Be that as it may, it is paid for by an employer tax, not by the employee himself. Believe me, I’ve had to set hundreds of claimants straight on that one. They as much as demanded their UI check, even though disqualified because “they’d paid into it” and “it was their money” and so on.
You guys are arguing past each other because you haven’t defined the terms.
If you talking about the LEGAL incidence of the tax, then 2ndDivision is correct. It is indeed the company that sends the money to the government.
If you are talking about the ECONOMIC incidence of the tax, then it is as FredZaruna says: that money is part of the company’s aggregate labor costs, and that money, if not paid to the government, would be passed on to the employees in higher wages.
My budget for labor is what it is. When the government tells me I must pay, say 5% more per employee for UI, that means I have 5% less available for employees. I let people go, hopefully by not refilling their positions when they leave, but sadly, by firing people if it comes to it.
Now, the 5% fewer employees left are effectively paying the cost, because 95 people now have to do the job formerly done by 100. Since their productivity has been forced to increase, they are paying the cost of the mandated insurance.
People who actually understand economics know this. It is why we argue against raising the minimum wage. Only liberals think that employers pay benefits. It's a Three Card Monte game, and when the cards stop moving, the employee is the person who has to work harder to pay the piper -- or take less money home to spend on the things he really wants to buy.