The consequences of the tax agreement have an impact on employees- currently employed and currently unemployed, employers, individual states, and their families (Isaacs, 2018). The resulting repercussions, like a coin, have both positive and ominous implications, as stated below:

 Currently unemployed: When productivity is confined by demand, there are more potential employees than jobs available; therefore, pressuring these employees into more intensive job-searching by reducing unemployment insurance benefits does not result in more jobs being created but rather in more frustrating job searches (Paul et al., 2018). Unemployment assistance schemes, on the other hand, which are designed to soothe the financial stress of job loss, may have unforeseen good health benefits. Unemployment insurance may be a strategy to prevent or decrease some of the adverse health effects of job loss if the adverse health effects of unemployment are partly due to income loss. Individual states: States are turning down billions of pounds in already approved federal funds that could be used to improve local grocery stores, eateries, and retail outlets by terminating these programs early (Isaacs, 2018). This step, will cause additional strain not only on the economy, but also on the citizens. Currently employed:  Liberals often claim that federal benefits impede people from returning to work. Economists argue that while federal aid may play a tiny part in certain businesses' inability to fill unfilled slots, there are other more significant factors at play, such as child care concerns and workers' continued lack of confidence. Employers: Additionally, the decisions to withdraw federal pandemic benefits in various jurisdictions will have severe racial ramifications (Paul et al., 2018). Firms are protesting the most about labor shortages since they rely on mainly marginalized, non-unionized, reduced Black labor. Families: Following the tax deal, the overall economic growth will be hampered by a lack of demand for goods and services, and shutting off fiscal support that helps people sustain expenditure is a wrong decision, both for the wellbeing of these families and economic stability

To summarize, there is no need to reduce federal unemployment compensation (Isaacs 2018).  Slashing off sufficient support to laborers to compel them to take whichever job comes up if it is cheap, high-risk, unsuited to their abilities, or incongruent with their family responsibilities is brutal and not in the best interests of any nation's laborers or businesses in the long run.