You're watching...
Heritage Foundation Labor Economist James Sherk on why there should be a cap on the unemployment benefits wealthier Americans receive.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
July comes unemployment benefits.
Salary cap on who is entitled to collapse.
A new report from the congressional research service -- now isn't millionaire has collected unemployment checks during the recession nearly one.
Million households -- earning more than a hundred grand a year did as well now some in congress want -- -- and say.
Direct but here to disagree and me is senior policy analyst.
Economics I think -- foundation -- shirk James thanks much for joining us sew so make your argument why didn't we should cut these folks off.
-- be unemployment insurance system is designed as an insurance system.
But the premiums only -- six months of benefits.
During the recession but congress has extended the benefits it was up to two years now it's down to a year and a half what the benefits.
But -- the workers are still only paying premiums -- -- for six months of benefits.
Everything -- that's just charity it's not entitlement.
So that's houses on the -- that has nothing to do with the wealthier people who are the higher salaried people who paid into it and then.
I -- getting the benefits on the other -- I mean that's Congress's problem.
Well of course and it's a a problem congress greater -- it's a problem congress should fix.
I mean it's it's one thing to say that tell you collect benefits are paid for but why should -- millionaires -- collecting benefits they didn't pay for.
Well see US senate USA they can only collected for the time period that they had paid in four and then nothing beyond -- -- -- you would set a date how exactly would you work it.
Well that's the way the unemployment insurance system works normally -- only got six months' worth the benefits.
And the unemployment insurance taxes that you come at a -- -- paychecks.
Go towards providing benefits for you for up to six months.
Boat what's happened it's been a horrible economy or war or recession the question so when the ground after six months that I mean why is it fair for someone not for others.
What -- it's been a -- congress has made it's it's a humanitarian choice you can.
Where there's a there's pluses and minus ebitda on the -- the downside do a year and a half worth the benefits does cause people to stay unemployed longer on the the plus side it.
It is help to people who -- a different situation.
But he got to say are great if we're gonna have this policy it should only be targeted to those in a difficult situation.
You've got -- it might not a difficult situation I mean if you're making a 100000 dollars a year you own -- house you're paying a mortgage you feed your kids you -- -- You have your monthly expenses you lose your -- because of the economy.
I mean what are you gonna stop paying as a result why -- these people in any less of an unfortunate situation.
Then someone else who makes less but maybe they have you know fixed cost per month that are also lower than the person who makes a 100000 a year mean.
Both cases are kind of in dire straits.
Well I think it's a different level dire -- -- -- -- -- charity and it it ought to go to those who.
Yeah it is not charities they -- -- -- people who need it.
It was nice here and do it if it's a gift from the government which is what this extended benefits are you know in his -- premiums expecting a year and a half for the benefits.
No -- sexes were based on that assumption.
And no one is entitled to receive these benefits -- -- he's got an income that's twice or more that of the average household income in the US I think it's pretty reasonable to say are right.
You at a time when we're running a trillion dollar deficit.
We're not gonna spend federal funds to subsidize.
If you couples making over a 100000 dollars and hear that question question -- have charity for anyone in that case I -- I I wonder who is the government official that decides at what point do we draw the line and -- this person deserves it even though they didn't pay it into it.
At that level beyond that date and this next very first person does not deserve and that's where the -- -- -- I mean I have the problem with with someone in Washington making that decision for family.
Well of course that's -- the problem government intervention is that it's it's very -- it's very broad view government.
Doesn't do we're very good job apparently many thing where Bob Lutz but they -- this embodied you've got to grow on somewhere and say look what we're in a horrible fiscal situation.
We've got to make cutbacks and do you like eight I can imagine you've got a two income you can a couple of doctor a lawyer.
And the war loses his job.
Well -- still family what they Essex -- her income there.
Why should we be taxing all Americans to send them -- of -- yeah science I don't know.
You know one group of Americans and another James thanks for coming -- for -- debate we appreciate your time very valid point India.
You're welcome.
