I think the current argument is that the fastest, easiest, simplest way to help employees, is to make sure they don't get fired. And the easiest way to do that

I think the current argument is that the fastest, easiest, simplest way to help employees, is to make sure they don't get fired. And the easiest way to do that is to make sure the businesses don't feel the need to fire them (to either cover those fixed obligations, or to plain shut down). Give the businesses 8% more cash (by removing payroll tax), you might allow the business to survive a month-long slump, and not fire anyone. This would seem a good strategy if the issue was simply a month of lost productivity, with an otherwise healthy business. And where the game theory would lend itself towards the business owners knowing this, and so choosing to not fire anyone. And where the 'lost efficiency' of shuffling around ownership would be significantly greater than the short term loss. If those are not true, and the business then fires its employees anyway, it really was just a gift to the business owners, and would be a failure.