The tax is going up from 0.26% of wages to 0.75%, which is still a tiny amount when looking at the actual dollars employers must spend on this. Employers can afford to absorb this expense.

This is pro-life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did you think would happen when they give men off for a month after their partner gives birth?

Men would become more involved fathers?

Hopefully, but also it costs money which someone has to pay for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They substantially increased the benefit two years ago, I think because the money coming in was in excess of what rhet needed for the benefits paid out. But they increased it too much and word got out so of course the old rate wasn’t sufficient to cover the major increase.

Meaning what?

Meaning it’s like European level standards except we don’t tax the same way to pay for it.

So people didn't used to use it because it wasn't good, but then it got good so people did use it? Or more people had more babies so they could use it more? I don't get it.

It doesn’t just cover birth of a baby. It covers basically any health condition for you or for any family member you’d like to care for, for up to 12 weeks. So you can take off 12 weeks paid for care for your mom or your sister or whatever. So imagine before a sick mom that could get by with help from her friends/neighbors, or maybe before her three kids split it up—but now the one child that works for a private employer in DC can get 12 weeks paid, so they take off the whole thing.
I’m not saying whether this is good or bad but I think DOES screwed up in projecting how much more this would cost when people started to realize how great this benefit is, and so they now have to triple the tax to cover the benefit. It’s better than what is offered in other states and I think will continue to increase in expense as more people become aware of it.

There is never a tax democrats don't like. It's never, ever a spending problem. It's always a matter of taxation in their demented brains.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did you think would happen when they give men off for a month after their partner gives birth?

Men would become more involved fathers?

In a month? You must be joking.

Have you ever had a newborn? It sounds like: no, you haven't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did you think would happen when they give men off for a month after their partner gives birth?

Men would become more involved fathers?

In a month? You must be joking.

Maybe more likely to list themselves on the birth certificate though, which is useful to DC in getting them to pay child support and in getting social security benefits for the kid if dad dies or becomes disabled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What did you think would happen when they give men off for a month after their partner gives birth?

Men would become more involved fathers?

In a month? You must be joking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They substantially increased the benefit two years ago, I think because the money coming in was in excess of what rhet needed for the benefits paid out. But they increased it too much and word got out so of course the old rate wasn’t sufficient to cover the major increase.

Meaning what?

Meaning it’s like European level standards except we don’t tax the same way to pay for it.

So people didn't used to use it because it wasn't good, but then it got good so people did use it? Or more people had more babies so they could use it more? I don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They substantially increased the benefit two years ago, I think because the money coming in was in excess of what rhet needed for the benefits paid out. But they increased it too much and word got out so of course the old rate wasn’t sufficient to cover the major increase.

Meaning what?

Meaning it’s like European level standards except we don’t tax the same way to pay for it.

Anonymous wrote:They substantially increased the benefit two years ago, I think because the money coming in was in excess of what rhet needed for the benefits paid out. But they increased it too much and word got out so of course the old rate wasn’t sufficient to cover the major increase.

Meaning what?

Anonymous wrote:What did you think would happen when they give men off for a month after their partner gives birth?

Men would become more involved fathers?

What did you think would happen when they give men off for a month after their partner gives birth?

They substantially increased the benefit two years ago, I think because the money coming in was in excess of what rhet needed for the benefits paid out. But they increased it too much and word got out so of course the old rate wasn’t sufficient to cover the major increase.

How are small businesses supposed to stay in DC?