Posted on 03/05/2020 11:04:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Following increased interest in expanding access to paid family and medical leave, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., joined forces with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., to promote the Family and Medical Insurance Leave, or FAMILY, Act. If we believe the act's supporters, it would cost close to nothing and provide essential benefits to employees who don't currently receive them.
Unfortunately, these claims are bogus.
Under the FAMILY Act, the federal government would offer 12 weeks of paid time off to enable workers to care for infants, recover from major illnesses and care for severely ill relatives. During that time, employees would receive benefits administered by the Social Security Administration equal to 66% of their regular earnings, with a minimum monthly benefit of $580 and a maximum monthly benefit of $4,000. To pay for this new handout, the federal government would impose a 0.4% payroll tax to be divided evenly between employers and employees.
Gillibrand argues that the act would provide greatly needed benefits to employees at a minimal cost to them. One of her favorite talking points about the proposal is that it would cost employees only $4 a week, or the equivalent of a cup of coffee.
Unfortunately, the senator's assertion is quite misleading. For starters, a 0.4% hike in the payroll tax would not be enough to pay for the federal spending under the plan. The Congressional Budget Office, or the CBO, released a score of the bill as introduced and found that the FAMILY Act would increase spending by $547 billion in benefits and administrative costs over 10 years, but it would only increase net federal revenues by $319 billion during that time. That means that $228 billion in spending wouldn't be paid for by the FAMILY Act's new tax.
While the federal government is no stranger to deficits, in this case -- and contrary to what FAMILY Act supporters seem to believe -- this deficit will require either more tax revenues or fewer government benefits. The CBO points out that the act "would limit program outlays to amounts in the trust fund," which the Heritage Foundation's Rachel Greszler explains in her recently released paper "is the accumulation of the FAMILY Act's payroll taxes." This means that one way or another, spending must equal tax revenues. Therefore, Congress will have to either ration benefits or raise the payroll tax.
By how much? It would double within four years of the first benefits, which would be paid in October 2022.
Greszler calculates that as the number of people claiming the benefit increases, if benefits aren't rationed, "In 2023, the initial 0.4 percentage point payroll tax would have to rise by 25 percent to 0.5 percentage points. By 2026, the necessary payroll tax would need to double to 0.8 percentage points, and by 2028, it would need to rise to about 240 percent of its initial level, to 0.95 percentage points." And that's just the beginning. This, of course, is on top of the already steep and regressive existing payroll tax.
Moreover, even though employees and employers split the FAMILY Act's payroll tax, most of the employer's share of the tax will still fall on workers. That's because, over time, employers shift the costs of new taxes onto employees in the form of lower wages. In other words, employees will shoulder most of the payroll-tax increase. The CBO accounts for some of this shifting as it projects a $42 billion reduction in federal revenues because employers will reduce workers' wages and benefits.
The FAMILY Act would also lead to other undesirable changes, like a shift in resources from those with lesser means to those who already have more. Greszler explains that in the United States, "where substantial employer-provided paid family leave exists, a government program could be even more regressive because it would provide windfall benefits to larger companies and higher-income employees who already have paid family leave policies." This is currently happening with state-based paid family leave programs. Companies that used to provide the benefits are now asking their employees to tap into the taxpayer provided program first.
Finally, but importantly, economic research reveals that employees -- and women in particular -- in countries where government has implemented such benefits face more discrimination, fewer advancement opportunities, fewer hours of employment and lower wages. These are the unseen costs of such programs that the act's supporters ignore.
All of these facts together make for a very expensive cup of coffee.
That won’t be a problem for the ruling elite, which will just vote itself a pay raise or a cost of living adjustment.
I make my own as well. Peets French Roast. $8.00 a bag that lasts me 2-3 weeks of every morning coffee. Thats about .40 cents a cup of really good coffee.
“”””I firmly believe that if they were Democrat donors we would all be learning in school how healthful it is to bathe your lungs in cleansing smoke””””””””
The tar puts a coating on the cancer cells so they can’t grow and stuff.
“Who in their right minds pays $4 for a a cup of coffee?”
*****
I have money for it but there better be a hot blonde in a bikini serving me that $4 coffee..
Have a baby and you can go whered you like.
But with FMLA, in general (which has been around a long time), theres a lot of paperwork that needs to be filled out regularly.
I don’t. I drink my coffee at home.
People will just stop buying at a certain point, the companies are all going to automate anyway. This is because customers, including here on FR, apparently do not value human contact, which takes about the same time as a machine but is a good start to your day.
My deli in NY - and then my food cart and then my Starbucks - had my coffee and egg on a roll ready as soon as I walked in. Thanks for ruining this, Dems.
“Who in their right minds pays $4 for a a cup of coffee?”
That’s what I thought. I wondered if it was a joke. Guess not.
Who pays $4.00 for coffee?
And, why?
Useful idiot liberals. And why? Because they thing they’re being an activist when they patronize those kinds of places.
I'll trump that with a degree in Transgender Dolphin Love Studies since this is 2020, and how dare you try to judge me.
It's not going to raise the price of making your own coffee at home.
Where does this ditz spend $4 for a cup of arabica swill? At that price, it better be a small, 100% pure cup of Kona or Jamaican Blue Mountain. And none of that blend crap where one bean in 50 is of certified stock. Even my bean grinder knows the difference, but a lib will buy it for the label on the cup to virtue signal they're part of 'the crowd'. And buy your own damn health plan. God, liberals make my brain hurt.
Useful idiot LIEberals = dumbasses!
“Paid Family Leave Act Will Have You Paying $10 for a $4 Cup of Coffee”
That is exactly what will happen. People will buy less and businesses and employees will suffer. But, the do-gooders, including Ivanka Trump, will feel good about themselves, and that’s what counts.
As the cost of government and everything else goes up due to these intrusions of the market, it will force more mothers into the workplace even if they want to stay home with their children. Why should families with a stay-at-home parent pay more so that 2-income families get more benefits? The government is determined to force all moms into the workplace to pay taxes and have the kiddies in government-run daycare from infancy. Got to start the indoctrination early and stamp out any kind of independent parenting.
This is not about the price of coffee. It’s about the price of government intrusion into the economy and how government makes everything it touches worse. As Reagan said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Thank you, Ivanka. Deep thinking is not her specialty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.