Senator Atkinson: Plan to stop taxing the unemployed
Atkinson will re-introduce legislation to end taxation of the unemployedBy State Senator Jason Atkinon,
Salem – Senator Jason Atkinson (R-Central Point) will again introduce legislation in the 2010 legislative special session to eliminate the taxation of unemployment benefits. The bill is similar to a bill Atkinson introduced in 2009, which would give unemployed Oregonians their first $2,400 of unemployment benefits tax free. “Taxing someone who doesn’t have a job is like kicking them when they’re down,” said Atkinson. “Oregon continues to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Those looking for work don’t deserve to have their unemployment benefits taxed. The least government can do is wait until they can find a job.”
The legislation would follow the federal government’s lead and end taxation of an individual’s first $2,400 in unemployment compensation. Congress ended the taxation of initial unemployment benefits as part of the economic stimulus package past in February.
“Unemployed Oregonians need to know that someone is on their side,” said Aktinson. “If we really want to create jobs and get Oregonians back to work, we need to stop taxing their unemployment benefits.”
Currently, Oregon taxes the first $2,400 of unemployment compensation on a sliding scale, depending on an individual’s taxable income. Most Oregonians collecting unemployment compensation are taxed at the top rate of 9%.
# # #
“Unemployed Oregonians need to know that someone is on their side,” said Aktinson. “If we really want to create jobs and get Oregonians back to work, we need to stop taxing their unemployment benefits.”
Currently, Oregon taxes the first $2,400 of unemployment compensation on a sliding scale, depending on an individual’s taxable income. Most Oregonians collecting unemployment compensation are taxed at the top rate of 9%.
# # #
They get free money for 99 weeks.
Come on.
Thanks Sen. Atkinson
Way to go Senator Atkinson - You Rock!!!
Maybe you should run for something...like governor!?!
In the eighties unemployment was taxed only to those who made a specific amount of money during the year. Then only half of it was taxed. This saved those who really didn't have the money and did tax those who made more. Then the government decided, correctly so that unemployment was in lieu of wages. Then becoming 100% taxable.
When I was preparing returns in the eighties, it seemed to be fair. But then as we all know fairness is in the eye of the beholder.
Where exactly do you think this money comes from?
The money comes out of the Employers account. Employees DO NOT contribute towards UI!!!
C'mon David ask me what is "UI"
I understand your point, however! It's the same thing as those who think that Corporations pay taxes. Corps might write the check alright but in the end it's the consumer who pays.
Any time the Government mandates an expense to a company, it comes from somewhere, not directly deducted, but the more we have to pay the government, the less we have left for the employee.
Sadly, neither the government nor the employee realizes that.
I guess I have a bad attitude, I didn't give birth to my employees, I have nofurther obligation to support them than to pay them for the time they put in. Hopefully the time they put in gives me back return in labor.
I would submit that if Salem is saying they are going raise taxes on business that suffers a loss, but then end taxes on those who collect unemployment, they will be sending on hell of a message:
If you struggle to keep your business going through bad times rather go on unemployment, we will raise your taxes. If you give up, shut down your business and go on unemployment, we will give you a tax break.
In light of the current tax raises it would be hard to think of a less constructive message to come out of Salem should this pass.
The war on prosperity continues.
Further, every selective tax cut is a tool to steer policy. Usually, selective tax cuts in Oregon are for liberal causes like green jobs, environmental protection, etc. - causes that tend to have a net negative effect as they harm the overall economy. Here, this is a tax cut that is actually targeted at people in need, and the net result will mean helping people who might lose their homes or cars. That's GOOD for the economy.
Anyone opposing this idea has no claim to fiscal conservatism.