Blogger Loses Unemployment Check Because of Ads 554
Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate, unemployed New York lawyer recently had her unemployment benefits greatly reduced because of the incredible $1/day she was earning via ads on her blog. "The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' — during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely. She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75)."
An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slow news day (Score:4, Insightful)
Der. (Score:3, Insightful)
i mean what is unemployment if you are recieving money.
It's underemployment, der.
Is it really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends. I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."
Re:Slow news day (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying that you should be denied unemployment for fixing a friend's or family member's PCs on the side? Any hobby that happens to break even or make a small net profit? How about charity work? After all you *could* be getting paid for it, right?
Re:well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (Score:5, Insightful)
You're unemployed. A friend gives you $20 to help move some furniture. You've now received money and are no longer unemployed.
Yeah...that makes sense...
Well, all are illegal... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job. If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?
Looks like she should have kept adsense up (Score:5, Insightful)
now that her story is getting some wide coverage.
An Unemployed... Lawyer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.
I do wish her well, though...
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm getting a New York lawyer, I'm getting a New York Country Lawyer
So, if I make a billion cents, I don't pay taxes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cool! Let me move my supermarket headquarter over there.
First rule of business. Pennies add up.
Re:Horay government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding?? I'm a lawyer in NY, and the job market here is bad to the point of ridiculousness. Any open position will have hundreds of applicants, and the worst thing is it's probably never going to recover. Too many law schools, too many ignorant law school applicants, and too many law school administrators who are the only ones who benefit from the lawyer explosion.
...imagine them in charge of your HMO (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the sort of nonsense that drives the American distrust of beaurocrats.
The plans of well meaning liberal Senators will eventually have to be implemented
by civil servants with varying degrees of competence and empathy that have no
interest in being effective or efficient and infact will be rewarded by being as
inefficient as they can and growing their own personal fiefdom.
This is best captured by the "spend your budget this year or lose it next year" approach to money.
Re:So the big question is: (Score:3, Insightful)
The part where it could be Buffalo or Uttica. ...I guess all of that noise about the rest of the state being pissed off
that Hillary's Senate opponent wasn't aware of the rest of the state
actually has some merit to it. [snicker]
Re:The state is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.
Unemployment benefits are for people who are... unemployed.
That she has some income shouldn't prevent benefits, especially when that income is next to nothing. She was averaging $30 a month, that's not exactly making ends-meet. Stripping her benefits for such a low sum would be akin to stripping unemployment benefits because someone bought you lunch.
I would feel differently if she were running a blog as a business, or if that blog brought in more money than unemployment would bring in. If you have already determined that there is a minimum amount of money a person should recieve while looking for another job, any supplimental income should simply reduce the benefits by whatever the supplimental income is, untill the difference is negative - i.e. making more money with the suppliment than full unemployment would give. Then it is simply re-classified as the primary income and you are considered self-employed.
To look at it another way, do they strip your unemployment because you're earning 2% in a savings account? I should hope not. That's what this is closer to. Either way, she was still unemployed, not even self-employed. She paid for the unemployment insurance, she should be able to collect it when she is unemployed.
I hope she puts ad-sense back up before she is slashdotted, that could make up for a lot of the shit NYC is pulling here.
Re:The state is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?
Don't be such a dumbass. All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment. The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed. So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.
So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find. If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.
But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing. Don't defend a broken system. They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.
Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (Score:3, Insightful)
H&R Block employs housewives and other part-time workers to fill out tax forms. They go through a brief training period, something like 4 weeks at their own expense. They are then "qualified" to work in an H&R Block office preparing tax returns.
If using H&R Block has only cost you $600, you are lucky indeed unless your income is less than maybe $30,000. Anything more than that, especially with anything that is even remotely complicated - like multiple states, rental property, etc. you are playing with fire trusting H&R Block.
A real tax preparer would be paying the $600 in fines if they screwed up. A real tax preparer wouldn't have made the mistake in the first place. It does not require a CPA to fill out tax forms as CPA is something entirely different. You need someone that is good at tax preparation. Often these people are also a CPA but being a CPA doesn't mean they know anything about taxes.
Every year you are required to pay tribute to the government and doing it improperly can result in jail time. Do you really want to trust that to some part-time worker that managed to pay the fee to take the H&R Block class?
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer here should be obvious.
She should start a blog about her legal troubles and put google adsense on it.
By the time enough people read the blog and contact the legislature to fix this ridiculous problem, she won't need the unemployment benefits.
Re:well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (Score:5, Insightful)
So all we have to do is give everyone in the country $1/day and voila: 100% employment rate!
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.
If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.
Re:Slow news day (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you should be denied some unemployment for fixing a friends PC on the side. Remember, its your obligation to report taxable income. however, having it completely remove all of your unemployment is silly, this lady the article is about, was being honest, and it backfired on her. But yes, you should certainly claim that income. If you start doing more and more repair work, at what point do you think that you should start reporting the income?
Hell man, the IRS has regulations in place to pay taxes on the value of things you have stolen, since that is income to you!
Re:Is it really? (Score:1, Insightful)
We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job, throwing money at it hasn't done a thing to fix it, except create a monstrous debt.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Earn a dollar a day off blog ads, and the government objects, confused and stupid while it "investigates"?
They only see "employer" giving cash, and "employee" receiving it. What's that old saying, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Same reason the same people choke over volunteerism from time to time as violating labor wage laws.
A friend of mine in NYC was in a similar situation (Score:2, Insightful)
A friend of mine was laid off several weeks ago and he was supposed to start teaching a small class at a local university in NYC just as a lecturer making a nominal amount per week for 2-3 hours of work (perhaps 100-200 or so / week, spread over two days).
Since NYS unemployment law counts a partial day of work as a full day, regardless of how much money it is, he had to withdraw from teaching the course because his loss in unemployment benefits greatly exceeded his income as a lecturer.
You just have to love incentive misalignment -- it's a government specialty.
Re:The state is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Microtransactions aren't really included in that model.
Says who? This is where our dated laws really show. Income is income and until we start looking at changing the law to better match what the population thinks is income, we're at a stalemate on the issue. I think this just highlights the lack of change that is going on in our country (US), I can't speak for anyone else.
Re:The state is correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I know three lawyers off the top of my head: one charges $250/hour in Denver, another $130/hour near Denver, the other $400/hour in Houston.
When you have a job where the work is sporadic but you make a lot *per hour*, it's just the nature of the beast that you're supposed to be fucking *saving* for the predictable dry spells.
Another example of this phenonemon is stage hands in Hollywood who make a lot per hour on each film, but (predicably!) work only a fraction of the year, and get to claim unemployment insurance based on high per-hour earnings over that time between productions. Complete abuse of the system.
A divorce lawyer should know all the ins and outs of patent law then?
Not *immediately*, no, but they're more familiar with how to navigate statutes to find out what is and isn't legal, easier access to such databases, etc., where the common man has to get accustomed to the task first. You know, that's what law school is fucking for.
Re:Well, all are illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job. If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?
Maybe?
If I get fired from a minimum-wage 40 hour/week job, I'm out roughly $300/week.
If I can make $100/week selling Avon, or veggies at the farmer's market, or as a musician - I'm still not even making minimum wage.
I guess I'm not sure what the laws are regarding unemployment... It is entirely possible that any income at all is considered employment... But that hardly makes it right or sensible.
Seems to me that if the government considers roughly $300/week to be the minimum wage... Then anything less than $300/week should be considered some kind of unemployment. Or underemployment, if you'd prefer.
Regardless, it isn't enough money to live off of.
If you want to cut off the unemployment check because they're technically employed, that's fine... But if that crappy Avon income is all they've got, they're going to wind up on some other government benefit before too long - food stamps, or HUD, or something. Because that's just not enough money to live off of.
Of course, if you're making $1,000/week from Avon then there's absolutely no reason you should be getting unemployment of any kind... But that doesn't seem to be the case in this particular instance.
Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I call bullshit.
1) Florida has no income tax.
2) From the H&R block website: "With the H&R Block Guarantee included in every tax return, if penalty and interest charges are owed due to H&R Block's error, those penalties and interest on federal, state and local returns are paid. If the IRS audits your client, an H&R Block representative will assist in answering questions regarding your clients return."
Good luck with your revenge.
Re:well maybe the blogger shouldnt have made money (Score:2, Insightful)
You too can support a 1st world unemployed person, all it costs is 1$ a day to feed these poor non working people.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Note to the unemployed - W2 or it didn't happen
Re:The state is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly what the article says.
They cut her off until she had a hearing. That's the way it is here, too. Any income will trigger the cut off, then you have to fight to get them back. And, just like in her case, they'll do absolutely everything they can to dick people around.
Some of our volunteer firefighters have the same problem. At the end of the year the department gives them a gas money check. If they report that as income, the state cuts off their benefits. If they don't report it, the state accuses them of trying to hide income. For some people those benefits are the only thing keeping them from starving. The entire system is the functional equivalent of the current health care system. So I'm certain if anyone dared stand up to try and get a better safety net for the unemployed, the teabirthers would be out screaming about government take overs.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The way I see it, they've done a very good job at creating their own job security, in the same way that civil engineers seem to love placing manholes right in the tire path in roads. (i.e. causing the suspension of the car passing over it to bounce, ultimately tearing up the road down wind of the manhole, creating a job for a civil engineer to oversee rebuilding of said road)
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm quite happy to have a world with less lawyers. The profession itself is evidence that the Law is too complex.
If a law is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone defend themselves in a court with it, liberty is damaged.
I would imagine that the reason that laws are so complex is due to the fact that too many people have used loopholes to cover up their wrongdoing, and lawmakers have had to react by making laws longer and more drawn out in order to ensure that any possible loopholes are filled. Don't blame the lawmakers. Blame the criminals who forced the lawmakers to make more and more complex laws.
Don't worry, they'll get health care right... (Score:1, Insightful)
Right???
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a program is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone fix its bugs, their freedom to tinker is damaged.
The law is complex, because the world is complex. The alternative to complex law is arbitrary judgements, or the state retreating from adjudicating relationships among citizens and corporations. (OK, some wooly-eyed anarchist is going to salivate at the latter prospect, but personally, I prefer police and judges to arbitration by baseball bats.)
Re:The state is correct (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.
You, and the people who find your post insightful, should realize that unemployment regulations vary from state to state. Colorado, for instance, is far more rational than what you describe, coming close in several aspects to how you say it should work. (BTW, I agree with your post, just pointing out that not all states are so stupid!)
Re:The state is correct (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between the homeless guy holding a sign and the woman with a blog, is that the woman with a blog has a legal contract with Google that reports income on a 1099 form that Unemployment and the Government can check for income.
If she held up a sign in the streets that said "Will do legal work for food/change." and she had a solicitor's license she would earn food and cash, and earning cash for payment is one form of income the government and unemployment cannot track. She is legally supposed to report any income she receives even in cash, but many just work for cash off the books and still collect unemployment. Just that you cannot do that with a legal contract with Google that gives you a 1099 tax form that reports income on and the contract says you are self-employed and Google is paying you as a contractor for your web advertising with them.
The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form, so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it, unless he reported it. But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $300 a year or month.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahem. "People" don't find the loopholes. Lawyers find them. If Joe and Margaret Sixpack want to cheat the government out of money, they aren't going to get away with it. They'll be taken to court, where some LAWYER will build some ridiculous defense using some set of loopholes that the Sixpacks would NEVER have thought of.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about the law and complexity is it scales. If you're just a regular guy on the street, there isn't THAT much of the law you need to be aware of/understand. If you're a huge company, then yes, there's a lot more you have to be aware of, but you are in the position where you have the resources to do it.
A lot of the "complexity" people complain about in the law is an attempt to create a system that's objective as possible. It doesn't succeed totally, of course, but without this complexity I think it would be a lot worse.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that the correct way to close a loophole is to make the law simpler, not more complicated. It's like the joke someone had when the found the missing link, "As you can clearly see, there are now 2 gaps in the fossil record." Making laws more and more detailed and more and more specific opens them up for abuse because it creates more corner cases, which is where the abuse takes place.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone moving into the field of 'law enforcement', allow me to give my own spin. It's the people, not the lawyers who find loopholes. That's why my pocket criminal code is so thick, it reads more like a modern day bible. And my traffic act is nearly 7" thick. It's not the smart people who figure out loopholes, it's the clever ones.
It is however the lawyers, who in turn successfully or unsuccessfully defend the person on the said charge which cause the law to be expanded to include a new definition. Sometimes loopholes happen because of a persons mistakes as well, I've seen that one happen more than once, Canada's common law is full of them.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The skillset that makes you good at the law doesn't necessarily translate well into other fields. Take a hypothetical college student; likes philosophy, social science, literature, great analytical and verbal skills, but not especially strong technical or mathematical skills. What alternate career would you suggest? Through most of human history, being a skilled speaker, writer, and thinker could get you places, but in the modern world those skills aren't as valued.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every lawyer creates two jobs; his own and one to represent the other side.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems like the exact opposite of what they should be doing. Laws should be as simple as possible, leaving interpretation up to the judge and jury to determine whether a law was broken.
Perfect example is having a "no texting while driving law". And a "no cell phones without hands-free set" law. And a "no putting on makeup while driving law". And a "no eating hamburgers while driving law". And on, and on.
The law should just say something brief to the extent of "no distracted driving" that encompasses all of these.
Include "spirit of the law" text explaining the purpose of the law if necessary, to both avoid people getting away with obviously "wrong" things by finding some ridiculous loophole, and to avoid prosecutors trumping up ridiculous charges that clearly obviate the intent of the law.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am quite happy to have a world with fewer programmers. The profession itself is evidence that computers are too complex.
If a program is written in such a fashion that the average citizen cannot understand it, let alone fix its bugs, their freedom to tinker is damaged.
The law is complex, because the world is complex. The alternative to complex law is arbitrary judgements, or the state retreating from adjudicating relationships among citizens and corporations. (OK, some wooly-eyed anarchist is going to salivate at the latter prospect, but personally, I prefer police and judges to arbitration by baseball bats.)
Who modded that flamebait? It may be controversial and sarcastic, but flamebait it ain't.
Re:...imagine them in charge of your HMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who are not familiar with this amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Does this mean that everyone has a right to bear arms, or only those within the State Militia(the military, specifically, the National Guard)? One argument says that since everyone was in the State Militia at the time, everyone should be able to bear arms. Another argument says that if someone wants to bear arms, they should join the military. Because the Amendment was so vague, we have this debate now. Granted, at the time, the lawmakers knew what they were wanting to say. However, as people die and the common language adapts and changes, the 'spirit of the law' becomes lost. This is why lawmakers are specific in what the law is meant to do, so that people in the future, and currently, know what the law is and is not forbidding or granting.
While I agree that getting too specific results in little leeway in court cases where the 'spirit of the law' does not cover this or that, I disagree that laws should be as vague as possible. A law such as 'No distracted driving', to the right court, could mean that a parent with a screaming child in the backseat is breaking the law. Or playing the radio is breaking the law(auditory distraction). Or talking to someone in the passenger is distracted driving.
I would like to see all the types of distracted driving placed into a single law, with amendments to the law as they are needed. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine it would make the court system much more efficient, if each 'type of law' had its own specific place, and amendments were added instead of new laws being written.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I concur. I just started a Business Law class and had no clue about one of the primary components of a contract, consideration. Then it got more and more complex, things like "When is an offer considered to be accepted or even valid?" and that is just the basics.
Re:Horay government (Score:3, Insightful)
My health care overhaul plan would state that no employee of the Federal Government may enjoy any health care that is any way better than that enjoyed by the lest privileged citizen. That'd sort THAT mess out fast enough.
The need for lawyers... (Score:3, Insightful)
People attempt to use loopholes all the time - the difference between the people and lawyers is that layers tend to be good at it.
Regarding the need for lawyers - it will always exist, even without such a complex legal system. A lawyer isn't simply about knowing the law, but also presenting a case with confidence and consistency - a professional presence.
I fight a lot of traffic tickets. Despite knowing quite a bit about the law, I still hand the cases over to a traffic lawyer - I need someone who is capable of going toe to toe with judges, officers, and DA - people who have a lot of experience intimidating the public.
I also use a lawyer because it's more efficient - it costs me more in time and lost wages to fight a traffic citation than it costs to hire someone to do it for me.
Boy, I sure want govt. health care (Score:1, Insightful)
The Govt. is sure efficient at cost savings. They should run ALL of health care in addition to unemployment.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, everyone is expected to comply with the law, whether they like it or not. It is an obligation, enforced with guns. The law is so complex that it is understood that the average citizen cannot possibly understand most of it -- hence, specialists such as lawyers. At the same time, the average citizen is expected to fully comply with these laws he cannot possibly understand, under threat of severe penalties.
Perhaps one alternative to complex laws -- at least, ones the average everyday yob is likely to face -- is to clean them up and get judges that actually, you know, make judgements instead of metting out punishment according to what the rule books say. Traffic court is a great example, and one that most people have to tangle with at some point, often over some inane, niggling point of law that most people didn't even know was on the books.
But judges usually adhere to strict letter instead of the actual spirit, the intent, of the law, and pronounce you guilty and send you off with a fine. The only way out is to hire a lawyer for serious money, go through weeks or months of legal hassle, and maybe get some kind of reduction if you're lucky. It's too easy for judges to mindlessly throw the book at everyone instead of making actual judgement calls like "this person clearly meant no infraction, nothing happened because of it, off you go." Instead we get statutes that fill multiple volumes of books, and bewildered citizens being charged with crimes they didn't even know existed and never meant to violate.
Re:The state is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like being dependent on the government for your bread is great. Constantly jerked around by bureaucrats. Let's go ahead and expand the system even further.
Or we could privatize it, the way health care is private, because getting jerked around by for-profit insurance company bureaucrats is so much better than getting jerked around by government bureaucrats.
Re:Someone check hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course he is. It's normal, healthy, and expected (assuming he's not married). Evaluating all women a single man encounters for possible romance is one of the most basic biological and psychological functions of a man, just as the opposite is normally true of a woman. That recognition of the fact that genders EXIST and HAVE A PURPOSE isn't an ethical problem, although it's often claimed to be.
Now, inappropriate actions can certainly be an ethical problem; but so long as the slashdot poster isn't her supervisor or therapist, evaluating her potential as a date isn't inappropriate.
Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Had problem with people like this on forums I've run. Habitual line steppers. They want to know right where the line is so they can dance right up to the edge of it. Then they always try to play the victim when yelled at. Making complex rules doesn't work either, they just keep it up. As such, on the forums I've worked on the rules got simplified: Don't be an asshole. I (or the other admins) am the arbiter of what that means. Over all, it works much better since everyone, including assholes, seems to understand it. While there is occasional bitching about vagueness (from assholes), seems to be that adults over all get the idea of what being an asshole is.
Now I'm not saying such a system would work for the courts, just affirming what the parent is saying that assholes are the problem and that complex rules don't seem to help.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws are subjective, and the attitude of "let's try to cover every single detail imaginable!" is guaranteed to both leave loopholes as well as catch unintended targets in the overly-strict rules.
That's in addition to, of course, making laws so complex that both no one can know them and everyone is violating them. At least until we manage your hypothetical coding of every possible scenario ever into a computer, plus the reasoning for the computer to make judgements based on incomplete evidence. (which you could certainly argue human juries aren't that great at either)
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just like code - refactoring and removing old laws is vital. And laws that serve no purpose, aren't enforced, or cannot be enforced, should not stay on the books. The smallest set of rules is best, just as that government is best which governs least.
Re:The need for lawyers... (Score:3, Insightful)
I win most of my cases because the county doesn't obey the law either.
Also, please don't confuse 'safe' with 'legal.'
Re:Assholes (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a partial excuse. The more full excuse is that we decided that the LETTER of the law was more important than the SPIRIT of the law.
I'm not enough of a legal philosopher to figure out how to fix the problem, but I have hope in some society some day someone does so.
Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment (Score:4, Insightful)
By forming an LLC you did own and operate a company, it's the very definition of it.
Yes the rules are stupid but those are the rules and they're not exactly hidden. Starting a company or accepting contract work nullifies your unemployment in lots of places.
The government providing incentives to stay on their teat and not provide for yourself as much as possible is par for the course.
Re:Horay government (Score:2, Insightful)
"These are great straw men you keep demolishing. Are any of them related to reality in any way?"
It's not straw man if it's the truth. Take a look at any country with universal health care. It's convenient to call anything you don't agree with "straw men".
The truth cannot be hidden forever. No matter how much you try.
Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then how did they get through law school? Daddy's money and connections bought them the law degree?
Re:Yes they are (Score:3, Insightful)
Also witness the fact that Medicare has an overhead of low single digits vs the healthcare industry which is approaching 25% between overhead and profits.
Re:Someone check hell (Score:1, Insightful)
Nah. Just creepy.