Search

ABSTRACT "What's right with unemployment insurance" by far outweighs "What's wrong." There are, nevertheless, many flaws in the program--in philosophy, in benefits, in taxes, in administration. Most important is the need for consensus concerning primary goals. There is still no generally-accepted philosophy concerning the proper place and purpose of unemployment insurance in our economic system. Many workers currently exempt from coverage should be protected. Qualifying requirements for benefit eligibility, as well as disqualifying provisions, should be reexamined. Minimum and maximum weekly benefit amounts and potential duration provisions indicate inherent philosophies which are inconsistent and inequitable, which yield more generous benefits to unemployed secondary workers than to unemployed heads of families. Changes should relate qualifying employment and earnings, by sex, to minimum and maximum benefits and duration, in fixed proportions rather than in fixed amounts. Payroll tax bases vary considerably. Their impact among different industries is widely divergent. A supplemental flat-rate employee tax should help finance more adequate benefits. Pending agreement on primary goals, no practical solution to federal-state administrative problems can be suggested. Thereafter, however, authority and responsibility and costs should be fairly and dearly allocated between the federal government and the states. This would contribute to a much better partnership, program, and public image. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]