Drug Test for Unemployment Benies.

LadyJazzer wrote: We know Rick Scott will be upset... He owns a huge piece of the company doing the testing, and this will interfere with his kickback.

No he doesn't. To be accurate his wife now owns the controlling shares of the company "The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov- ... 50922.html

But it does look rather like there is a conflict of interest.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: We know Rick Scott will be upset... He owns a huge piece of the company doing the testing, and this will interfere with his kickback.

No he doesn't. To be accurate his wife now owns the controlling shares of the company "The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov- ... 50922.html

But it does look rather like there is a conflict of interest.

ahhhh....you are pretty good at understating the obvious..

Wow... You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice....

Like I said, we know Rick Scott will be upset... He owns a huge piece of the company doing the testing, and this will interfere with his kickback...(or the money in his wife's "trust"...)

LadyJazzer wrote: Wow... You can hear the surprise in *MY* voice....

I'm sorry. I was trying to agree with you. I guess I didn't do too good of a job.

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: We know Rick Scott will be upset... He owns a huge piece of the company doing the testing, and this will interfere with his kickback.

No he doesn't. To be accurate his wife now owns the controlling shares of the company "The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov- ... 50922.html

But it does look rather like there is a conflict of interest.

ahhhh....you are pretty good at understating the obvious..

You're right. I didn't mean to, I was just trying to be polite.

Unemployment benefits are insurance programs paid for by payroll taxes (at least in a perfect world). These benefits are dispersed through state agencies, but the money comes out of your paycheck. Why would anyone want to add red tape to being able to receive these benefits? These aren't government charity as almost everyone here has stated.

towermonkey wrote: Unemployment benefits are insurance programs paid for by payroll taxes (at least in a perfect world). These benefits are dispersed through state agencies, but the money comes out of your paycheck. Why would anyone want to add red tape to being able to receive these benefits? These aren't government charity as almost everyone here has stated.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I am so many times), but unemployment money (in Colorado) is a tax on the employer. The employee contributes nothing to the fund. "In Colorado, no deduction is made from the worker’s wages to finance UI benefits. The payment of UI benefits is supported by the collection of taxes from employers who are covered by the Colorado Employment Security Act." ( http://www.coworkforce.com/uib/claimant ... ndbook.asp ) In this case (Colorado) that tax would be a business expense eventually passed on to the consumer. And this seems to be the same in Florida, the state we are discussing here. "Employers who are obligated to pay Florida unemployment compensation tax (unemployment tax) must report and pay the tax each quarter, or as otherwise provided in the unemployment tax law. Employees do not pay any part of the tax. Employers cannot deduct or withhold unemployment tax contributions, interest, penalties, fines, or fees from the wages of their employees." ( http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/tips/tip1060bb-02.html ).

towermonkey wrote: Unemployment benefits are insurance programs paid for by payroll taxes (at least in a perfect world). These benefits are dispersed through state agencies, but the money comes out of your paycheck. Why would anyone want to add red tape to being able to receive these benefits? These aren't government charity as almost everyone here has stated.

They are "payroll" taxes, but they are paid by the employer, and not deducted from the employee's checks. But it IS an insurance program. When the unemployment payouts (like in a recession) exceed the amount in the fund, then Congress has to approve additional funds to cover what the insurance did not cover.

LadyJazzer wrote:

towermonkey wrote: Unemployment benefits are insurance programs paid for by payroll taxes (at least in a perfect world). These benefits are dispersed through state agencies, but the money comes out of your paycheck. Why would anyone want to add red tape to being able to receive these benefits? These aren't government charity as almost everyone here has stated.

They are "payroll" taxes, but they are paid by the employer, and not deducted from the employee's checks. But it IS an insurance program. When the unemployment payouts (like in a recession) exceed the amount in the fund, then Congress has to approve additional funds to cover what the insurance did not cover.

My mistake.

Whether or not it shows up as a deduction, it is classified as a payroll tax. My point was that it is not a government mandated charity as some here have classified it.