the spew of double speak makes my head spin.
"new revenue’ = new taxes
“saves the govt” = cost the tax payers = new taxes
“increase the Federal budget” = well, you get it by now, right…
All right. This excursus began with the above two posts. The issue as DrDeth and I read it was your objecting to the term “insurance” for unemployment insurance. To be sure, payments into the fund are done by the employer, but not as a “contribution” except in the broadest of terms; it’s an assessment that constitutes an insurance premium, paid as a mandatory fringe benefit of employment, and paid out according to standard rules in pre-specified amounts for pre-specified maximum periods. That politicians may extend those periods does not mean they are purely political in nature. In short, I’d like to see cites that support your allegations or implications of arbitrary and capricious politically-motivated payout criteria.
None of us like political double-speak. But here again you need to prove what you allege with cites to a neutral non-partisan information source.
You are right, my statement was way too broad. I would agree that changing the rules isn’t “purely political” whether that is meant to apply to gaining votes to stay in office, gaining votes for your party, or just changing social and economic standards.
Why does an “assesment constitute(s) an insurance premium” though?
Why is the whole “insurance” issue matter even? My answer: because if you can call it insurance you can expand it. Maybe one day we’ll even consider income taxes “insurance” against all kinds of risks that only government can take care of for us.
The difference is that unemployment contributions are kept in a separate fund from general tax receipts and only disbursed when specified conditions occur. General treasury funds are disbursed no matter what is occurring.
Wouldn’t ending “welfare” have a pretty serious impact on the economy? I would guess nearly 100% of welfare payments are quickly spent on goods and services. Businesses in poor communities probably depend on people getting their checks.
Kind of a “lock box” thing, huh? Tell me more… how much is in that fund at the moment? Has it ever run out?
Would you acknowledge that politicians are able to change the specified conditions after “premiums” are paid?
I’m also wondering what other insurance programs have rules that you have to follow going forward to receive your benefit like whatever “looking for work” requirements exist. Disability perhaps.
Sort of like private health care? :dubious:
Not really a lock-box thing. As far as I know, unemployment insurance funds are not mandated by any state constitutions so legislatures are theoretically free to shut them down and put the funds to other uses (though I very much doubt the electorate would allow it). Given that, yes, politicians can certainly change the specified conditions. They do it all the time. However, as Ludovic notes, politicians can change the rules for just about any insurance program after the fact.
Pretty much every insurance program that provides wage loss benefits has some sort of analogous requirement. Even insurance providing coverage for bodily injuries requires the beneficiary to mitigate his or her lost wages by working if possible.