Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Former small biz owner here. This would have been fine.

What is your business? I want to support it.

Retired from it, but a pack and ship place

Controlled substances?

No. Mostly embassy shipping - items that needed crating primarily or occasionally international moves. The weirdest thing was probably a taxidermied moose head.

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?

Involved?’ Ha! In some DC wards, in with half the births the father is unknown.

Would be curious to learn the source of that statistic, but if so, those fathers don't qualify for the leave that people are complaining about the tax to fund.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Former small biz owner here. This would have been fine.

What is your business? I want to support it.

Retired from it, but a pack and ship place

Controlled substances?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Former small biz owner here. This would have been fine.

What is your business? I want to support it.

“Medical” pot dispensary?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Former small biz owner here. This would have been fine.

What is your business? I want to support it.

Retired from it, but a pack and ship place

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?

Involved?’ Ha! In some DC wards, in with half the births the father is unknown.

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?

I take that to mean that at first not as many people were aware of the benefit. But yes, word has gotten out. I know someone who took it to get time off for a boob job. And someone else who got guardianship over her daughter’s newborn so she could get the time off. Another person takes it every year for 3 months as soon as her benefit renews. (These are all my coworkers at a school.)

How do they survive? The payout is not that much; it's not enough to survive. Do they simply work Uber/Lyft for three months to make ends meet?

The hardest part for a small biz owner is having someone leave for 3 months and having to hold their job for them all while trying to find a temp replacement. Nearly impossible to find.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Former small biz owner here. This would have been fine.

What is your business? I want to support it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Former small biz owner here. This would have been fine.

Lower cash pay 0.75%. problem solved.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right! It is a tiny amount because, I guess, you are not a small business owner, and never in your life has dealt with a payroll.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah, this is not going to sink any employers. DC's failure to enforce any laws, including those against commercial landlords and businesses, is going to cost small businesses more.

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?

I take that to mean that at first not as many people were aware of the benefit. But yes, word has gotten out. I know someone who took it to get time off for a boob job. And someone else who got guardianship over her daughter’s newborn so she could get the time off. Another person takes it every year for 3 months as soon as her benefit renews. (These are all my coworkers at a school.)

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

A month? Try 3 months.