Bill Overview
Title: Ending Unemployment Payments to Jobless Millionaires Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds for making unemployment compensation payments to an individual with an adjusted gross income equal to or greater than $1 million.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: People receiving unemployment payments with an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more
Estimated Size: 1000
- The bill targets individuals receiving unemployment compensation with an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more.
- The number of individuals who fit into this category is likely to be small, as having $1 million in adjusted gross income suggests significant financial resources.
- Unemployment benefits typically target individuals in financial need, and $1 million in income suggests these individuals are not in immediate need of such assistance.
Reasoning
- The target population for the policy is quite small, with only a little over a thousand people expected to be affected in the entire United States, according to the americanTargetEstimate.
- In terms of wellbeing impact, people with a high adjusted gross income may see low to negligible personal financial impact, thus only slight changes in self-reported wellbeing scores.
- The budget constraint allows coverage of only a small subset of the population in the first year; however, this policy does not require disbursement of funds but halts certain payments, hence budget per se might not limit its application.
- Most individuals in this policy's target group are financially secure, hence the long-term wellbeing impact is expected to be low.
- To provide comprehensive insights, the interviews included also those not directly impacted, to represent a wider view of perceptions regarding the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Investment Banker (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems logical as unemployment benefits are meant for those in financial distress.
- While I don't really need these benefits, they did provide some unexpected support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a fair policy, given the amount of money I have in comparison to others genuinely in need.
- It was useful temporarily, but not crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Real Estate Developer (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unemployment payments aren't something I regularly plan for due to my income.
- This bill doesn't affect me much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Stock Trader (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy fixes what I think is a loophole; these funds should go to those who truly need them.
- Personally, it won't affect me significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Corporate Lawyer (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill ensures integrity in unemployment compensation.
- I have substantial savings and the stopping of payments isn't impactful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired CEO (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am in complete agreement with the policy; it's a step towards financial equity.
- No personal impact for me, as I don't draw unemployment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Film Producer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change makes sense; unemployment aid should prioritize those with lesser means.
- I have no issue with losing access to these benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarity in policy is essential and this makes things straightforward.
- No impact expected as my financial plans didn't rely on those funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Professional Athlete (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy as it aligns benefits with needs, even if it affects my planning slightly.
- I have other means to manage the transition periods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software Engineer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am for this bill; it's a logical step towards more targeted unemployment aid.
- It doesn't affect me right now, but seems fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Key Considerations
- The population affected is very small, making total savings relatively modest but still significant due to policy principle.
- Monitoring of income levels to ensure compliance may incur some administrative costs, but these are minimal compared to the potential benefits.