-
Features
Unemployment benefits are not welfare
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
Actually, the premiums are paid by the employer.
You can argue that in the absence of unemployment insurance the invisible hand of the market would force the employer to spend an equivalent amount on wages. I'm both an employer and an employee and I've never found that argument convincing - the first place reduced expenses go is into the employer's profits, in my experience.
You can argue that in the absence of unemployment insurance the invisible hand of the market would force the employer to spend an equivalent amount on wages. I'm both an employer and an employee and I've never found that argument convincing - the first place reduced expenses go is into the employer's profits, in my experience.
Under the Rose
Veteran Member
In Canada, both the employer and the employee contribute premiums to the unemployment insurance program. The amount is quite minimal and should a person need to draw unemployment insurance, the amount they are paid in one month is greater than their contributions for a year so if they draw funds for several months, the rest of the money might as well be social assistance as it is coming from the larger public purse.
The premiums are forwarded to the state by the employer but they are still counted as part of the employee's wage package.
That makes about as much sense as saying that medical insurance payments to providers on your behalf that total more than your paid premiums might as well be social assistance.
PyramidHead
Contributor
Doesn't that apply to anything funded by income/payroll taxes? In the end, it's all withheld wages.
dx713
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 808
- Location
- Provence, France
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Epicurean, Compatibilist
Not in all countries.
In France, things like retirements, health insurance, and unemployment, are supposed to be working on a "repartition" logic, rather than a "capitalization" logic, as outlined by the plans from "la resistance" to rebuild the French social system after WW2.
That means that, in theory (in practice, there have been some serious knife wounds to those principles, and the attacks continue nowadays), you don't pay the unemployment fund to insure yourself against a future job loss, you pay to fund the needs of those who have no jobs.
(and, but that's not your OP, you don't pay the retirement fund to build your future retirement, you pay to fund the needs of the currently retired)
PyramidHead
Contributor
That's pretty much how it is here, at least for unemployment (as far as I know). If you are unemployed after working for 15 years you don't get fewer benefits than somebody unemployed after 40 years, who has "paid into" the system more. Retirement is more like a personal insurance fund.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,338
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
Now hold on there a minute,
Are you saying that nations can build a social safety net that is based on a moral stance that says that we look out for each other and not just ourselves?
The mind reels...
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Yes. Every employer provided benefit ultimately comes out of the total amount allotted per employee in the accounting. The amount a business pays for an employee is higher than the pay the employee actually receives, and that is before the employee deductions that further diminish the employee take-home pay,.
Under the Rose
Veteran Member
What do you think 'insurance' is?
It is the collective (social) looking out for the needs of an individual (assistance).
You can call it any name you want and denigrate one aspect of it while glamorizing another but in the end it is all the same thing.
It is society that applies the labels that differential and there are a lot of individuals that abuse these programs which earns the programs a bad rap and stigmatizes those who need the assistance.
dx713
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 808
- Location
- Provence, France
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Epicurean, Compatibilist
Here too, in practice. I was just reminding the principles.
Even in the unemployment system, there are a lot of "check and balances" to get the "lazys" "off their asses". And you definetly can't claim full retirement until you have paid enough in the system.
And with the rise of temporary work, there are a lot of talks of creating a "points" system, where you have to accumulate points that you can spend afterwards on unemployment benefits, and that's the direction the artists sub-system is being retooled too.
By whom?
I've never thought of it as such, either as employer or as employee.
It doesn't amount to much in any event - a couple of hundred dollars a year in Kentucky....
Oh pish.
Next you'll be saying the variable cost of the goods produced by an employee should constitute wages, since if efficiencies allowed the employee to produce more the invisible hand of the market would force the employer to spend the same total amount on production....
Odd, I was about to ask you the same thing.
Playball40
Veteran Member
I've never seen this. It is a labor expense to the employer, but is not counted as 'compensation' (wage package) to the employee.
I've seen it. It's never considered compensation as far as the W-2 goes but employers I've worked for in the past have routinely had me make a statement every year for employees showing how much they really make which included: Salary/Wages, employer matching for payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, employer matched retirement contributions, employer portion of healthcare insurance, and worker's comp insurance premiums.
Honestly, it seemed like a dick move.
Could have been worse.
They could have tossed in the employee's pro-rata share of the expense to pave the employee parking lot
I wonder how they separated out each employee's workers' comp premiums.
Those have always been charged to me (as an employer) based on total gross wages.
I suppose they could just divvy it up pro-rata based on each employee's wages. But it also depends on job classification....
Those have always been charged to me (as an employer) based on total gross wages.
I suppose they could just divvy it up pro-rata based on each employee's wages. But it also depends on job classification....