Low-income workers should not have to give higher-income workers more of their wages
All W-2 workers in Washington state should count on continual pay decreases to pay for the state's mandatory paid-leave program — a program that doesn't pay its way and that requires low-income wage earners to supplement the life needs and wants of upper-wage earners. How's that for regressive?
Employment Security Department numbers show that middle- and upper-income people use paid leave far more than those with lower incomes. In fact, people making $60 or more an hour used the fund nearly twice as much as the lowest wage earners in fiscal year 2024. Meanwhile, full-time workers of all incomes already lose hundreds of dollars a year to this tax. (Calculate your losses here: https://paidleave.wa.gov/estimate-your-paid-leave-payments/.)
The Paid Family and Medical Leave program is no safety net. It makes most workers less able to pay for the life needs they do have. The Legislature should have considered ending it this year.
Instead, lawmakers considered Senate Bill 5292, which in the end proposed taxing workers up to $2 of every $100 in earnings in the coming years for a benefit many will never see. That new, higher rate would've been more than double the current tax. The bill died, but the proposal could still be considered again next session. That's likely because the funding now available for the program doesn't cover its costs.
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee said that administrative costs and benefits exceeded revenue for the paid-leave program in two of its first four years. And in 2023, the program got a $200 million bailout from the state's general fund to deal with higher-than-expected claims. The fix was temporary, however. A state consultant forecasts that the program will likely see negative net income again in three of the next five years.
That's not hard to understand. People like it when other taxpayers help pay for their life wants and needs — especially when a portion of their wages has contributed to a pool of money during their working years.
This year, the tax for the program is already 92 cents on every $100 a worker earns — up to the 2025 Social Security cap of $176,100. That's more than twice the amount when the tax began in 2019 at 40 cents per $100 of earnings. (Employees pay about 72% of this tax. Employers contribute about 28% on behalf of their employees. That's money that then can't go toward increased worker pay or other benefits.)
The most recent version of Senate Bill 5292 outlined increases in the 1.2% Paid Family and Medical Leave tax rate cap. The bill called for raising it to 1.4% in 2027 and 2028, 1.6% in 2029 and 2030, 1.8% in 2031 and 2032, and 2% for 2033 and subsequent years.
While some supporters of this harmful worker tax brag that thousands have been helped by it, they fail to mention that millions of workers have not. And for some of those workers, making ends meet is more difficult because of it. The paid-leave tax penalty state lawmakers have placed on workers puts self-sufficiency further out of reach for some Washingtonians and should end.
Federal law already allows workers 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid family leave. It doesn't pay people not to work while taxing those who do work but don't have the luxury of taking weeks off, even with paid leave.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
ATLANTA — Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' Well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' Well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, as its leaders have long asserted, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled political tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also counter the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the left-leaning Working Families Party. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was almost Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking the president's frequent sign-off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the civil rights movement. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman and onetime Democratic presidential candidate who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that could give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F— the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and the Democratic leader of the House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, O'Neill said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot and insurrection. In 2016, Democratic President Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. McConnell's maneuver gave one additional Supreme Court appointee to the next president — Trump. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, said Mitchell of the Working Families Party. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Rep. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs [political action committees] and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does. If you don't do politics, politics will do you.'' Barrow writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Trustees Say the Program Can Pay All Benefits Until 2034. It Might Be Too Optimistic
Key Points The latest Social Security Trustees Report estimates that the program could face benefit cuts in 2034 unless the government institutes reforms. Recent legislative changes could cause it to run out of money sooner. Reforms would likely include increasing taxes, reducing benefits, or both. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Earlier this summer, we got worrying news that Social Security's trust funds are expected to be depleted in 2034 -- a year earlier than what 2024 estimates projected. The latest Trustees Report suggests that everything will be business as usual, at least for the next eight years. But that estimate is based on assumptions about everything from life expectancy to income, and there's no way to know whether they're right. It might seem like all you can do right now is wait and watch to see what Congress will do to your benefits in the future. But that's not true. By understanding why the program is running short of money, you can anticipate the types of Social Security changes the government might have to make in the near future, so you can start preparing yourself now. The state of Social Security Social Security depends on three sources of income to operate smoothly: payroll taxes from workers, benefit taxes from some seniors, and interest income from money in the trust funds. Take away one of those sources -- like the trust fund income -- and the other two need to pick up the slack somehow. The only other option is benefit cuts, which the latest Trustees Report estimates would be around 23% if the government does nothing to resolve this funding issue. By far the largest of Social Security's income sources is payroll tax income. This amounted to nearly $1.3 trillion in 2024. In comparison, interest income only totaled about $69 billion, and benefit taxation was about $55 billion. So anything that could disrupt the flow of taxes coming in is a serious concern. That's a big part of why Social Security is in its current predicament. When the baby boomers retired, the number of beneficiaries ballooned quickly. The generations that followed them were smaller, so there were fewer workers to pay taxes in their stead. This upset the ratio between the number of workers and the number of beneficiaries. Legislative changes can also disrupt Social Security income and expenses. President Joe Biden's Social Security Fairness Act increased benefits for select seniors, which will also increase the program's expenses. President Donald Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which passed after the 2025 Trustees Report was released, is expected to reduce the benefit taxes the program takes in. Then there's the issue of the assumptions the Trustees Report uses to predict when the program's trust funds will be depleted. These include assumptions about life expectancy, income, and fertility rates, to name a few. If any of these are off, the insolvency date could be off too. These examples highlight that Social Security's insolvency date is always a bit of a moving target. It's not out of the question that the program could run out of money before 2034. What happens if Social Security runs out of money early? We have approximately 10 months to wait until the next Social Security Trustees Report, so it'll be a while before we get an updated estimate of how the trust funds are doing. But even if the news is bad, it's important to put it in perspective. The government is unlikely to allow Social Security to drop by nearly a quarter. It will likely intervene. We don't know what Social Security reforms Washington will decide upon, but we know that there are really only three ways to solve this: Increase revenue by raising taxes. Reduce expenses by cutting benefits. Increase revenue and reduce expenses. There are different ways to tackle each option. For example, increasing the ceiling on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes ($176,100 in 2025) would primarily affect high earners. Raising payroll taxes on everyone would affect people of all economic backgrounds. Similarly, you could cut benefits for all retirees, or raise the full retirement age (FRA), which would act as a cut only for younger adults. The only thing we know for sure is that the government will have to make some sort of a decision in the next few years. Once it does, it'll be time for retirees and workers alike to sit down and review their retirement budget to decide how they plan to cover their expenses moving forward. For some, it might require significant changes, like working longer or moving to a more affordable area in retirement. Others may not have to make too many adjustments. But it's still important to do the math so you know what you can afford. Otherwise, you run the risk of draining your savings prematurely. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Trustees Say the Program Can Pay All Benefits Until 2034. It Might Be Too Optimistic was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
ATLANTA (AP) — Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are," said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. "For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill has not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Pairing fiery talk with action Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' 'Whatever it takes' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Fighting on all fronts Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality.
