Let's not get ahead of ourselves, no one said anything about an earnings link! At the moment unemployment insurance *does not even exist* in the UK. The closest we get is 'new style' JSA, but that only lasts half a year (and is only worth £2393.30 in total) and you have to sign on at a job centre!
What I'm arguing is that if we had a flat-rate contributory unemployment insurance system, akin to the state pension – at a decent rate, that lasted perhaps a year or a year and a half – you would get a much better allocation of savings. It wouldn't be redistributory but that wouldn't be the point.
I think if we were in the 2000s that might be something to contemplate, but in the current fiscal climate it feels like it wouldn't even fit onto the 'nice to have' list.
It's a bit like discussions about UBI, which I have a certain philosophical sympathy for, but which feel like thought experiments rather than realistic scenarios for the future of the welfare state.
It's entirely realistic.
I hugely respect your passion for this subject and the intellectual rigour you show in evaluating UBIs, but I'm afraid I still don't see how one could be implemented without placing significant pressure on other critical areas of public spending, or without harming particular classes of claimant.
Most UBI models I've encountered work well for about 60 - 75% of people, but there are minority groups - notably those with disabilities - where the UBI model is a relatively weak fit.
Those with disabilities can get UBI and disability support.
To reiterate, I don't disagree in principle, but we're a long way off this being practical: bsky.app/profile/nath...
Unemployment insurance exists in loads of countries through, and has done for decades! It's not an abstract idea at all! It would be to everyone's benefit if you did the absolute minimum amount of research before commenting.
I lived and worked in a country that has a Ghent-system unemployment insurance model, and it has advantages (and disadvantages) that I'm fully aware of.
I'm also very conscious that trying to transpose a model that developed under and is sustained by, very different labour market conditions to the UK's, is unlikely to succeed without a lot of effort and resources that could have greater benefit elsewhere.
Were I to respond seriously I'd say that you could institute a separate levy at a pretty low rate for this, that countries significantly poorer than the UK already do, and that you'd save workers money in the medium term. But your mindset is so cynical and defeatist that I might as well not bother.
It's not 'cheems' or defeatist to point out that spending relatively scarce public resources on a state-backed insurance scheme that would predominantly benefit middle and upper-middle class workers, isn't the optimal fiscal policy when things like the benefit cap and the two-child limit exist.
As I've tried to make clear, I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, I just think now is not the best time to be funnelling public funds in its direction.
It would just be far more efficient to have a collectivised system of unemployment insurance than to carry on with a situation whereby everyone on middle incomes is obliged to hold c.£10k in cash savings lest they lose their job.