More fun from the Washington State Legislature: currently in the hopper is State Bill 6185 which modifies the Family Medical Leave Act, providing paid leave for employees. We already have unpaid leave for people who need to take care of their families, and I have no problem with that. Sometimes there are just circumstances that mean you need to take some time off, but I resent having to pay for it.
As the bill stands, people can take off five weeks per year paying $250.00 per week for medical leave. In order to pay for this, each worker in Washington state will pay 2¢ per hour into this slush fund to pay for this. This comes out to a bit more than $40 per year.Because I'm a numbers geek, I've done a bit of figuring this stuff out.
Assuming a person invented a sick uncle to care for and ditched the deep fryer at La Taco for five weeks a year for 45 years, Jose Nosepicker would soak the state of Washington for $56,250.00 over that time. For me alone to pay off Jose's time drinking Coronas on the beach for those five weeks of just one year, I must work for 45 years. Assuming someone were to take the entire allotment, that person would have taken off four-and-a-half years for vacation all told over their working life.
I haven't even taken into account the cost of administration and beauraucracy for this program; I'm just doing figures on the cost of people drawing the checks. When you add in the cost of making sure people are actually helping their sick uncle and not on the beach, and the other office type stuff, it becomes clear that we're on the way to some bad news. It's a pyramid scheme for anyone who looks even a bit below the surface of the whole thing, but Washington state's legislature is in some sort of contest with California to become the most socialist state of the union, so we're going to be seeing more of this silliness until someone steps up to smack all of these nutjobs down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You can't just invent a sick relative. To take FMLA, you need documentation from a doctor of the illness, plus it needs to be an immediate family member (parent, kid, or spouse).
Really, I don't see the issue, unless you just plain don't like the idea of it (which is fine). People aren't gonna miss 2 cents an hour (who really cares if you're making $11.98/hr instead of $12.00), there's no additional bureaucracy to install since I'm sure there's already people who handle FMLA claims in the government, and it's really pretty simple to mitigate fraud in the system...all requests go through the employer. $250 a week isn't exactly a mind-blowing amount of cash anyways.
Were I a taxpayer in your state, I would consider the cost worth the benefit. Of course, if that turns out to not be the case, the law could be repealed.
For the record, in California, a bill or measure like that would probably go on a ballot and be voted on. That would be a better way to do social welfare issues like that..."are you willing to tax yourself to pay for this program?"
Really, I don't see the issue, unless you just plain don't like the idea of it
The issue is that I'm losing money from my paycheck, when people should be saving up to take their own leave on their own dime.
(which is fine). People aren't gonna miss 2 cents an hour (who really cares if you're making $11.98/hr instead of $12.00),
Funny thing; that's exactly the tactic that the proponents are taking. I look at it as $40 a year, and as $40 that is rightfully mine.
Something I didn't even think of when I wrote the piece: it's basically an income tax, since everyone is taxed at the same right no matter their income. And that's not allowed in our state.
Were I a taxpayer in your state, I would consider the cost worth the benefit. Of course, if that turns out to not be the case, the law could be repealed. I have zero problem with someone taking off time if they need to. But it shouldn't be up to me to pay for their time just because they couldn't be bothered to sock away some money from their paycheck every month.
"are you willing to tax yourself to pay for this program?" And that's why this will go through. No initiative on this means that this question doesn't have to be asked. Washington pays taxes six ways from Sunday, and if they had the chance, they wouldn't take on another one.
It's a redistribution of wealth on its face, and I don't like it.
Not every person is able to save up money for emergencies or have someone support them during one. It's wonderful that if Ruth had a serious medical emergency, I could take 5 weeks off to care for her and not lose my job over it. However, in reality I couldn't take any time off, since no income would mean no apartment, no electricity, etc...Some people could take that month or so off with no pay and not have any issues. I'm not one of them, and I'm guessing I'm the norm, not the exception.
I think it's really whether you think it's a good use for taxpayer money. I think it is, you think it isn't. Not much to argue on that front.
I am curious, however. Say they were taxing everyone 2 cents an hour for something else, such as building prisons or repairing roads, or for some other program you would support Would you support the tax in this case, or do you object to this type of tax period? Personally, I think it's a clever way of taxing people, and it's much fairer than many other payroll taxes (like, say, FICA).
I'd really like an answer to my question. I'll clarify it: Are you against the idea of a tax of this type for any reason, or just for reasons you oppose?
I don't want to open up new discussion or anything (though we can do so on IMs when I see you next), I just want to know how you feel about the tax itself.
I'd really like an answer to my question. I'll clarify it: Are you against the idea of a tax of this type for any reason, or just for reasons you oppose?
I don't want to open up new discussion or anything (though we can do so on IMs when I see you next), I just want to know how you feel about the tax itself.I resent your prodding me along to answer when I've been taking my time in trying to put together a response. I hadn't forgotten.
One of the parts of my belief system is that of personal responsibility. That means putting money away for savings for when things go wrong.
I am also against the transfer of wealth from people who work to people who choose not to work. That's socialism, no two ways about it. People who go to work should be able to keep their money. I'm against a transfer of wealth when it is conducted outside of the free market anyway.
For the third, this is an income tax, which is not allowed under state laws. It's not "clever," like you say; it's out of bounds.
I'm not against taxes--we have to have them in order to pay for things. This isn't a tax; this is a blatant cash grab by people who should keep their hands out of my pocket, and a tactic by the legislature to try and get another voting bloc into the fold.
Post a Comment