House Votes To Repeal Obamacare

[Catherine]

Catherine, it would have been a state agency that threatened to take your friends children. So that example really isn't pertinent to a discussion of whether a safety net should be at the state level, now is it? Now I go to an event that has 'radical self reliance' as one of its 10 principles. That said, community is very important to the event, as 'gifting' of oneself, ones resources, etc. is another principle. I do have a deep belief in doing for oneself. But then I also have a friend, who is coming to the end of the extended unemployment. He has savings. He's also middle aged, and spent his whole work life in an extremely specialized industry. He's actually gotten a few interviews, but has a stack of rejection letters from joBs he's applied for. No one wants him. He's considering trying his hand at playing pro poker because he perceives he has so few choices, the others being keep trying at jobs until he runs out of money and then putting his gun in his mouth, or just doing that before his money runs out. He believed that if one just worked hard & saved, you could have the 'American dream', and until about 18 months ago he thought he had that. Yeah, I know he's seriously depressed, and should get help. But hey, in October he can apply for MediCal, since he'll have no income at that point.

The worker threatened to send a state agency to her, yes. But the worker herself was with a federal program. This was a number of years ago and I do not recall the details (except that it was one of the triggering points for my turning from a "why won't the government do X" to "how do we get the government OUT of X" stance).

As for your friend -- very sad and all too common today. What you have left OUT of the picture, however, is the horrific burden that excess regulation and taxation has on employers (indeed, on all of us, in terms of being able to save for our own rainy days). Most of my business clients need new workers -- and cannot hire them. Too near the state mandate of 10 FTE's for health insurance requirement (and rates have skyrocketed here since the mandate, just like they are starting to do "out there" with the O'care regs going into effect this year); too much regulatory burden to prove a,b,c, and q; too many mandates for full-time so hiring part-time instead; too much this too much that too much the other. Insufficient cash flow to both pay employees within the state-mandated 7 days from end of pay period plus employer taxes. State UI rates are through the roof; one household employer pays close to 10%!! and so cannot give his nanny a raise she deserves -- the list goes on and on. We've all seen it with our business clients; tax and regulatory burden killing business, making it harder to hire (don't forget how hard it is to _fire_ the wrong person, too -- and the potential to be sued when someone claims it was for discrimination -- one client a couple years ago paid $10K-plus to lawyers to defend themselves from a state investigation into a baseless claim by a sluggard they fired for non-performance [i knew the guy; they kept him too long; he was a real loser making trouble and he made plenty of it]).

I myself will NOT hire help I desperately need as I cannot afford the time and money to comply with all the regulatory nonsense, especially for a seasonal or part-time hire. Got a twice-a-week kid from Accountemps this year (no his name was not Bob) and he was OK. Worked hard but clueless -- and this with a master's in accounting! Had to give him stuff my girls could handle in middle school. Gwen or Fiona I WOULD jump through those regulatory hoops for, in an instant; they're that good. But neither of them want to be accountants, doggone it.

[Guest Taxed]

Catherine, are you hiring tax preparers from Accountemps? I hope you did an interview, otherwise how did you end up with a partimer that even your kids could beat?

As I said before the whole idea of having employer sponsored health insurance is absurd! Why should an employer be spending their time and resources finding health coverage for their employees. Their time and effort should be spent growing their business.

The GOVT. should sponsor health care for all its citizens, just like local municipalities take care of essentials like trash pickup, schooling etc. Whether you like it or not eventually we will end up with a single payer system. It will happen in my lifetime!

[Catherine]

Catherine, are you hiring tax preparers from Accountemps? I hope you did an interview, otherwise how did you end up with a partimer that even your kids could beat?

As I said before the whole idea of having employer sponsored health insurance is absurd! Why should an employer be spending their time and resources finding health coverage for their employees. Their time and effort should be spent growing their business.

The GOVT. should sponsor health care for all its citizens, just like local municipalities take care of essentials like trash pickup, schooling etc. Whether you like it or not eventually we will end up with a single payer system. It will happen in my lifetime!

The kid I got supposedly worked for VITA while in school. Mainly I wanted him for document scanning, upload/download to/from Gruntworx, and collating of final pdf-printed returns (print to paper, duplex as I prefer, highlight places to sign 8879, make the CD with password-protected pdf's, etc. However, my girls grew up with a tax office in their house and know what needs to be done, how I prefer to do it, and more about what is and is not important for taxes than my MA-in-acctg temp. They also know better how to read a balance sheet and P&L. Gave my temp a P&L from a client and asked him, "what stands out to you as being a problem?" Both my girls saw it immediately (separately, and not in front of my temp); he had to be shown. What was the problem? --Expense account named "reconciliation discrepancies" with a balance of over $15,000. (This client's bookkeeper does NOT know how to reconcile credit card accounts, but she owns a piece of the business so they can't get rid of her.) So he was hired for document processing, NOT tax prep.

You are right about employer-sponsored health insurance. That issue is another government-caused problem! Back in the Depression, FDR instituted wage controls (thinking this would get companies to hire more people). So companies went looking for other ways to reward good employees and assuage the demands of unions; the fledgling health insurance industry was happy to help. So the _entire_ industry grew up around this employer-sponsored model. Thank you, FDR (not). The problems caused by government interference cannot be cured by further government interference!

You say "GOVT." like it is one monolith. First off, the federal government has NO jurisdiction here; that is one of the most-areas-affecting-people's-daily-lives places left to the states. We could run 50 experiments and see what works! Single payer -- G-d forbid!! Look at the statistics from countries with single-payer systems: woefully behind ours! Look at the SIZE of countries with the best single-payer systems: Germany's population is less than Texas; Denmark is about the size of Massachusetts... This is one area where the larger the bureaucracy, the WORSE the results. Ever tried to talk sense to a doctor's office that made a mistake billing? Not too horrifically bad. Ever tried to talk sense to a hospital's billing department? Better take your blood pressure meds first. Ever dealt with a state agency -- here in Mass there are plenty of horror stories. The problem is exponential depending on size of bureaucracy. If we get single-payer here, we'd all best plant medicinal herb gardens. There is a great book (written by a lifelong Democrat - and liberal in the now-common parlance) called "Catastrophic Care" by David Goldhill. I recommend it.

Was it you or someone else who asked what former Iron Curtain folks I had spoken with? --Regardless, the ones you need to speak to are the ones who risked their lives (that is NOT hyperbole) and abandoned everything they had to defect/escape. The ones who "merely" emigrated after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain are mostly too young to remember the horrors. I visited the USSR when it was the USSR - and was able to speak to people as I studied Russian for some years. NOT a place you would want to live; NOT a life of fear you would want to lead; NOT a country whose "free," "universal" health insurance was worth anything.

[Richcpaman]

They cannot "vote to demand the Senate pass a budget" -- the House has NO power over what the Senate does or does not do.

This statement is nonsense, proving only a lack of understanding of the Constitution on your part. Please look up the same resources linked for Taxed.

I agree the system is broken in many ways. A return to the Constitution would be a very good place to start fixing those broken areas. Study the document and see for yourself how powerful and how pertinent it is!

Catherine:

That is my point.

Both votes are pointless. Whether against Obamacare or the Senate. At least the one against the Senate would mean something, as it points out how embarrassing it is for the Senate has not performed in its most basic tasks for over four years.

And BTW, I understand the Constitution. Its states rather explicitly that each chamber in Congress is allowed to set its own rules of how to operate.

So, the House could vote to censure the Senate and vice versa all day and it doesn't make any difference to either side.

IT was meant to be in good humor. And they have voted 37 (!) times to repeal....

Rich

[Guest Taxed]

I think a legitimate debate should be the role of the Federal Govt? I think once we can agree as a nation what the role of Federal Govt should be then the rest can be tackled at a state level. Some states will go the way Catherine likes, and others may go completely different direction. BUT the important point is the citizens voted for that!

Just watching the devastation in Moore, OK I am thinking can OK deal with this disaster with just local and state resources?

Do the citizens of OK demand that the Feds help them?

All valid questions to debate.

[HV Ken]

"I can still draw unemployment for 22 weeks. Why should I work and only make $50/week more than my unemployment?"

In NY where I live, the unemployment system as currently implemented encourages people *NOT* to work. My understanding is that if someone after being involuntarily separated wants to start a business, if they just put one stamp on an envelope on one day that they could not put in for unemployment for that day. With a family to feed, does this person try to start a business with no assurance of any income, or claim unemployment? No brainer. So the choice is collect unemployment and look for a job so they can attempt to pay their bills on the whopping $405/week (maximum) and then start their business after unemployment runs out, or start their business with the possibility of not being able to pay their bills. Anything you earn reduces your available claim, and any effort you make eliminates your claim. I can understand in this scenario why people would choose not to work.

[HV Ken]

I was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting and the #1 reason why some employers can NOT fill open positions inspite of high unemployment is a lack of qualified people for the open positions. We need serious retraining of our people, especially those whose positions were eliminated and the type of work they did will most likely never come back.

This is not always the case. What I have observed is that employers are looking for an EXACT match. If there is someone with a comparable skill set, but lacks training on the company's one specific software system, they will not consider that candidate, even though it is very likely they could learn that system very quickly and become a productive member of the team in short order. There are plenty of skilled unemployed workers out there that are not getting hired for this reason.

[Gail in Virginia]

There are all kinds of reasons why people don't get a specific job they have applied for, but I think we all know of people who could get some job but as long as they can draw unemployment, they won't accept anything that pays less than they were making before, or doesn't have benefits, or involves some kind of work they don't want to do, etc.

I can understand that to a point but with unemployment benefits continually being extended some of these people will find that their skills are outdated by the time they finally have to accept a job and their earning power will be reduced. And the longer they stay on the unemployment rolls, the less attractive they are to potential employers. I don't think extended benefits to the point they have been extended really helps anyone.

We have tremendous unemployment in this area due to the closing of all of the furniture factories that used to be located in the US. I don't pretend to know what the answer to this problem is, but handing people a check to not work doesn't seem to be the answer.

[Guest Taxed]

This is not always the case. What I have observed is that employers are looking for an EXACT match. If there is someone with a comparable skill set, but lacks training on the company's one specific software system, they will not consider that candidate, even though it is very likely they could learn that system very quickly and become a productive member of the team in short order. There are plenty of skilled unemployed workers out there that are not getting hired for this reason.

As you and I both know the # of unemployed or underemployed is many 100 times more than the # of open positions.

I don't blame the employer if they are looking for an EXACT match for the position. That is their choice. If you were hiring for an open position in your office I am sure you would do the same. Why would you want to hire someone that sort of knows the job vs. one that knows it exactly and will get running on day 1 without re training.

That is why we need serious retraining of the unemployed folks whose skills may not be quite applicable to the jobs of today and tomorrow.

I have a client who was a chemical mixer in a paint factory. When that shop closed he lost his job, got unemployment but also signed up for retraining with the state workforce office. They paid the tuition to go to a tech community college and he got his plumber's license last year and is working now. BTW they also paid 50% of his family's health insurance premiums.

What do you think a 45 year old man with no marketable skills and a family to feed is going to do after benefit runs out??

[Jack from Ohio]

What do you think a 45 year old man with no marketable skills and a family to feed is going to do after benefit runs out??

My position is that the man should not have reached 45 without obtaining marketable skills or training. This country has far too many available options for people to make themselves marketable. Smart people develop multiple skill paths. This is part of personal responsibility. People depending upon a non-skilled job provided by the "company" to take care of them all their lives is also a great contributor to this condition. Society has fostered the idea that the "company" or the "government" should guarantee a living for people. This is wrong on so many fronts. Just look at Greece, France and Spain.

Personal responsibility is woven throughout the constitution and we need to get back to it.

[David1980]

As you and I both know the # of unemployed or underemployed is many 100 times more than the # of open positions.

I don't blame the employer if they are looking for an EXACT match for the position. That is their choice. If you were hiring for an open position in your office I am sure you would do the same. Why would you want to hire someone that sort of knows the job vs. one that knows it exactly and will get running on day 1 without re training.

That is why we need serious retraining of the unemployed folks whose skills may not be quite applicable to the jobs of today and tomorrow.

I have a client who was a chemical mixer in a paint factory. When that shop closed he lost his job, got unemployment but also signed up for retraining with the state workforce office. They paid the tuition to go to a tech community college and he got his plumber's license last year and is working now. BTW they also paid 50% of his family's health insurance premiums.

What do you think a 45 year old man with no marketable skills and a family to feed is going to do after benefit runs out??

I'm not sure retraining is really the answer. Obviously if we want the unemployed folks to get jobs we need them to have skills that employers want. But like you said, the # of unemployed can be 100s of the # of open positions. If it's 100 people unemployed for every position and we retrain all 100 of those people to qualify for the job, we now have 100 qualified people to fill 1 job.

[Guest Taxed]

The point is to have a re-training program when you are collecting unemployment so that you can develop some marketable skill that you can start earning a living again. Can we get 100% of unemployed re-trained, hell no. I think I said that in an earlier post. BUT a country can not sustain any economic growth if their workforce is behind!

The example of my client who is a plumber now and NOT collecting unemployment is the best example i can give where a job function that will never come back to my area was replaced by skill that is marketable. It saved a family and the man got his dignity back.

[joanmcq]

Well out here in CA, you can earn a percentage of your UI and still draw UI. Benefits are reduced after some piddling small amount; it was $68 for me. I've drawn UI twice while still working my biz, when I was a seasonal employee. Now there is an issue with taking a crappy job that pays less than your UI. If you're drawing max UI, you get $1800/month. Minimum wage gets you $1240/month gross, and if you lose that job, your UI could be reduced depending on when your highest quarters are for that claim. If you're already struggling, why chance it? And Catherine, I did hire a part-time seasonal employee, and she's still working for me when I have work. In fact, I'm looking for more bookkeeping work because she can do it, and I get better records at tax time, and she keeps making money, and I can make some too. Win/win/win. The benefits outweigh the hassle of payroll.

[Guest Taxed]

The unemployed drawing the max of $1800/month made way more than min wage when he was working. So I can see that person not wanting to take a min wage job and lose around $560/month.

But if there was re-training available and this unemployed persons skill set was not compatible with the job market a reasonable person would most likely opt for retraining if they knew that benefits would be cut off or reduced if they don't participate.

We have to figure out a way to lower the unemployment rate and get America working again. If this means that we start taxing a higher rate to corporations who park their profits overseas and give some tax credit or other incentive to corporations who bring their overseas profits back home and increase US worforce we should study that option.

[Jack from Ohio]

Limit unemployment to 26 weeks as it was first set up. A short term bridge. What happened to personal responsibility? When I was in my early 20s and starting my family, I worked 2 & 3 different jobs to make ends meet.

What is wrong with a person working 2 minimum wage jobs to take care of themselves and their family? We have become a nation of needy wimps.

Stop paying people not to work, and they will go to work. In the meantime, they can reduce their bloated lifestyle. (more personal responsibility) In our town, there are way too many "Help Wanted" signs for there to be any excuse.

[joanmcq]

Your town isn't my town. Every place is different.

[FLORIDA TAX MAN]

In the state of Florida the unemployment benefits are a whopping $ 275 and you are required to look for a job. Nobody is living a life of luxury on that.

There is fraud and waste in this country. All the people who have good jobs and make good money use this fact to resent giving money to social programs. As the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer and the social programs are eroded, this country will definately be a third world country.

Perhaps if we got off all these political scandals and do nothing Congress just to Stop Obama at all costs, and got back to the objective of JOB CREATION we'd all be better off.

That's the real scandal.... WHERE ARE THE JOBS ????

DO you see greeters at Wal-mart anymore ??

[FLORIDA TAX MAN]

I am trying to picture a country that Catherine would love to live in as a constitutional liberatarian.

Would you have any form of social security for folks who are retired?

Would you have some safety net for the famil whose bread winner just got laidoff?

Would you have any program to help sick families so that they do not go bankrupt paying medical bills?

Would every citizen be left to fend for themselves?

I know many liberatarians say, "Don't tell me what I can or can't do". I buy that arguement to a point. But in a civilized society if everybody took that approach don't you see the possibility of total chaos and anarchy? I like John Stossel but sometimes he goes overboard!

Finally politicians from both parties will take advantage of a social situation to further their politics. That is given and that is why I take what politicians say with a grain of salt!

A world where you can have your musket and fight indians over maize crops. A world with no government where everybody does their own thing. It's called Frontierland at DisneyWorld.

[Guest Taxed]

Limit unemployment to 26 weeks as it was first set up. A short term bridge. What happened to personal responsibility? When I was in my early 20s and starting my family, I worked 2 & 3 different jobs to make ends meet.

What is wrong with a person working 2 minimum wage jobs to take care of themselves and their family? We have become a nation of needy wimps.

Stop paying people not to work, and they will go to work. In the meantime, they can reduce their bloated lifestyle. (more personal responsibility) In our town, there are way too many "Help Wanted" signs for there to be any excuse.

Jack do you really believe that people collecting unemployment are living a bloated lifestyle? May be in your neck of the woods things are different. But for the rest of America it is a struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head.

Perhaps we will hear in the next election cycle from Republican candidates who believe unemployed Americans have a bloated lifestyle!

[David1980]

Taxed, would you not call that kind of spending a bloated lifestyle? There are many, many people in this country that don't save, or don't save nearly enough, that lead these bloated lifestyles and have lots of these things that I consider luxuries. So yeah, I'd say that many Americans live bloated lifestyles.

Well, with a population of 300+ million I'd expect there to be "many" people in this country with yearly vacations to luxurious resorts and locations, houses 6-8,000 sqft, new cars, new cars for kids, lots of electronics, etc... My guess is in percentages it's a pretty small minority that lives in these 6-8,000 sqft houses with new cars and vacations. You can't exactly afford that on the median income even if you put $0 into savings. Those that make large incomes and don't save and then end up on social welfare programs, yeah... that could and probably should be avoided. I don't think it's very typical of the unemployed though. My guess is your average unemployed person not only doesn't live in a 6-8,000 sqft house but never has in their life and never will.

[HV Ken]

Well, with a population of 300+ million I'd expect there to be "many" people in this country with yearly vacations to luxurious resorts and locations, houses 6-8,000 sqft, new cars, new cars for kids, lots of electronics, etc... My guess is in percentages it's a pretty small minority that lives in these 6-8,000 sqft houses with new cars and vacations. You can't exactly afford that on the median income even if you put $0 into savings. Those that make large incomes and don't save and then end up on social welfare programs, yeah... that could and probably should be avoided. I don't think it's very typical of the unemployed though. My guess is your average unemployed person not only doesn't live in a 6-8,000 sqft house but never has in their life and never will.

I think this is a clouded debate as it probably depends on where you live. Where I am, not far from NYC, there are many people with household incomes in six figures and don't have a penny in the bank, are maxed out on credit, living paycheck to paycheck. When these people get tapped in a layoff, they are done, as unemployment won't come close.

[Guest Taxed]

jklcpa the example that you gave probably applies to a minority of Americans who prefer to have that lifestyle. I was responding to Jack's comments related to bloated lifestyle of the uemployed.

Yes I do see what you see in my town also. I don't have a 6000 sq foot home or take luxury vacations. My vacations are limited to visiting the kids and family. I prefer to drive unless i get a deal on the airfare. I still don't have a smartphone and i do still have a few handmedowns when i was younger.

Keep in mind the whole capitalistic society is based on consumption. Without that high consumption it completely falls apart.

I am a firm believer that everyone should live within their means. I pay my credit card balances at the end of the month unless it is a big ticket item that was a necessity (like the Car needing a new transmission)!

I am not sympathetic at all to an unemployed person using the benefits to go on a vacation or buy unnecessary goods. It is for basic necessities and i seriously doubt that the average monthly benefit will allow them to sustain that lifestyle for long. If they want that lifestyle there is only one way.

[Jack from Ohio]

Well, with a population of 300+ million I'd expect there to be "many" people in this country with yearly vacations to luxurious resorts and locations, houses 6-8,000 sqft, new cars, new cars for kids, lots of electronics, etc... My guess is in percentages it's a pretty small minority that lives in these 6-8,000 sqft houses with new cars and vacations. You can't exactly afford that on the median income even if you put $0 into savings. Those that make large incomes and don't save and then end up on social welfare programs, yeah... that could and probably should be avoided. I don't think it's very typical of the unemployed though. My guess is your average unemployed person not only doesn't live in a 6-8,000 sqft house but never has in their life and never will.

All the unemployed and welfare recipients I have observed have most of or all of the following:

Big Flat Screen TV

Full Digital Cable TV or Satelite service

Multiple game systems for the kids.

Cars much newer than I drive

Average 3-5 pets.

Smart phones with digital service or I-Pad or I-Phone and/or digital readers.

Smoke cigarettes at least a pack a day and usually both adults

Lots of empty beer cans, wine bottes and liquor bottles.

Our church has been actively distributing food and relief baskets for over 10 years. This is the kind of thing we see when we bring "help" to the "needy" who are on a list provided by the local government assistance department.

If you have been on enemployment for 99 weeks, do not have a full time job, and have still have a lifestyle that requires $100K to support, you are showing TOTAL lack of personal responsibility.

My town of 13-15K residents is where I have observed this trend skyrocketing since 2009.

Too many of the current "needy due to unemployment" bought overpriced and oversized homes. Earned good money for many years and spent it all on lifestyle that were choices instead of necessities. Now when things get tight due to income reduction, they want all us who made wise and money smart decisions in our lives to bail them out.

I am not in any way referring to those who cannot provide for themselves. I support many things to help the truly needy and poor.

Example: Purchased my home (built in 1890) in 1997. When the housing market bottomed out, my house went down in value by 2%. I did not purchase an overpriced home, but a home with all the space and things that the 5 of us (wife and 3 kids) needed. Other homes in our town dropped as much as 40% in value.

Back to personal responsibility for each person's life, livelyhood and decisions. Personal responsibility and the desire to improve life for themselves and their family is what has made America Great. Sadly, we are seeing it rotted out from the inside by government programs that are poorly setup, usually not monitored, and run by bueauracrats that only want to keep their cusshy government jobs and do not care how the money is spent or abiding by the laws. (5th amendment plea by the IRS lady today)

[kcjenkins]

here is a link to that info on Galveston county, VERY INTERESTING. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514 Below is just part of it, I'd suggest you read the whole thing.

Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform

The current debate over Social Security reform is reminiscent of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when county workers were offered a retirement alternative to Social Security: At the time they reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

The Galveston Plan. In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.

Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.

Galveston officials held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Galveston County employees passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 - just in time.

The Galveston Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.

To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we have made some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make "hardship" withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option in January 2005.

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:

• Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [see the Figure.]
• Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
• Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
• Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
• Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

[mcb39]

My husband always worked two to three jobs when our boys were small. We didn't see much of him, but we had food and a roof. I never worked (out) until the kids were in Jr High. Now we each have our own business and I still work (out). I have collected a minimal amount of UC in my time, but Joan is correct that you can collect and still work part-time as long as you are available for full-time work. Your UC is affected accordingly.