Family And Medical Insurance Leave Act -- Smart Politics; Bad For Business
Wendy McElroy explains at The Hill about a proposed national insurance program for paid family leave, the FAMILY Act:
The program would be an independent trust fund under the Social Security Administration (SSA), which would collect money and administer benefits. Each employer and employee would pay into the fund an amount that is 0.2 percent of the latter's wages. Qualifying employees would be entitled to a family and medical leave payment for a period lasting one year, during which no more than 60 days could be taken. The payment would equal 66 percent of a person's usual monthly wage, up to a maximum of $4,000/month, and would be indexed for inflation.As with ObamaCare, what could go wrong?
The proposed act imposes costs that could sink marginal businesses, especially smaller ones. All employers would be required to pay into the fund, regardless of their size. All workers, including part-time ones, would be included. And, yet, many workers became part-time because businesses could not afford to pay the ObamaCare coverage mandated for full-time ones. Many seasonal workers would also be covered, even if they are unemployed. Businesses with thin profits, like family farms, may be unable to absorb that cost and uncertainty. The act will become an engine of unemployment.
Women, the young and the inexperienced will be harmed most. Women are the primary caregivers in most situations. This means it will be more expensive to hire them than men because they are more likely to take paid leaves that require paid replacements. The young and inexperienced often accept less pay or benefits in order to get a work background. The more expensive these workers become, the less reason businesses have to prefer them over experienced applicants.
...The opportunity for abuse is incredible. In a February 2014 FAQ, an enthusiastic National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF) explained reassuringly, "the fraud and abuse prevention measures ... are similar to those for Social Security." But, as Fox News reported on Oct. 8, 2013, "A two-year investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has found widespread fraud in the Social Security Administration's Disability Program." Moreover, the next line of the NPWF FAQ presents the wrist-tap to be used against abusers. "If a person is caught lying to receive benefits, they will be banned from the program for one year."
Finally, as Gillibrand seems fond of saying, for an employee who makes the median annual wage of $32,196, the cost will be $1.24 a week -- "similar to the expense of a cup of coffee." But the deficit-addicted federal government always understates costs; it always overspends on programs, and usually dramatically so. Assurances of coffee-money costs and "revenue neutral" spending are as likely to be true of the FAMILY Act as it is of other programs.
Gummint hates small business because everytime they try to impose some joyous new regulation on a small business, the small business collapses from the weight of compliance. It's not that regulators feel bad, it just takes the sport out of it. It's like playing with an underinflated basketball.
Big business rolls with it. Big business rolls with everything, because they've usually had to pay off a bunch slobs to get the enterprise running anyway.
Lefties don't get this: They hate Big Business because The Corporations, Man.....
But no business are more receptive to the machinations of the lefty Paradise Engine than big business. Bennies for one-time gay weekend partners... Check! Sixteen weeks off when you adopt a kid... Check! Two and a half weeks off for menstruation... Check!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at October 5, 2014 5:02 AM
There is a ridiculous lack of even the basics of caring whether you get things right in a government job...
We just got a $160,000.00 camera rig. Nobody at all mentioned it had to go in a 4" hole. It's 4.5" across. Yes, the previous rig was available for a template.
If you are some sort of regulator, or do-gooder trying to save everyone from the slightest offense to body or mind, go the hell outside and see what the people you pretend to care for have to deal with. Your dumb ass is a bigger problem than the real world.
Radwaste at October 5, 2014 6:01 AM
Of course big business rolls with the government's proposals.
The incremental cost to them to handle new regulations are a relative pittance, but to a small business will break the bank. And this is fine with big businesses: no smaller, nimbler, smarter upstarts will ever be able to challenge them for market share. ☑
One of the founders of Home Depot was asked if he thought they could get HD off the ground in the current climate. His answer: no.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 5, 2014 6:45 AM
If you are some sort of regulator, or do-gooder trying to save everyone from the slightest offense to body or mind, go the hell outside and see what the people you pretend to care for have to deal with. Your dumb ass is a bigger problem than the real world.
Posted by: Radwaste at October 5, 2014 6:01 AM
That is precisely how I feel about Pennsylvania representatives' politically motivated restrictions on pharmaceutical ("medical") abortion.
Michelle at October 5, 2014 12:55 PM
Possibly the most wonderful discovery by politicians is that they can tax workers through their employment while confusing everyone. Workers don't seem to care, because these are taxes "on employers". They may even applaud these taxes, thinking that employers are paying for something as a gift to employees. Workers blame the "stingy" employer when their wages go down, instead of blaming the government.
Politicians trumpet that they are only taxing stingy businessmen, who should be offering health care as a matter of simple morality.
Company paid employment benefits are part of your wages
The message from the main stream media is that "capitalism" has led to stagnant or even lowered take-home pay, but it is really the government which taxes employment as much as it can.
Government has the nerve to charge businesses 5% of wages for "unemployment insurance". Workers don't figure out that all wages are 5% less to pay for this tax supposedly on employers.
Social Security is supposedly only 7.65% paid by the worker and 7.65% paid by the employer. But, wages are 7.65% less to provide for the employer's part. Workers are paying the full 15.3% taxed by the government, half in declared taxes and half in lower wages which they never receive.
OK, there is a complication. Some of the burden may be passed to the customer as higher prices, assuming that all businesses in that product area are taxed and there is no black market possible. Still, higher prices mean selling less and employing fewer people. It is hard to know how the tax burden applies to a combination of lower wages, lower benefits, and less employment.
The IRS and the Obama administration are scrambling to interpret ObamaCare so that it doesn't lead to massive layoffs and business failure. The government cannot indirectly force employees to pay much more for health insurance. There is a limit to how much productive workers can be squeezed. Employees end up paying almost all of the increased taxes and penalties supposedly placed upon employers. The employee is fired if he cannot pay, and the business fails if it needs those employees.
Many taxes and penalties arise from employing people. These are almost entirely paid by decreasing the wages offered. If the employer increases the price of its product, then the customers pay part of the tax, and the employer usually sells less product and fires some people. If the customers will not pay more, and the employees will not work for less, then the business fails and everyone is out of a job.
This proposed 0.2% tax on both the employee and the employer uses the same dodge. It is a 0.4% tax on wages. Really small, nothing to worry about? Consider that 0.4% of 250 working days/year is 1 day. The government wants to take a day of salary or vacation from everyone, then give it back to people who want to take leave. You decide if it will stay that low or if you want to pay for others to game the system.
Andrew_M_Garland at October 5, 2014 2:14 PM
There's a thing almost nobody says aloud:
You don't have to have government to have commerce, but you have to have commerce to have government.
Radwaste at October 5, 2014 4:12 PM
Ah, it's settled then. There is nothing to worry about.
Cuntly and inane besides. To describe militant Islam as the most popular, most sincere or eventual destination for tbhe faith is naive, fatalistic, and willfully stoo-pit.
These judgments aren't Harris' to make, certainly not by casual, schoolboy impulse.
crid at October 7, 2014 9:55 AM
Whoops. Sorry.
crid at October 7, 2014 9:57 AM
Leave a comment