{"title":"在COVID-19大流行期间鼓励就业","authors":"Phil Lord","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2020.1792635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article considers government responses to unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses the two main legislative responses adopted by North American governments: a broadening of access to (un)employment insurance (EI) and the adoption of payroll subsidies for companies. It comparatively and critically assesses these two solutions, to eventually propose an alternative plan. Under this plan, access to EI would be broadened to cover those not traditionally covered by it, such as self-employed workers, contract workers, and those caring for a family member sick from COVID-19 or for a child who is at home due to school and day-care closures. Unemployed workers who have traditionally paid into the EI system would be rewarded through a tax credit. To avoid incentivising temporary layoffs, a payroll subsidy would be adopted. The subsidy would make it as attractive to keep workers on payroll as to lay them off so they can benefit from EI. It would also provide a more faithful picture of unemployment rates during the crisis. The plan would also address broader concerns regarding the unsustainability of public spending during the crisis by limiting access to both temporary layoffs and the payroll subsidy. Large and profitable companies, as well as companies with high revenue or cash reserves, would not be able to temporarily lay their employees off during the crisis or benefit from the subsidy. For companies that face liquidity issues yet are not eligible for the subsidy, short-term, interest-bearing emergency loans would be available.","PeriodicalId":75198,"journal":{"name":"The theory and practice of legislation","volume":"303 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incentivising employment during the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Phil Lord\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2020.1792635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article considers government responses to unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses the two main legislative responses adopted by North American governments: a broadening of access to (un)employment insurance (EI) and the adoption of payroll subsidies for companies. It comparatively and critically assesses these two solutions, to eventually propose an alternative plan. Under this plan, access to EI would be broadened to cover those not traditionally covered by it, such as self-employed workers, contract workers, and those caring for a family member sick from COVID-19 or for a child who is at home due to school and day-care closures. Unemployed workers who have traditionally paid into the EI system would be rewarded through a tax credit. To avoid incentivising temporary layoffs, a payroll subsidy would be adopted. The subsidy would make it as attractive to keep workers on payroll as to lay them off so they can benefit from EI. It would also provide a more faithful picture of unemployment rates during the crisis. The plan would also address broader concerns regarding the unsustainability of public spending during the crisis by limiting access to both temporary layoffs and the payroll subsidy. Large and profitable companies, as well as companies with high revenue or cash reserves, would not be able to temporarily lay their employees off during the crisis or benefit from the subsidy. For companies that face liquidity issues yet are not eligible for the subsidy, short-term, interest-bearing emergency loans would be available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75198,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The theory and practice of legislation\",\"volume\":\"303 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The theory and practice of legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1792635\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The theory and practice of legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1792635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Incentivising employment during the COVID-19 pandemic
ABSTRACT This article considers government responses to unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It analyses the two main legislative responses adopted by North American governments: a broadening of access to (un)employment insurance (EI) and the adoption of payroll subsidies for companies. It comparatively and critically assesses these two solutions, to eventually propose an alternative plan. Under this plan, access to EI would be broadened to cover those not traditionally covered by it, such as self-employed workers, contract workers, and those caring for a family member sick from COVID-19 or for a child who is at home due to school and day-care closures. Unemployed workers who have traditionally paid into the EI system would be rewarded through a tax credit. To avoid incentivising temporary layoffs, a payroll subsidy would be adopted. The subsidy would make it as attractive to keep workers on payroll as to lay them off so they can benefit from EI. It would also provide a more faithful picture of unemployment rates during the crisis. The plan would also address broader concerns regarding the unsustainability of public spending during the crisis by limiting access to both temporary layoffs and the payroll subsidy. Large and profitable companies, as well as companies with high revenue or cash reserves, would not be able to temporarily lay their employees off during the crisis or benefit from the subsidy. For companies that face liquidity issues yet are not eligible for the subsidy, short-term, interest-bearing emergency loans would be available.