Per Josephus, you are essentially asking for a substantial increase in taxes to fund (presumably) a substantial increase in government spending. It might have the effect of balancing the budget, but only at the cost of highly increased taxes, a price which our country cannot afford to bear. By shifting this expenditure out of general revenues, you've magically eliminated bÐ20 from the budget. Unless you were planning to lower general income taxes, any given taxpayer will have to not only pay his income and EPP taxes(which will not change), but this additional tax, "for his own well-being," of course, straight out of his paycheck. Whereas, under the current system, his unemployment benefits are covered by his own tax dollars (well, not exactly--it's a collective thing) alone. Now, there are two ways to interpret what you're saying, Per Josephus. Either:
1) "Each person will contribute to his own fund at a rate determined by law. This cash will be kept separate from every other person's, and will be paid back to him in amounts provided by law in the event he becomes unemployed."
If this is the case (this, by the way, is the way the EPP [Eutopian Pension Plan] is set up), then why not let each person save up the money the way he wants to? It saves the government bureaucracy of managing it all, and it can be invested better in private hands than public (it's your own money--better incentive). Unless, of course, you think that the Eutopian citizenry isn't capable of making its own financial decisions--a blatantly stupid and undemocratic point to be making. (Heck, on this logic, why do we even have the EPP? The people could be better served and money better invested in struggling Eutopian industries in private hands than in public--and it would save each and every Eutopian citizen a 16% tax on income each year--yes, that's right, regardless of income, each and every Eutopian citizen pays 16% of his income to the EPP each year [his employer contributes an additional 16%]--this is from data provided to me from Amric last term, fyi)
2) "Each person contributes to a general fund that will be paid out to recipients when they need it."
This appears to be what you're implying by your suggestions that it could be topped off from general revenue. If this is the case, what's the difference between this and the current system? Except it just looks prettier and allows us to say that we've increased government spending while (perhaps) balancing the budget and without increasing taxes--while, of course, every taxpayer will be paying more to the government each year.
