Wouldn't it be better to just tax companies for 1099 like you do unemployment tax and pivot that over to a state-managed healthcare and retirement benefit that 1099's could opt in to for some reasonably low cost?
How so?
National health care would resolve a lot of issues that get darkly joked about a la "The third world country of America."
Policy and law isn't always rational, well-informed and wise. All too often, it's what you can get most everyone to agree on based on shared assumptions and biases.
I'd also like to point out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries and more Europeans immigrate to the US than the reverse. If US is as bad as you say then why does that happen?
USA is an attractive emigration target since it is the biggest country which speaks the lingua franca, you see all English speaking countries enjoying similar advantages. This also naturally helps with university prestige and startup success.
And in your reply don't forget that if they converted to employees their base salary would be lower.
Basically take the extra social security tax they have to pay, and subtract that from salary (adjust a bit since the lower salary also lowers the tax).
If they cover health insurance then subtract that as well.
> This simply isn't true.
It's lovely hearing that something I've actually experienced is not true.
I switched from contractor with flexible hours, to employee full time (with the same company), and my take home was lower as an employee, but then again I got health insurance.
If I had to do it again I would have stayed a contractor: I made more money, and I could shop around for better health insurance.
The company might have said no and/or given me fewer hours, so I guess that's a negotiation I would have done.
Of course in California the choice would be taken away from me.
Did you even negotiate the transition or did you just accept what your company told you? How often have you gone through this?