Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

2,362 Millionaires Received Unemployment

August 15, 2012 by  

2,362 Millionaires Received Unemployment
PHOTOS.COM
On average, millionaires received $8,806 in unemployment in 2009.

A report released by the Congressional Research Service reveals that 2,362 millionaires received unemployment benefits in 2009. In total, the unemployed millionaires collected more than $20 million in benefits. The report came out Aug. 2 and is based on data made available by the Internal Revenue Service.

According to the report, 2,840 millionaires received unemployment benefits in 2008. That number decreased to 2,632 in 2009. Although the number of millionaires receiving benefits decreased in 2009, the overall amount they received increased. In 2008, the government spent $18.6 million taking care of millionaires. In 2009, the amount rose to $20.8 million.

On average, millionaires received $8,806 in unemployment benefits in 2009.

The report also uncovered that 120,227 people who made between $200,000 and $500,000 received unemployment benefits.

The Congressional Research Service observes, “the DOL [Department of Labor] requires that states pay compensation for unemployment to all eligible beneficiaries regardless of their income level because individual or household income would not be considered to impact the fact or cause of unemployment.”

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “2,362 Millionaires Received Unemployment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    I AGREE WITH Department of Labor – EVERYONE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

    • Gordon

      Isn’t it amazing that as long as somebody is doing better than you (HAVES) or has more than you (HAVE LESS), most people expect that there should be some entity telling those HAVES how to run their lives or take their money away from them. They live their lives doing what they can and making the money they can, and nobody has any right to dictate their life style or demand that they pay increased taxes. If they are stupid enough to waste all their cash, that is their life. This is nothing but class warfare.

  • Kinetic1

    We have known for some time that, due to the idea that it would be “unfair” not to pay those who paid into Unemployment that some who were not truly in need would receive payments. It’s no different than those millionaires over 65 who collect Social Security. As long as you don’t receive “income” your fine, and if anyone knows how to have plenty of money but no income, it’s the wealthy! We could pass new rules that prohibit those with holdings over a set amount from collecting on unemployment, SS and MediCare, but that’s the sort of suggestion that starts the FOX talking heads babbling on and on about “class envy”

    It is conceivable that someone can be worth a million dollars and still need help. Many homeowners in states like California have seen their family home’s value increase to levels their parents or grand parents never imagined when they purchased them in the 50s, but selling that “million dollar” 3 bed bungalow is not the answer when, even then you can’t afford to “buy down” without moving to another state. And then there are the farmers who’s family land is worth millions, but other members of the family depend on that land for their living.

    The system needs some work, but not as much as the men and women who, despite their good fortune demand “what is coming to them.” Programs like unemployment and social security were meant to be safety nets for those less fortunate, for despite the often bitter claims of many on this site, hard work and perseverance do not guarantee success. Those who have benefitted the most from the opportunities this nation offers should be ashamed of taking advantage of these programs. Yes, they did put money in and have the right to demand their share in return, but it is, in part that sense of greed, of placing money above all else that will return this nation to the levels of disparity between the haves and have-nots that we have fought so hard to overcome.

    “To do more for the world than the world does for you – that is success.”
    Henry Ford

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Kinetic1,”

      IF UNEMPLOYMENT AND Social Security ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SAFETY NETS FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE, WHO WILL DETERMINE WHO THE LESS FORTUNATE ARE? IT SEEMS YOU WANT TO PUNISH PEOPLE WHO SHOWED INITIATIVE IN THEIR LIVES AND OBTAINED SOMETHING – WHICH ALSO INCLUDES INHERITANCE.

      IF PEOPLE COULD “GET PAST” JEALOUSY, THEY MAY WOULD FIND THEIR OWN SUCCESS.

      • Kinetic1

        CAH,
        “PEOPLE WHO SHOWED INITIATIVE IN THEIR LIVES AND OBTAINED SOMETHING – WHICH ALSO INCLUDES INHERITANCE.”
        I will be kind and assume that you mean to say that those who left something to their children should not be punished for doing so. If, on the other hand you are suggesting that those who inherit their fortunes “SHOWED INITIATIVE IN THEIR LIVES AND OBTAINED SOMETHING”, well that’s just ludicrous.

        As far as who will determine the definition of “less fortunate”, we do so already when determining who will and won’t receive welfare. It would not be that hard to draw a line. As it is Social Security is only collected on the first $94,000 you earn. If we can determine a cap for deductions, why can’t we determine a cap for payout?

        The point here is that those who have done well enough to retire with millions in the bank are unlikely to need unemployment benefits. At a time like this when our nation is struggling and so many are unemployed it is un-Christian and unpatriotic to take advantage of a system for which you have not the need. As I noted, there are certainly exceptions, and since this article fails to provide details on the “2,362 millionaires” I can not begin to say how many may have had a reasonable need, but it’s doubtful that they were all in that category.

      • Robert Smith

        Inheritances?

        Yup, they were born.

        Sheesh, and then the extreme right denies health benefits to the born too.

        Is that justice?

        Rob

      • Cliffystones

        And as for ‘Inheritance” that money and property was already taxed. If i have to choose between giving it to the damn gubmint or destroying it I’ll choose the latter. I don’t want rich peoples’s money. Let them dispose of it as they please after they pass on. This silly class envy nonsense has to be stopped once and for all!

      • Liberty4Me

        Kinetic1,
        There is a cap in the payout of Unemployment. The article even states “On average, millionaires received $8,806 in unemployment benefits in 2009.” That is $733 a month, not millions. And even millionaires have expenses, debts and such that continue even after they become unemployed.
        First, if millionaires should not receive unemployment, then they should not be required to pay into it. If millionaires are not to receive social security, then they should not be required to pay into it.
        Second, now that they have paid, their life does not stop once unemployed. Would you rather a millionaire have his house put in foreclosure, care repossessed, be forced to file bankruptcy? None of that helps the economy and eventually costs more than giving a small stipend of unemployment.
        Third, anytime one states “those rich should not receive a benefit” is nothing more than class envy. I am not rich but I am not jealous of them. I do not hate them. In fact, I admire them all as long they received their bounty in a legal manner and as long as the opportunity is there for all to climb to such heights.

    • Cliffystones

      Allow me to give you an example of a flaw in your logic. About 20 years ago I worked in a hospital in maintenance. Some fellow employees and I were having lunch and discussing our new 401k plans. We were excited at our new ability to put some money away before taxes for retirement.

      One of the guys there was a pharmacist. he made more money than two of us maintenance people combined. When we asked him which funds he though he would invest in he commented that he couldn’t afford to invest. ??? Not even $20 a week?

      Flash-forward to the present. I’m ready to retire now. I’ve saved a little from every paycheck since the 1970′s and now I’m a “millionaire” on paper. So because I’ve saved, I should get stiffed out of my Social Security, unemployment, etc? While the aforementioned clown buys jet skis, motorhomes, vacations in Vail and Bermuda. Or just generically pi$$es away his money as soon as he gets his check? And in doing so, he’s now eligible for HIS money HE paid into the system, while I’m eligible for a big, unlubricated shaft?

      Is this the system you prefer?

    • Caroline

      Kinetic1 says (“Yes, they did put money in and have the right to demand their share in return.”) To Kinetic1 and all others who are not “employers,” employees do not pay into unemployment — the employer (i.e. business owner) foots the bill for that. Therefore, no one is “entitled” to that money. The money is paid by the employer as unemployment tax. As business owners, we pay this tax quarterly. However over the past few years, with higher unemployment benefits being paid out by the government, we are now taxed a “supplemental unemployment tax” to make up the difference (i.e. the government is under-funded in unemployment, just like they are in social security).

      • Kinetic1

        Caroline,
        Yes, the employer pays unemployment tax, but it some states it is a matching payment that the employee also has deducted from their pay. Either way, most employers take this into account as part of the cost and compensation of each employee. This sort of “hidden tax” has been brought to the forefront by many employers who now present each employee with a “total compensation” report each year, allowing the employee to see what their real cost is to their employer.

  • G. Edward Roberts

    I do not buy the “safety net” theory… these people as part of their work had unemployment costed into their employment… they did not get that in their paychecks… so theoretically this is due them… as long as the system can be shown to be fair… these people should get back out of the system… what was put in for them… and no more…

    • jim carmain

      Unemployment insurance is paid for by the employer,it is not paid for like social security benefits, that are deducted from an employees’ check. For example,i was in construction,when I bid a project & I had an estimation of my labor costs,I would use a per centage figure times the labor costs,this was known then as payroll taxes&insurance,which covered the costs of doing the payroll,filing the taxes,writing the checks,paying the bookkeeper,etc. In 1971 the % was 27,about 8 years ago I spoke to a contractor & they were using 54%,as for the past 4 years all the benefits paid,the contractor was only responsible for the first 26 weeks,the government & the state paid for the rest of the benefits,the state paying for the last 20 weeks of the extended benefits & the employee had to do a job search,whether he/she was union or non union. I have talked with several construction workers in the past few weeks,whose benefits were cut off,even tho they still had money on their accounts for the extended benefits.

  • eddie47d

    Great comments Kinetic and you did explore several angles. Many folks lose their jobs and homes and have to move downward. Some even become homeless so I’m not sure if the wealthy can’t adjust the way they live and move into a less expensive home instead of trying to maintain their status on the taxpayer dime. I’ve had to sell and move into a less costly home and have had to dip into savings to make the monthly budget. It all depend in what those millionaires are willing to give up and what they truly need.

  • dan

    i divide it between need and greed….but so long as we use insurance against destitution
    like a retirement plan that one is entitled to , I can’t see things getting better. It should follow the same guide lines as disability….although that too is occasionally misused.

  • Frederick

    The article is evidences the perpetual divide between the so called rich and the so called poor. Now rich and poor do exist and the use of each category for partisan political gain also exists. But no one is helped by class warfare.

    • Kinetic1

      Frederick,
      Much of what is now called “class warfare” used to be known as “morals.” There was a time when the affluent class was taught that they had a responsibility to those less fortunate. We can’t all be in the top .5% of earners (or top 10% based on total wealth) and those who were fortunate enough to achieve or inherit their wealth were taught the importance of humility and giving. In today’s world of failing CEOs with golden parachutes it seems to be all about “I got mine.” When a CEO fires 1/3 of a companies’ staff in December to improve the books and kick in his bonus, then sinks the company, leaving in disgrace with a $10,000,000 bonus, the indignation of the people is not class envy, but justifiable disgust with the greed justified in today’s business world.

  • http://Yahoo.com Bill

    If you have no desire to work or you’re stupid, the federal government has a job fr you.

  • JuanRA

    I was listening in the radio this morning that based on international standards, even the poor in America are extremely affluent.
    Obama has stated he will tax the rich. He is going to make more taxes for all in the US soil. Unless we stop him.

    • Kinetic1

      JuanRA,
      What do you base your accusations on? Yes, most of us have know for some time that, in the large scheme of things Americans are very well off. This does not, however factor in to what President Obama has said about taxing the rich. If you were paying attention you would know that these statements relate to extending the Bush tax cuts. The Republican’s want the cuts extended for all Americans and the President believes that those making above $250,000 can afford to foot more of the nation’s burden. Agree or not, it’s clear where the line has been drawn and it has nothing to do with our affluence as it relates to other nations.

  • Doc Sarvis

    I’ll bet you this is why Romney does not want to release those tax records, he must have collected unemployment in ’08 and or ’09.

    • eddie47d

      Just read where Ryan was involved in Insider trading on Sept. 18th 2008. That is the same day the bailout was announced. He is of coarse denying it although he sold much stock that day and purchased stock in Goldman Sacs. He attended a meeting by Henry Paulson along with several other political figures in Washington on that day. Coincidence or not it rather smells and a few other Congress persons did the same. That includes Democrats and Republicans who on average benefit by 12% from early news from Wall Street. That is all the time and that is much better returns than even those who work on Wall Street (5%). That means there are several Washington officials using Insider Trading to gain their wealth. Since Ryan held a fairly prestigious position while abusing the system it speaks volumes in how he will conduct business if elected. “Do as I say not as I do”. .

    • Jimmy E

      want to bet ? %$#@ %$&@

      • Doc Sarvis

        I doubt we will ever get proof.

  • sabulaman

    I’ve had unemployment insurance paid in on me for 30 years, and never drawn a dime of it. If I lost my job tomorrow, you can bet your ass I’ll draw a check. If most people add up all of their assets, it’s not hard to reach a millfor many of them. This article is nonsense.

    • Doc Sarvis

      You stated; “If most people add up all of their assets, it’s not hard to reach a millfor many of them.”

      Wow! Seriously? You are out of touch with most of America.

  • s c

    For those in the crowd who think you can make your ‘party’ or your W H ‘God’ look good, please have the integrity to realize that ‘Democrats’ AND ‘Republicans’ made this insanity possible. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re rich and you think you “need” unemployment – or whatever else Uncle Scam pretends to hand out – kindly remember that you’re RICH and you’re a posing piece of crap to be ‘in need’ of such “help.” You need unemployment like you need Social Insecurity – airhead.

  • Amused.

    It’s insurance. It’s part of your compensation. Are you saying that if the rich have an auto accident, they shouldn’t claim their insurance benefits because they can afford to pay for repairs out of pocket? Having worked for a corporation where at times the whims of the “leadership” led to unemployment across the spectrum of earnings, I have less concern about paying benefits to people in the $200-$300K range than the massive golden parachutes to CEO’s that f’ up companies then take millions to go away quietly.

  • Ms. PAZ

    The wealthy are wealthy because they take care of their money, minding the dollars AND the cents. Unemployment is paid to those who have recently WORKED for earned income (wages or salary), but are no longer employed.
    It is well known that the high dollar Hollywood mega stars are instructed by their union to file for unemployment benefits when they have no work.

    to Doc Sarvis, Past candidates for POTUS have released 2 years of tax information as per the requirement. There is no reason that Mitt Romney should release any more than the established standard.
    Yes, more years for some candidates are available due to prior election bids or service to the USA in another capacity that required such disclosure.

  • 45caliber

    As I understand it, you get paid unemployment if you lose your job. BUT … you can only collect from your latest employer. It requires working for at least 6 more months before you are elgible to draw unemployment again.

    So – my quetion is – are these millionares claiming it the same ones from one year to the next? Or are they new ones? If they are the same, how are they elgible to draw it?

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MAN ANGRY, TALK ABOUT MONEY.

  • Taxpayer.. 2012

    I’ve Collect unemployment checks,and I have a net worth of three million,two hundred and fifty thousand!!!I paid my share of taxes(fair)So why coudn’t I?

  • Pingback: Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service. « Family Survival Protocol

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.