Unemployment Compensation: Overview and Current Issues August, 2016

Similar documents
Unemployment Insurance Overview

OHIO LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

UI Overview and Forecasts

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA Session Legislative Fiscal Note

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

State Unemployment Insurance Tax Survey

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Unemployment Insurance: Legislative Issues in the 115 th Congress

Overview: Financial Outlook of the Wisconsin Unemployment Insurance Program. February 6, 2013

Status of the Unemployment Trust Fund and Related Issues. Commission on Unemployment Compensation. Ellen Marie Hess, Commissioner.

Unemployment Insurance Financing

HOUSE BILL 4: UI Fund Solvency & Program Changes

Trust Fund Loans: Interest Charges and Credit Reductions National Employment Law Project UI Conference December 5-6, 2011

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEEE REPRESENTATIVE LOUIS BLESSING III, CHAIRMAN

Review of UI Trust Fund

Restoring Unemployment Insurance as Social Insurance

UI Bond Status Update and Review of UI Trust Fund

Unemployment Insurance Financing

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION REFORM JOINT COMMITTEE SENATOR BOB PETERSON AND REPRESENTATIVE KIRK SCHURING, CO-CHAIRMEN

Unemployment Insurance Oversight Hearing. Texas Legislature House Economic Development Committee. Testimony submitted by

Page 2 of 13. Solvency Review Scenario 1.00 $3,750 $3, Millions $3,406 $3, $3,500 $3,283 $3,215 $3,144 $3,

WikiLeaks Document Release

Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits

Annual Evaluation of the Hawaii Unemployment Compensation Fund

Unemployment Insurance Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014

Suzanne Simonetta Chief, Division of Legislation Office of Unemployment Insurance U.S. Department of Labor

Unemployment Insurance. Everything you ever wanted to know about UI, but were afraid to ask.

Chapter 15 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM

Chapter 15 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM

Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits

Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits

Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits

1981 and 1982 Changes in the Unemployment Insurance Program*

Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits

Annual Evaluation of the Hawaii Unemployment Compensation Fund

Michigan Needs to Modernize Its Unemployment Insurance System

Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Current Status of Benefits

South Dakota Unemployment Insurance MARCIA HULTMAN CABINET SECRETARY

Hawaii Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. Past, Present & Future

Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Current Status of Benefits

HOUSE UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD TASK FORCE

REPORT #02-04 O L A OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT. Financing Unemployment Insurance

The Legacy of House Bill 4: North Carolina s Unemployment Insurance Program Is No Longer Working

CHAPTER BENEFITS TABLE OF CONTENTS Registration for Work by Totally Commencement of Worker s Period of

NFIB/Ohio Unemployment Compensation Handbook

Impact of Federal Borrowing

National Unemployment Insurance Legislative Update

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE

Fund Balance Adequacy. This chapter examines the adequacy of the trust fund balance for Minnesota s

CRS Report for Congress

Unemployment Insurance: Consequences of Changes in State Unemployment Compensation Laws

Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Division of Employment Security

NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM UPDATE. Gay Gilbert, Administrator Unemployment Insurance USDOL/ETA June 18, 2014

CHAPTER 32 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

NASWA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION FINANCE REFORM PROPOSAL

Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08): Status of Benefits Prior to Expiration

IF IMPORTS OR SHIFTS IN PRODUCTION COST YOU YOUR JOB APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Department of Legislative Services

Unemployment Insurance: Legislative Issues in the 113 th Congress

Issue Brief Unemployment Compensation in Florida Executive Summary

State of Ohio Workforce. 2 nd Quarter

Unemployment Insurance Primer: Understanding What s At Stake as Congress Reopens Stimulus Package Debate. Wayne Vroman January 2002

Mitigating Unemployment Comp Tax Increases Facing Employers

BTC Reports. Cuts to unemployment insurance in North Carolina have made it harder for jobless UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE:

POLICY BRIEF. Unemployment Insurance Modernization: Good for Nebraska

Staff Presentation to the House Finance Committee March 10, 2016

Public Hearing on unemployment compensation and seasonal workers

2013 Texas Legislative Wrap-Up

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 5

FUTA Tax Increases. Why You Need to Plan Right Now! Employers and business owners can do little to affect the outcome of state legislative actions.

COLORADO S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUND THROUGH THE GREAT RECESSION AND RECOVERY 2016 UPDATE

D17-08 Various Minor and Technical Changes. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED UI LAW CHANGE Various Minor and Technical Changes

The New Federal UI Law: Reauthorizing Federal Extension Benefits & Adopting New State Initiatives and Options

The Recession of 2001 and Unemployment Insurance Financing. by Wayne Vroman* January 2005

The Path to Responsible Financing of California s Unemployment Insurance System By Maurice Emsellem, Mike Evangelist, Claire McKenna

April 1, Dear Chairwoman Knutson,

Unemployment Insurance

A LABOR DAY REVIEW OF OUR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM

NASWA Unemployment Insurance (UI) Administration Funding and Reemployment Reform Proposals

Unemployment Insurance: Legislative Issues in the 114 th Congress

Department of Labor and Training

Strengthening the UI Safety Net With $8 Billion in New Federal Reed Act Funding: State Findings & Recommendations

JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. REPORT TO THE 2017 SESSION of the 2017 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

Unemployment and Employment Programs Available to Workers Affected by Disasters

OCTOBER 23, 2012 BACKGROUND

Category: Employers (Payroll Taxes) Category: Employees who work for tips Category: Business Owners Category: Employers (Payroll Taxes)

Confronting the UI Solvency Crisis

NORTH DAKOTA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA BOOK 1980 THROUGH 2009

Table of Contents. UI Task Force Report

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

What s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax

LABOR DAY UPDATE: TEXAS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM

NC General Statutes - Chapter 96 Article 2 1

Responding to the New Realities of Unemployment: Worker Priorities for the Unemployment Insurance Safety Net in 2005

North Dakota Unemployment Insurance Data Book 1988 Through 2017

Transcription:

Unemployment Compensation: Overview and Current Issues August, 2016 1

Unemployment Insurance Overview o New Deal program established in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act o Purpose Alleviate hardship of unemployment Countercyclical economic aid for local economies Reduce number of layoffs 2

Unemployment Insurance Overview Federal Role: o Establish minimum national standards o Provide adequate administrative funding to states State Role: o Enact state law congruent with federal standards o Collect taxes and remit to federal trust funds o Timely determinations of eligibility and benefit payment o Collect overpayments 3

Unemployment Insurance Overview Who is eligible for benefits? o Unemployed Ohioans who: Lost their job through no fault of their own Are able to, available for, and actively seeking work Worked at least 20 weeks over a specific 12 month period for a qualified employer Earned an average of at least $243 (2016 level) per week during that time 4

Do most unemployed get benefits? The recipiency rate measures the percentage of unemployed who receive regular unemployment benefits. o In 2015, Ohio s recipiency rate averaged 24%, which ranked us 33rd among states. o This means that 76% of unemployed Ohioans did not receive state UC benefits in 2015. 5

Unemployment Insurance Overview What do claimants receive? o No more than 50% of their previous weekly wage, up to a maximum of: $435 for an individual with no dependents $527 for an individual with one or two dependents $587 for an individual with three or more dependents o Benefits are authorized weekly. A claimant must meet the eligibility requirements in the week for which a payment is issued. 6

Unemployment Insurance Overview Who pays for benefits? o Financed solely by employers Federal tax covers program administration State tax covers benefit payments o No General Revenue Funds are used to pay benefits 7

How Unemployment Is Funded SUTA State Unemployment Tax Act: o Paid quarterly by employers to the ODJFS Office of Unemployment Compensation (UC); deposited in UC Trust Fund. 2016 Taxes paid in 2016. o Funds in this state trust fund may be used only to finance Ohio unemployment benefits. No staff costs are charged to the state trust fund. o The taxable wage base for SUTA is the first $9,000 of an employee s annual wages. ODJFS calculates each employer s contribution (tax) rate annually. 8

Basic Requirements for SUTA Rates o Experience rating o Should accumulate reserves during low unemployment periods o Must utilize a taxable wage base no less than that used for FUTA o Beyond the basic requirements, states have a great deal of flexibility to determine weekly benefit amounts, number of weeks compensated 9

How Unemployment is Funded (2) FUTA Federal Unemployment Tax Act: o Primarily funds states administrative costs to operate their unemployment programs; o Employers are taxed 6.0% of the first $7,000 of wages paid to each covered employee on their payroll; o If state has good credit 5.4% offsetting tax credit; Net Cost to Employers = 0.6 % o Taxes are paid annually with federal tax filing. 2016 taxes are paid in 2017 o The annual value of the offset credit to Ohio s employers is around $1.8 billion. 10

Unemployment Insurance Overview Ohio s unemployment system is structurally out of balance: An employer s tax rate rises and falls depending on its experience rating, but the taxable wage base is constant. Unlike the benefit, there is no link to inflation. Ohio s unemployment benefits are statutorily indexed to wage growth and typically increase frequently. 11

Ohio SUTA Tax 1984-2017 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 SUTA Tax per Employee SUTA taxes rise and fall in response to economic cycles *The tax collected per employee returned to roughly the same level in 2011 that it reached in 1984 following the last major recession when using nominal dollars. However, when recalculating using 1984 dollars, a tax of more than $750 per employee would be required for equivalence in 2011. 12

Tracking the Imbalance Over Time 3,000,000 2,500,000 UI Contributions Deposited & Regular UI Benefits Paid Ohio: CY 1984-2016 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 Contributions Deposited Benefits Paid Linear (Contributions Deposited) Linear (Benefits Paid) Linear (Benefits Paid) 13

Trust Fund Status 14

Unemployment Trust Fund Balance $3,500,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $0 ($500,000,000) ($1,000,000,000) ($1,500,000,000) ($2,000,000,000) UI Trust Fund 1978-2016 Trust Fund Balance Loan Balance Due Recession Contributions Benefits Paid ($2,500,000,000) *Proejected 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 *2016 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 15

Trust Fund Adequacy How Much is Enough? o Each state determines its own definition of an adequate reserve o Ohio law calls the adequate reserve the Minimum Safe Level, which is essentially the amount of funds needed to sustain the trust fund through a historically typical recession without borrowing o DOL uses a measure called the AHCM which would require a balance of $2.574 billion o The current (2016) MSL is $2,849,165,927.45 o The highest trust fund balance that we have ever achieved is $2.53 billion. 16

Requirement to Pay Benefits o States are required to make benefit payments regardless of solvency of unemployment trust fund. o When state funds become insolvent federal funds are loaned to states in order to make required payments. o There are no specific repayment schedules for the federal funds however interest is charged. o However, after two years, Federal unemployment taxes begin to increase with proceeds applied towards the loan. 17

Solvency and the Great Recession o The recession of 2008 was longer and deeper than anyone anticipated o Ohio s trust fund became insolvent on January 12, 2009 becoming the fourth state to become insolvent. o Ohio and 36 states ultimately borrowed in excess of $130.3 billion to pay required benefits o Ohio alone borrowed a total of $3.4 billion o Because Ohio s rate structure did not provide enough resources to repay the federal loans, a series of FUTA offset reductions were triggered beginning in 2011 o These FUTA tax increases were scheduled to repay the federal loan balance in 2017 18

Solvency and the Great Recession (2) A. Congress waived interest requirement for loan to states during Federal Fiscal Years 2009-2011 B. Federal Extensions: o Congress passed 12 separate bills extending or modifying unemployment insurance from 2008-2013 o At one point Ohioans were eligible for up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits o These extensions did not directly impact the Ohio Trust Fund Balance o EUCA still owes almost $16B to repay loans which will not be repaid until 2025 at current rate. 19

Recovery and Repayment FUTA Offset Credit Reductions: o On the second January 1 that a state trust fund is insolvent, FUTA tax credits are reduced by.3% o With each successive year of insolvency, the credit is reduced an additional.3% o These credit reductions will eventually pay off the federal debt 20

FUTA Offset Credit Reduction (pre- HB390) Tax Year Years After First Advance Aggregate Cost to Ohio Employers Total per Employee Additional Cost per Employee Effective Base FUTA Rate after full credit is 0.6% $42 Minimum Reduction 0.3% 2011 2 $89,000,000 $63 $21 0.6% 2012 3 $187,000,000 $84 $42 0.9% 2013 4 $282,000,000 $105 $63 1.2% 2014 5 $405,000,000 $126 $84 1.5% 2015 6 $503,000,000 $147 $105 1.8% 2016 7 $597,000,000 $168 $126 0.0% 2017 8 $0 $42 $0 Total aggregate FUTA cost to Ohio employers = $2,064,000,000 21

Ohio Response to Federal Loans o Ohio stopped borrowing in 2014 o We repaid $1.65 billion from State SUTA receipts from 2011 through 2016 o $1.47 billion was paid through the FUTA tax offset credit reduction process o HB2 was passed in 2013 and HB 390 was passed in 2016 22

Ohio s Response to Insolvency in the 80s Benefit Changes o Added one-week waiting period o Froze maximum rates for two years o Increased the earnings requirement to qualify or requalify for benefits o Rounded benefits down to lowest even dollar Tax Changes o Increased taxable wage base from $6K to $8K over two years o Increased MSL tax by.5% until the loan was repaid o Increased the top experience rate 23

Changes Resulting from House Bill 2 o Clarifies that the ODJFS director may require UC claimants to report to a local OhioMeansJobs Center at any time in the benefit year o Organizes all work search waivers into law and adds one new waiver o Establishes the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment Program in statute and establishes a continuing denial of benefits for failure to participate o Requires active registration with OhioMeansJobs.com 24

Changes Resulting from House Bill 390 o Provides authority to repay balance of federal loan with funds borrowed from Unclaimed Funds Account. o Enacts an Employer surcharge in 2017 in the amount calculated as necessary to repay Unclaimed funds. o Provides that, in the event of future borrowing, interest charges will be paid through a corresponding employer surcharge in the following year. 25

Changes Resulting from House Bill 390 (2) o Provides that, in the event that the trust fund shall become insolvent in the future, an additional an additional experience-rated tax of up to.5% shall be added to employer SUTA tax rates to begin to repay the principal on the outstanding federal loan balance until the loan is either repaid or FUTA offset reductions are imposed. o Indicates the intent to repeal the last provision upon successful passage of a broader fix to the current unemployment system imbalance. 26

FUTA Offset Credit Reduction post- HB390 Tax Year Years After First Advance Aggregate Cost to Ohio Employers Total per Employee Additional Cost per Employee Effective Base FUTA Rate after full credit is 0.6% $42 Minimum Reduction 0.3% 2011 2 $89,000,000 $63 $21 0.6% 2012 3 $187,000,000 $84 $42 0.9% 2013 4 $282,000,000 $105 $63 1.2% 2014 5 $405,000,000 $126 $84 0.0% 2015 6 $503,000,000 $147 $105 1.8% 2016 7 $0 $42 $0 0.0% 2017 8 $0 $42 $0 Total aggregate FUTA cost to Ohio employers = $1,466,000,000 27

Net Employer Tax Impact of HB390 2016 FUTA Tax reduction (payable in 2017) = -$597,000,000 2017 SUTA Tax increase to repay state loan = +$246,000,000 Net Tax Savings in 2017 = -$351,000,000 28

Total Employer Tax Load: Big Picture $450 Average Tax per Employee - by Year of Accrual $400 $350 $300 $250 $56 $56 $56 $56 $56 $56 $56 $74 $84 $105 $126 $147 $42 $42 $54 $200 $150 $100 $206 $219 $248 $239 $245 $266 $304 $346 $317 $258 $256 $236 $227 $229 $50 $0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Avg SUTA per Employee Special SUTA per employer Avg FUTA per Employee 29

Loan Repayment Solvency o If HB390 allowed us to pay off the federal loan, why is further legislative action needed? Even with continued employment growth, the imbalance between benefits and taxes will ultimately trigger more borrowing. Even a small recession could render us insolvent. In the event of future insolvency, HB390 provisions will automatically trigger significant tax increases. 30

Ohio Unemployment Tax Structure 31

State Unemployment Tax o Rates will range from 0.3% to 8.5%, compared to 2012, when they ranged from 0.7% to 9.6%. o Average tax rate for 2016 will decline to 2.5%, compared to 3.8% in 2011 o Average tax per employee will decrease to $225 from a high of $342 in 2011 32

Ohio Unemployment Tax Components o Base Rate The base rate is the largest portion of the tax. It is fixed in statute and varies each year based on experience factors. These include the size of the employer s payroll, how much the employer has paid in taxes, and how much its account has been charged for benefits. Base rates range from.1 to 6.5 percent. o Minimum Safe Level (MSL) Tax The rate schedule is adjusted each year based on the trust fund balance. The tax rate ranges from.2 to 2.0 percent based on an employer s experience rating. o Mutualized Rate A flat rate used to cover benefits that cannot be assigned to a specific employer for example, benefits owed to former employees of businesses that have closed. No regular mutualized tax will be levied in 2016, and none is expected for several years. A special mutualized tax of.5% will be levied for 2017 only to repay the state loan. o Base Rate + MSL Rate + Mutualized Rate = Employer SUTA Tax Rate 33

Experience Rated Tax System o Two Primary Factors: Employer Claim History and Trust Fund Balance Minimum Safe Base Rate Final Rate Level Tax 6.5 5.7 4.8 4.0 3.3 2.5 1.6.9.1 8.7 7.7 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5 2.3 1.4.3 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0.7.5.2 34

Employer Overview o All SUTA taxes are paid by Ohio employers o Ohio currently has 221,000 active employers in the UC tax system and another 5,000 reimbursing employers. o 77% of Ohio employers have 20 or fewer employees. o Only 2% of Ohio employers have more than 200 employees, but these employers collectively employ 56% of the total employees in covered employment. 35

Tax Rate Variances o Minimum rate for 2016 remained at.3% o 25% of experience-rated employers are at the minimum rate o Only 6.3% of experience-rated employers are at the maximum rate o 12.0% are at the delinquency rate o 5.8% of employers experienced 2014 rate increases > 100% 36

Tax and Benefit Annual Cycles Benefits Paid and Taxes Received by Quarter 2000-2015 60.00% 56.98% 50.00% 40.00% 32.47% 30.00% 25.02% 20.00% 19.28% 21.16% 21.34% 10.00% 11.02% 12.72% 0.00% Jan-Mar Q1 April-June Q2 July-Sept Q3 Oct-Dec Q4 Employer Contributions Benefits Paid 37

Number of Ohioans Receiving Benefits o Different methods for measuring Continuing claims Total individuals receiving a payment in year o For the week ending July 30, 2016, we had about 59,000 regular continuing claims. During the week ending July 25, 2009, at the height of the recession we had about 239,000. o In 2009 we issued a total of 698,248 1099 forms. This year we expect to issue fewer than 250,000. 38

Comparison with Other States o Ohio s average UC tax rate on total wages (.59%) is lower than the US average (.74%). Rank: 14th lowest o Maximum benefit amount is higher than the average. Rank: 10th highest o Average weekly benefit of $342 is higher than the average. Rank: 17th highest o Average weekly wage is close to the national average. Rank: 25th highest o Recipiency rate is low. Rank: 33rd highest 39

How Other States Have Achieved Solvency Increase Revenue o Rate Inflate Schedule Raise or remove maximums Raise minimums o Taxable Wage Base Change impact by industry o Surtax ATB or targeted Reduce Expense o Reduce benefit amount o Reduce number of unemployed who qualify for benefits o Reduce duration of benefits Cap (Maximum) Back-load 40

Critical Financial Sustainability Issues o Maintain balance between benefits paid and taxes received o Trust fund must have the ability to build adequate reserves to sustain typical recession o Cyclical or counter-cyclical tax response. 41

Unemployment Myths 42

Myth #1: Everyone is just staying on unemployment instead of working. 43

Myth #1: People prefer benefits to work. o For 2015 Ohio s exhaustion rate ranks 5th lowest among states. o Our average duration on unemployment for 2015 was 14.6 weeks. 44

Distribution of Benefits by weeks collected Distribution of UC Claims by Number of Weeks Compensated Ohio: July 2015 - June 2016 60,000 25.00% 21.3% 50,000 40,000 17.8% 20.00% 15.00% 30,000 20,000 10.00% 10,000 4.6% 4.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.8% 1.6% 2.3% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 5.00% - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0.00% Weeks Paid Percent of Total 45

Myth # 2: It makes no sense for an employer to appeal. The system is stacked for the claimant. 46

Myth #2: Not employer-friendly In the most recent quarter: o Claimant Appeals to the UCRC 25% favorable to appellant 75% unfavorable to appellant o Employer Appeals to UCRC 36% favorable to appellant 64% unfavorable to appellant o Claimants are 30% more likely to appeal. 47

Assistant Director Bruce Madson bruce.madson@jfs.ohio.gov 48