General Discussion

In the example you provided, it makes sense to base unemployment taxes on "use", for lack of a better term, because companies control who they lay off, which means more people unemployed.

In the example I used, a company has no say (nor should they) on how many people are in their employees' households.

A given job pays what it pays, based on the skills required, demand for those skills, etc. I'm not seeing why a company should have to pay the government because a given set of employees has bigger families that qualify them for federal benefits.

To be clear, I have no issue whatsoever with the federal government providing those needed benefits, and if we're talking single-member households who need federal benefits because they can't survive on their pay, then yes, I'm all for companies having to contribute. Where we diverge is on the notion that companies should pay a penalty to the government due to something they have no control over (benefits due to family size).