Let see my former company pay into the unemployment state trust fund for 33 years repeat 33 years to cover me and even with extended unemployment benefits I question if my grand total sum of 250 dollars a week payments came anywhere near to the amount the company pay into that fund for three plus decades.
The tax rate for new employers is .0270 (2.7 percent). The first $7,000 in wages paid to each employee during a calendar year is taxable. Any amount over $7,000 for the year is excess wages and is not subject to tax. Excess wages can never be greater than gross wages.
Your Tax Rate
When a new employer becomes liable for the tax, the rate is .0270 (2.7 percent) and will stay that until the employer has reported for 10 quarters. The account will then be rated by dividing the total benefits charged to the account by the taxable payroll reported for the first 7 of the last 9 quarters immediately preceding the quarter for which the rate is effective.
The one exception would be employers liable by succession and who choose to accept the tax rate of the previous employer, along with the responsibility of paying any outstanding amounts due. At that time, a tax rate will be calculated using the employment record and the rating factors, which are built into the Unemployment Compensation Law.
The maximum tax rate allowed by law is .0540 (5.4 percent), except for employers participating in the Short Time Compensation Program. Rate notices are mailed to all contributing employers each year. You may appeal your tax rate within 20 days from the date of notification (date printed on Form UCT-20, Unemployment Compensation Tax Rate Notice).
The minimum and maximum tax rates effective January 1, 2011 are as follows (based on annual salary up to $7,000 per employee):
Minimum rate: 0.0103 or $72.10 per employee
Maximum rate: 0.0540 or $378 per employee
I doubt that's true, Bill.
Gold busts $1,800. Phew!!!
It's also true that a very large fraction of the frustrated demands for backup involve some trivial "gotcha" subset of the issue under discussion.
In other cases, the demands come from those (Cyclo prominently included) who only very rarely live up to the high standards they very loudly proclaim, and for whom the issue has become an enduring dodge to avoid undesired outcomes in the discussion.
Finally, a very large fraction of the citations offered as "proof" for assertions made on this forum come from obviously biased sources, yet that aspect of things usually goes unchallenged.
An equally relevant feature of the internet is its ability to fairly quickly satisfy the curiosity of anyone looking for facts.
What really should be the standard for references here? Where is the divide between readily accessible knowledge and a "requirement" for references?
Like others here, I have limited time for all this, and have no interest in responding to many such demands, patrticularly in cases where it appears to me they don't merit the effort.
Cyclo made a big deal out of my statement that the select Congressional committee was commissioned....