More News

The commentary published on Oct. 23, "Unemployment tax increase would make matters worse" pushes its readers into a dangerous but all too easy trap: It's us vs. them and employer vs. employee. Typically, it leads to predictable finger pointing, hand waving and fragmented policy that tries to appease both sides, but likely fails to solve the problem. Fortunately, when it comes to unemployment insurance, if we take the time to understand the issue (unlike the authors), we should realize that we're, for the most part, on the same side. Here are some key facts overlooked in the Oct. 23 commentary.

The amount in the trust fund decreases when the state pays out more in UI benefits to out-of-work residents than it collects in taxes from employers. Spending more from the fund in a time of crisis makes sense and mirrors what most of us do in our personal lives — tapping our savings when we really need it.

Maryland's unemployment insurance trust fund has declined significantly not because of our policy choices, but because the recession has put more people out of work. We know this to be true because every state has made different policy choices and yet every state's trust fund has declined. In fact, Maryland's trust fund is stronger than most. Even though we're a small state, we have the 12th largest reserve in the nation. So far, we haven't been forced to take out federal loans, burdening the state even further with debt and interest.

The decline has triggered a tax increase to employers. For most employers, the tax rate increase will be modest — $11 per worker per month. An employer with 10 workers will only see an increase of $110 per month or just over $1,200 per year. Employers that face a higher tax increase do so because they have laid off more workers. This system was initiated largely at the behest of employer associations and received bipartisan support.

Trust fund expenditures benefit employers. That's not a typo. In the end, the taxes paid into the trust fund come back to local businesses as recipients spend their benefits on basic needs. Grocery stores, clothing stores and other retailers see a major boost and almost certainly receive more in increased revenue than they pay in increased taxes. And in a recession like this, unemployment insurance serves as a major prop to employers and our state's economy. In other words, the "decline" of Maryland's trust fund in fiscal 2009 can also be viewed as a $500 million stimulus for employers. All of the money spent went to out-of-work residents who had little choice but to spend it at businesses (particularly those offering for basic necessities such as food, clothing, and energy).

A strong Maryland economy requires financially healthy residents who have the ability to purchase goods and services. Asking employers to pay an extra $11 in taxes per worker is not ideal, but if we recognize that it kept over 200,000 Marylanders from devastation and it pumped half a billion dollars into our economy when we needed it most, it seems more than reasonable.

Those who understand the system know that taxes will drop again as the economy improves, more people return to work, and fewer need assistance. We should let the system work as intended rather than introducing a tax break that might feel good today but lead to heavier pain down the road.

Jason Perkins-Cohen, Baltimore

The writer is executive director of the Job Opportunities Task Force, an organization that works to increase job opportunities for low-skill, low-income workers and job seekers.