Is it sinful to receive "free" money when a job is available?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I would consider it a problem if one refuses to accept their job back just to keep collecting bigger unemployment check. Technically, this disqualifies them from being eligible to receive benefits. However, neither do I think people need to go out and get a job for minimum wage just because they technically can, just to get off unemployment either. If the benefits are obtained by legal means, then it is morally permissible to collect them.

Edit: This thread prompted me to go ahead and check out the rules in my state regarding refusing work during this pandemic. It appears that returning to work upon prompting is no longer a disqualification to receive benefits in my state if the job is not considered essential and the health risk is not worth it. That will be up to the opinion of EDD. I would have to change my position and concede that it is not necessarily sinful then. I would say it depends on why. Definitely not black and white anymore.

Makes little difference to me anyways. I am still working and making more then what unemployment would pay me and my wife is collecting unemployment only until she can back to work at her normal job, even though it is considered non essential. She is making more on unemployment but God has blessed us enough that we have no problem with her returning to work for her regular pay when her company offers her her job back .Thanks be to God. One less thing to worry about.
 
Last edited:
So with the current changes, job search suspended and extended unemployment benefits, technically your wife could go 6 months or more without returning to work if they call her back say in 3 weeks. She could simply say no thanks I will be back in 4 more months.

Do you see any moral issues if everyone simply did that.

Not picking on your wife, since you have already said she will go back when called, but using her scenario as the example.
 
farronwolf said:
I am beginning to understand the true nature of some americans. This is becoming more and more apparent as this crisis continues and the next round of free money starts to be doled out.

The fact that some feel as long as one isnt lying, the Church doesnt specifically address this single issue, and are technically following the law there is nothing immoral or sinful is what is most astonishing.
Click to expand...
Why don’t we look at the fact that there are many employers that pay wages and salaries that make going on the dole right now more profitable than working?
 
With the new unemployment numbers that’s quickly becoming less of a problem as it is largely low wage workers that are losing their jobs.
 
Last edited:
And a lot of businesses aren’t going to survive the coronavirus. Even if they survived the shut downs, consumer spending is going to be down for an extended period because of reduced income, unemployment and because many people are going to be going out a lot less as long as COVID is around. Many whole industries, like tourism, or event promotion, are going to be in the gutter for a while. That is not to mention that this is causing a global downturn, so even areas and nations that have not suffered as much disease will still be effected by a downturn in international commerce.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
goout:
It’s a sin against justice to take things that don’t belong to you or things that are not due to you…
Click to expand...
If the government determines a payment is due to you, whether it seems just or not, it does not belong to you and due to you.
Click to expand...
The government is not the ultimate arbiter of justice. If you are making that case, then you must admit that graft and corporate welfare are also just because the government is handing it out.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
goout:
It’s a sin against justice to take things that don’t belong to you or things that are not due to you…
Click to expand...
If the government determines a payment is due to you, whether it seems just or not, it does not belong to you and due to you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The government is not the ultimate arbiter of justice. If you are making that case, then you must admit that graft and corporate welfare are also just because the government is handing it out.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The issue is complicated by the fact that, whether or not you take the benefits, you will be paying the costs when inflation and/or taxes skyrocket. Are you morally obligated to shoulder the cost without taking a mitigating benefit? That’s a tough question. I’d argue no.
Click to expand...
 
Socrates92 said:
The issue is complicated by the fact that, whether or not you take the benefits, you will be paying the costs when inflation and/or taxes skyrocket. Are you morally obligated to shoulder the cost without taking a mitigating benefit? That’s a tough question. I’d argue no.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I took my stimulus payment.

I don’t need it. I would have preferred a targeted stimulus payment for the people who need it (unemployed, small business owners, etc.).

But I’m paying for it, just like all other taxpayers. It’s not like I’m getting something for nothing; I’m paying for it in taxes and/or through my share of the national debt.
 
farronwolf said:
Sorry but taking a cut in pay is in now way a 200% tax rate. It would be in most circumstance reduce ones tax rate.

The chart you reference show some people making 200% more than they were previously
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the distinction is you are making. It is an effective 200% tax on the money that you choose to earn, should you choose to earn instead of just collecting. (Roughly speaking - the marginal effects from moving up in the tax brackets isn’t really worth considering… the real effective rate might be closer to 180% - I’m too lazy to actually crunch the numbers - but the problem is the same)

If you’re trying to distinguish between a tax and a pay cut, I’d say that’s pure semantics. The financial effects and incentives are identical regardless what you call it.
 
Last edited:
signit said:
Exactly why I took my stimulus payment.

I don’t need it. I would have preferred a targeted stimulus payment for the people who need it (unemployed, small business owners, etc.).

But I’m paying for it, just like all other taxpayers. It’s not like I’m getting something for nothing; I’m paying for it in taxes and/or through my share of the national debt.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And frankly, you could simply redirect it in a targeted manner if you wished. I’d trust people like you to do that much more effectively than I’d trust the government to do it.
 
IMO pay more attention to the awful waste and possibly tragic misjudgment by legislators on what organizations stimulus payments are going to. Focusing on payment to individuals isn’t worthy of your time.
 
I am not seeing it that way.

The chart you posted shows that prior to the changes in unemployment benefits due to the stimulus, if you lived in those three states you could get 50% of your regular earnings by drawing unemployment. In Washington state it was all the way up to $40 per hour, you would draw the equivalent of 50% of your normal paycheck.

I will stick with Washington for this. At $40 per hour with the stimulus, you now draw about 90% of your pay, at roughly $30 per hour you will draw 100% of your pay, below that it increases all the way up to at $12 or so you are drawing 200% of your normal pay by drawing unemployment.

Taxes are fees assessed by gov entities for either working, owning property, driving a car, buying gas, whatever, and those fees/taxes are used for public benefit of some kind.

By going back to work and taking what is effectively a cut in pay in some instances, you are not being taxed. I am not saying there might not be a cost, but it certainly isn’t a tax. It might be semantics to you, but being in the tax business, to me it falls no where in the realm of taxes.

How long can the gov. afford to pay some people 200% of what they were making while employed in the market, and who is going to pay for those people to have the continued winfall? At some point there will be some taxes paid to cover this multi trillion dollar fiasco. So folks need to get ready.

They might need to set some of the winfall back because when they no longer have health insurance, or can’t find a job because they were replaced after refusing to go back to work, or other benefits are cut in the future, they might just need it.
 
signit said:
But I’m paying for it, just like all other taxpayers. It’s not like I’m getting something for nothing; I’m paying for it in taxes and/or through my share of the national debt.
Click to expand...
Well actually, until the gov. starts to pay down the debt, no one is paying for it. The last time any progress was made towards paying down the debt, Clinton was our President.

Before this spending spree, each persons portion of the debt calculated out to about 71,000 bucks, this will likely add another 18,000 to each persons portion. So when this is all done, I figure by the next year or so, every man, woman and child in the US will owe about 100k.

Our great grand children will be saddled with all of this, or the US will be bankrupt, and folks will really find out what a depression is. Greece won’t have anything on us.
 
farronwolf said:
By going back to work and taking what is effectively a cut in pay in some instances, you are not being taxed. I am not saying there might not be a cost, but it certainly isn’t a tax. It might be semantics to you, but being in the tax business, to me it falls no where in the realm of taxes.
Click to expand...
Not in the strict, specific, legal sense, no. In the general, economic sense it most definitely is a tax. Hence my qualifier “effective” (tax rate). Whether or not some government department or tax professional chooses to call it that isn’t very relevant to the actual economic effects.
 
farronwolf said:
Well actually, until the gov. starts to pay down the debt, no one is paying for it. The last time any progress was made towards paying down the debt, Clinton was our President.
Click to expand...
One word: inflation. It’s just a myth of MMT that you can simply print and spend without anyone actually footing the bill.
 
Last edited:
So, let me get this straight.

It is perfectly acceptable to someone to keep drawing unemployment instead of returning to work so they aren’t assessed a 200% tax because unemployment is paying more.

This wonder money that is perfectly acceptable to be doled out to folks whether they need it or not, will soon be about 30% of the GDP for our country, and now we are supposed to worried about inflation which might result, but not worried about getting back to the real economy.

But if you don’t take the money, you shouldn’t be obligated to shoulder the cost. Is this the cost of inflation, increased taxes or what. Who do I contact to let them know I don’t need to help pay for all this stuff. Address, email, phone number would all be helpful.

Humm, somehow this makes little sense to me.

Seems that getting back to a real economy by requiring people who can go back to their jobs and stop the bleeding of the deficit would be the correct answer both morally now, and in the future to lessen the burden economically.

Remember the commercial, Pay me now or pay me later. Seems some prefer the pay me later plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top