View Single Post
Old 27-10-2010, 10:38   #98
danielf
cf.mega poser
 
danielf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,687
danielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden aura
danielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden aura
Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet View Post
If higher earners are less likely to claim it there's less need to tax them highly as they are a lower 'risk'.

Taxes aren't higher in Canada with this and compulsory health insurance, single payer, contributions ring fenced directly from payroll taxes.
The way I understand this works (in Europe anyway) is that you pay a fixed percentage of your salary towards insurance for unemployment. This means that higher earners will contribute more, but are less likely to claim, thereby subsidising lower earners. I don't object to this (being a higher earner), but I can see how some would. Incidentally, the way this works (or worked) in Holland is that you get 80% of your salary for a year, then 60% for another year, which seems a bit more costly than the Canadian example.
__________________
Remember kids: We are blessed with a listening, caring government.
danielf is offline   Reply With Quote