Evening star., 1935-05-19
Social Security Amendments.

Social Security Amendments.
AS passed by the House, the social
security bill would not have recog-
nized such State unemployment in
surance plans as that of Wisconsin,
where, instead of Statewide pool"
into which employer tax contributions
are paid for the benefit of all en-
ployes, each employer accumulates
his own unemployment reserves under
State supervision for the protection of
his own employees. Under the Wis
consin plan the pay roll tax decreases
as the reserves are accumulated.
When the reserves reach specified
sum per employe, the employer re-
ceives the benefits of tax reduction as
long as he stabilizes his employment.
Senator La Toilette was successful
In having the Senate Finance Com
mittee amend the social security bill
reported out last week to recognize
the company reserve plan along with
the pooling system. That is sound
amendment which should be retained
in the law finally to be enacted. The
most direct incentive to the employer
to stabilize employment lies in the
possibility of tax reduction.
Under the pooling system, as con-
tanned in the recently enacted New
York law and proposed for the Dis
trict of Columbia, there is no immediate
incentive for the employer to stabilize
his employment. He pays a nay roll
tax, local and national, regardless of
whether his own employees are likely
to suffer the injuries Of unemploy-
ment. Both the District bill and the
New York law contain provisions for
future study, to determine the feasi-
bility of rewarding in some manner
the employer who stabilizes his own
employment and thus makes tangible
contribution to general employment
stability. One of the sound recon-
mendations from the Administration
Business Advisory Council In refer
ence to unemployment insurance laws
is for the establishment of different
pay roll contribution rates for differ
ent industries in accordance with the
differences in unemployment In those
industries. Certainly that principle
should be contained in any unemploy-
ment insurance law, and 1t is seri-
Gus question whether provisions en-
bodying the principle should not be
adopted at the outset, rather than de-
layed for several years Of study. Dur
ing the interval the courts will GER
tainly be asked to pass upon the
validity of a pooling principle under
which all employers are arbitrarily
assessed at the same rate, regardless
of the hazards of unemployment in
the different lines of business and in
dustry, and regardless of the employ
er's success In keeping his own men
OF work.
Senators Clark of Missouri and
George Of Georgia were unsuccessful
In their initial endeavor to have the
Senate bill amended to recognize and
make allowances for pension and re-
tirement benefit plans which have al
ready been adopted by individual
companies. Under the House and
Senate sections of the bill for old age
pensions beginning in 1912, no allow
ance is made for the private company
that may already have adopted a re-
tirement plan for its employees superior
to the provisions of the national law.
1t would seem reasonable as well as
fair to provide tax exemptions or other
wise to reward concerns which already
have retirement and pension system
which meets or exceeds standards of
the national law. Senators Clark and
George will doubtless renew their ef-
forts on the Senate floor in benalf of
such an amendment.
---eee-s-
Tho nriuare of Tor, or,o,v