At the moment, if you are unemployed you can get unemployment at, say, 70% for 18 months.

Do you think it would be better if any unemployment benefit should be paid back when you start working again? e.g. instead of paying 1% to unemployment security after getting a new job, you pay 6% until what you used is repaid.

As a quid-pro-quo, maybe insurance cost can be reduced to 0.5% as you would need less money since if most people find a job, they can repay it.

No I don't. This could leave some people struggling for a long time. In fact, it would defeat the whole issue.
Some people in full employment are stretched to the limit financially and not because they are living beyond their means. The loan system would catapult them under the existence minimum and the tax payer would foot the bill for supplementary benefit. There is more dignity in an insurance system, that's why the abusers really get my goat, those who could get a job if they wanted but enjoy a paid break.

sheesh just digested the bit about the 6%.
I'll leave my post though.

I think the present system is excellent. The employee contributions pay for most of the expenses. I would prefer the employers to pay the contributions, as many people are not dismissed through their own fault, but as a result of employer's errors.

After unemployment pay finishes, there is always social help, which is required to be repaid if your situation improves.

There is a Swiss factory, just west of Chur in Graubunden, where about 1995 the employer dismissed all his employees! The next day they all began work with fresh contracts and 15% less salary. This (previous) owner is well known at the Zurich SVP offices, and is a billionaire. The following year he was voted "Manager of the Year" after making record profits during a falling economy. I am just saying that many employees are entirely innocent when they are dismissed, and under Swiss law there isn't very much redress.

if it ain't broke don't fix it

No, unemployment contributions are an insurance. You are insuring your salary. You don't have anything to repay afterwards because your contributions prior to becoming unemployed did that.

If you have to repay the money an insurance gives you on a claim, then what are you paying the premium for?

If the unemployment rate went up substantially for whatever reason and nobody has been paying that 1% into the coffers, what reserves would the "Kasse" have to support all those unemployed people until they find work again?

I think it's good for both sides (the unemployed-to-be and the Arbeitslosenkasse) to have that cushion of cash paid in upfront.

well this would be a choice right. sometimes you reduce your insurance premiums by having a higher 'excess' if you're willing to repay your benefit, then in theory you can reduce your insurance premium considerably.

it would also reduce the incentive to abuse the system.

I think it's a brilliant idea.. the system will continue to serve it's purpose while robustly defending against abuse, and more important, be able to survive a prolonged recession and higher unemployment rates... for the ones fortunate enough to find alternative employment, it would serve as a 'bridge' loan. For the others, it would work as it does today... what is not to like??

no different to the current system. if you pay 0.5% vs 1%. i'd argue that you'd have more money from the 0.5% because you would have less abusers which would make up for the reduced in-payments.

the security to tide you over until you find work.

It actually costs a whole lot more than that, Employer / Employee is 2% will be 2.2% + 1/3 of all AHV contributions. I have paid in more than I have claimed, I generally think insurance is a bad deal, this is no exception

It could encourage low earners to stay unemployed; why go back to work if you are little better off?

Well after 18 months it's over, then it's social help for the less well off.

Benefits could be means tested, or capped at 5k a month, not sure what all the Novartis employees will have to say with that one.

With Phil's suggestion of paying back 6% later, tax take will be down as benefit is taxable, a loan is not.

Some of the unemployed people I know seem to be on an endless string of holidays and city trips. I haven't had a holiday for over a year despite working. Either I didn't have the money or they couldn't spare me at work. So yeah, it pisses me off that people get money for doing absolutely nothing, I think you should get a maximum of three months "break", after which time you need to start making yourself useful in some way, there's plenty of volunteer work to be done in this world.

Generally people who are not doing some work get sent on endless training courses. I suspect the people are not doing 'absolutely nothing' the RAV won't allow that.
Your not allowed to do volunteer work AFAIK, it has to be paid employed.

Well, then they are hiding it well, because all that I register is an endless stream of photos and check-ins at various places, sometimes accompanied by "haha, suckers, I'm at the beach while you are working" type comments. I find this utterly disgusting, if I was out of work, I would certainly not tell the world about it for any other reason than to get people to help me find a job.

Regarding volunteer work.

You are not even allowed to get a job which pays commission only - my mate got offered such a job selling speciality dog food, but the RAV said that the hours he dedicated to this would be counted as being unavailable for work.

I personally think they should have encouraged him financially, at least he would have got back a little dignity and gained some experience. He could still have applied for other jobs at the same time as doing this.

Possibly they are breaking the rules, they will probably get caught.

Commission only is not allowed, it needs to pay a basic wage unless the person becomes self employed, or partly self employed.