee’s annual salary and wages (this amount will differ from state to state). If we assume that an employer’s unemployment tax rate is 4% and that this is applied to the first $7,000 of annual salaries and wages, then the employer’s state unemployment tax cost will be a maximum of $280 per year for each employee ($7,000 × 4%).

To illustrate, let’s assume that a company has three employees. In 2011, Employee #1 earned $19,000, Employee #2 earned $40,000, and Employee #3 (who only recently joined the company) earned $4,000. If the 2011 state unemployment tax rate is 4%, the employer will pay a tax of $720 to the state government:
Employee #1 $7,000 × 4% = $280
Employee #2 $7,000 × 4% = $280
Employee #3 $4,000 × 4% = $160
Total for 2011 $720
Even though the state unemployment tax is based on employee salaries and wages, the entire tax is paid by the employer. There is no withholding from an employee’s salary or wages for the state unemployment tax.

The amount that amount the employer paid is a pittance, we the people picked up the tab:

Depending on state, your mileage will vary. Here in Illinois, the rate can go as high as 8.4% on $12,400, which is over $1,000.

I never meant to imply that the fund as is would cover 2 1/2 years, but given that the weekly payout is substantially less than a regular salary, after 25 years of continuous employment, at least the first 26 weeks were not "on the dole." If we took some number greater than $300, and less than $1,000, say $600/year, and that money were simply put in the Fortune 500 over the last 25 years, he would have probably had at least a year's salary by now.

There are enough people who abuse the system that I see no good coming from sneering at honest workers who are genuinely unable to find work because of a confluence of factors over which they have no control. This palooka happens to be in a withering industry, in an employer hostile state, with the whole country kept in recession as BHO, Geithner and Bernanke play bumper cars with the treasury.

There are a lot of people honestly looking for work, and only a few years ago had no reason to believe it would be this hard. Whatever this guy's problems with his politics, I don't consider him a leech, any more than I consider ML/NJ's grandmother a leech, of ML/NJ himself should he receive either Social Security or some expensive treatment under Medicare. This does not imply that I like these programs.