Connecticut's Unemployment Benefits

I was shocked to learn that, according to this article, it is possible to earn more money while being unemployed than while holding part-jobs. The Connecticut Department of Labor recalculates the baseline for individual's unemployment benefits every year by using the pay rate of one's last held job. In the case of Roberta Hanson who recently took on a part-time job on the weekends, her unemployment benefits dropped from $483 a week to nothing, even though the new job she took payed only $130 per week. This is because the baseline for part time jobs is significantly lower than that of her previously held full time job; after subtracting a certain percentage of her current pay, the Department of Labor deemed her pay to be too large to qualify her for continued unemployment benefits.

I believe this system to be fairly unfair; people should not be punished for attempting to find work, especially when the pay is considerably less than what they earned at their previous job. Additionally, I think it's unfair for people to benefit more from not holding a job. Since unemployment benefits are necessary and beneficial to the individuals who recieve them and not all individual's situations are the same, I think that Connecticut's process of handing them out needs to be revised. The Department of Labor should consider all of an individual's means of income before determining benefits, and those who are employed (and who are thus helping to stimulate the economy and who are earning money for themselves) should not receive less than those who either can't or aren't motivated to find a job. To achieve this, I believe that the state should be divided up into regions, and different baselines should be established for each region based on the respective costs of living. Thus, if an individual's income level rises above the baseline, they should become ineligeble to receive benefits; if their income level is less, then they should receive enough benefits so their total income is at the established baseline.

While looking up additional information on the matter, I came across this article published by the Connecticut Department of Labor. According to this article, because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka the Stimulus Bill passed in 2009), the first $2400 in unemployment benefits received in 2009 were to be tax free. This doesn't quite make sense to me; although unemployment benefits are a form of income, the money comes from that which is payed through taxes. Thus, unemployment benefits seem to me to be a distribution of the wealth from the richer to the unemployed. If the unemployed already receive so little money, should that amount be decreased even further?