Trav’s Paid Family Leave Plan a Travesty
TAGS: Economy, IRS.
Our Senate President Robert Travaglini unveiled his plan to provide workers up to 12 weeks of paid time off to care for newborns or adopted children.
The family leave portion of the plan, touted as one of the most generous such policies in the nation, would be paid for using a fund that employees, not employers, contribute to.
It would allow employees to get their full salary, up to $750 a week, during the leave and also cover time off to care for sick family members.
Travaglini also proposed increased tax deductions for people with dependents under the age of 12, people over 65 and the disabled.
He wants to increase the $3,600 deduction for each dependent to $5,000 annually and to increase the yearly deductions for child care expenses from $4,800 for one child to $10,000, and from $9,600 to $15,000 for two.
Travaglini estimated the cost would be $67 million to $70 million.
So instead of businesses paying people to not work, employees will be hit with a new “child care tax.” Is this Travaglini’s way of appearing to pro-business at the expense of being against the taxpayers? When did it become my responsibility to pay for someone else’s kid? As a taxpayer, I do that plenty already. This proposal is a joke, and will hurt the largest employers in the Commonwealth, small businesses. The National Federation of Independent Business agrees.
“For a small business one person is a very substantial part of the work force,” [Bill Vernon, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business] said. “The idea that one person can be paid fully for 12 weeks leave and then be guaranteed the job back, that’s a very substantial impact on a company with three of four employees.”
He also worried the fee on employees could shift to employer.
“The Massachusetts economy has a lot of issues with growing jobs. This would just be one more,” Vernon said.
According to Travaglini’s plan, employees would pay a $1.50 to $2.50 per week premium that would go into a fund that would pay for the time off. So let’s a small business of 6 employees puts in the maximum of $2.50 per week into this new “child care slush fund.” That’s $130 per employee per year, which is $780 going to the slush fund for a typical year. Let’s say one of those employees has a child. 12 weeks off, paid the maximum of $750 per week, is $9,000. Not to mention the lost productivity of 12 weeks less an employee, you’re talking about a serious blow to a small business that would inevitably be required to pay the difference, $8,220 in the first year. In this same example, those 6 employees will have pay into this “child care slush fund” for nearly 12 years so that one employee can take 12 paid weeks off. And who’s going to pay for the employee’s share of health care insurance costs? Will this paycheck be taxable? God help us if the plan would create this as a state tax that goes into one large state “child care” fund…the last thing we need is another social security type boondoggle.
When people make the decision to have children, it’s their decision, and their burden–not mine. Employers and employees already bear enough burden when someone goes on maternity or paternity leave; asking them to help pay their salary during the time their co-workers are changing diapers and feeding their new children is too much to ask.
This plan sucks.
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
Aaron Margolis is a life long resident of the Bay State, and works at an architectural firm north of Boston. Aaron has a Master of Architecture Degree from Boston Architectural College and is currently in the process of becoming of a Registered Architect.
Not to mention that employers will be less inclined to hire young women with engagement rings – the purported beneficiaries of the legislation.
This state is going to be a giant ghost town soon though I would argue that it already is.
All these great schools here and what have they wrought… Unmitigated socialism.
Trav just doesn’t want to be outdone by fellow idiot DiMasi in ruining the state.
Steve Bailey’s piece in the Globe today puts a proper perspective on this idea.