I don't get the whole point of the thread. If the taxes are levied on the employer to cover its employees, then the benefits should go to the same employees. It's no different from pulling out medicare for an employee, and crediting it to that employee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to limit it to DC residents. DC businesses should not be subsidizing MD and VA residents.

But if 64% of the benefits may go to VA and ND residents, then are 64% of the benefits being paid for by VA and ND residents? Sounds like a good deal for DC residents to me.

Payroll tax. Paid by the employer.

Yes. Who employs DC, VA, and MD residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to limit it to DC residents. DC businesses should not be subsidizing MD and VA residents.

But if 64% of the benefits may go to VA and ND residents, then are 64% of the benefits being paid for by VA and ND residents? Sounds like a good deal for DC residents to me.

Payroll tax. Paid by the employer.

Anonymous wrote:They need to limit it to DC residents. DC businesses should not be subsidizing MD and VA residents.

But if 64% of the benefits may go to VA and ND residents, then are 64% of the benefits being paid for by VA and ND residents? Sounds like a good deal for DC residents to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to limit it to DC residents. DC businesses should not be subsidizing MD and VA residents.

Conversely, MD and VA residents then should not be supporting DC businesses.

I like your segregationist style. Let's see how that ends up working out for ya.

DP. They already don't support DC businesses as much as DC residents do. Surely this is not surprising to you.

Anonymous wrote:They need to limit it to DC residents. DC businesses should not be subsidizing MD and VA residents.

Conversely, MD and VA residents then should not be supporting DC businesses.

I like your segregationist style. Let's see how that ends up working out for ya.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC firms could just relocate to Md. and Virginia. Would you prefer that? I would. Let DC be a museum, Georgetown and a ghetto.

This is a true disincentive for nonprofits and even trade associations to locate over in Arlington rather than DC, with the resulting increased payroll tax on employers. Law firms may stay, but at the margins, this really increases costs for businesses and organizations, and those who can, may move. It would be one thing if DC offered near the same benefits as neighboring jurisdictions, but in this case DC is just pricing itself out of the market.

I work for a nonprofit in DC. We would never consider moving. We actually believe in taking care of our employees.

How is this relevant to you then? Since you believe in taking care of your employees so much, I'm sure they already have paid leave.

We have really good policies. This will definitely cost us more money, but we will bite the bullet and do it.

Why will you need to bite the bullet? Sounds like you already give your employees lots of paid leave. Do companies that already give paid leave also need to pay the new tax (in addition to the leave they're already paying for)? Because that would be unfortunate.

They need to limit it to DC residents. DC businesses should not be subsidizing MD and VA residents.

Anonymous wrote:So we are taxing dc employers for MD and VA residents. And if we drive business to relocate there, so what about the impact on pur own citizenry and tax base? Ridiculous.

Our DC economy is doing really well. I am ok with this. What I am not ok with is the terrible DCRA and those crazy regulations and incompetent people. I wish they would fix that first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC firms could just relocate to Md. and Virginia. Would you prefer that? I would. Let DC be a museum, Georgetown and a ghetto.

This is a true disincentive for nonprofits and even trade associations to locate over in Arlington rather than DC, with the resulting increased payroll tax on employers. Law firms may stay, but at the margins, this really increases costs for businesses and organizations, and those who can, may move. It would be one thing if DC offered near the same benefits as neighboring jurisdictions, but in this case DC is just pricing itself out of the market.

I work for a nonprofit in DC. We would never consider moving. We actually believe in taking care of our employees.

How is this relevant to you then? Since you believe in taking care of your employees so much, I'm sure they already have paid leave.

We have really good policies. This will definitely cost us more money, but we will bite the bullet and do it.

So we are taxing dc employers for MD and VA residents. And if we drive business to relocate there, so what about the impact on pur own citizenry and tax base? Ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought benefits only went to DC residents. Not people working for dc based companies.

Read the article in today's post. As written they go to anyone who works in DC, regardless of where they live. Calculations are that fully 64% of these taxes levvied on DC businesses will benefit non D.C. residents. It's scandalous legislation from ultra liberal Elisa Silverman supported by all but two of her fellow councilmembers. This is their priority these days.

But those VA and MD residents are paying the extra .62 payroll tax on their entire income. It has no income cap for contributions like social security and the benefit is designed for lower income workers. The tax is based on employment not rsidency like a property tax.

DC undercollects on property tax. I have friends paying absurdly low amounts based on what the house would list /sell amounts. DC has bigger problems than this new BS with the "imitation" guns. Tht is what all need to complain about loudly and proudly.

I saw that 64% benefit payout est to resdients of MD and VA. What do they estimate is paid in /out by VA/DC/MD? Numbers of people? Wash Post had lots of verbage but ran short on details.

It's a payroll tax. It's paid by the employer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC firms could just relocate to Md. and Virginia. Would you prefer that? I would. Let DC be a museum, Georgetown and a ghetto.

This is a true disincentive for nonprofits and even trade associations to locate over in Arlington rather than DC, with the resulting increased payroll tax on employers. Law firms may stay, but at the margins, this really increases costs for businesses and organizations, and those who can, may move. It would be one thing if DC offered near the same benefits as neighboring jurisdictions, but in this case DC is just pricing itself out of the market.

I work for a nonprofit in DC. We would never consider moving. We actually believe in taking care of our employees.

How is this relevant to you then? Since you believe in taking care of your employees so much, I'm sure they already have paid leave.

"Payroll taxes are taxes imposed on employers or employees, and are usually calculated as a percentage of the salaries that employers pay their staff. Payroll taxes generally fall into two categories: deductions from an employee’s wages, and taxes paid by the employer based on the employee's wages. The first kind are taxes that employers are required to withhold from employees' wages, also known as withholding tax, pay-as-you-earn tax (PAYE), or pay-as-you-go tax (PAYG) and often covering advance payment of income tax, social security contributions, and various insurances (e.g., unemployment and disability). The second kind is a tax that is paid from the employer's own funds and that is directly related to employing a worker. These can consist of fixed charges or be proportionally linked to an employee's pay. The charges paid by the employer usually cover the employer's funding of the social security system, and other insurance programs. The economic burden of the payroll tax falls almost entirely on the worker, regardless of whether the tax is remitted by the employer or the employee, as the employers’ share of payroll taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would otherwise be paid.[1][2][3]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax. I am not sure which kind of payroll tax it is, but i thought a fuller definition could be helpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought benefits only went to DC residents. Not people working for dc based companies.

Read the article in today's post. As written they go to anyone who works in DC, regardless of where they live. Calculations are that fully 64% of these taxes levvied on DC businesses will benefit non D.C. residents. It's scandalous legislation from ultra liberal Elisa Silverman supported by all but two of her fellow councilmembers. This is their priority these days.

But those VA and MD residents are paying the extra .62 payroll tax on their entire income. It has no income cap for contributions like social security and the benefit is designed for lower income workers. The tax is based on employment not rsidency like a property tax.

DC undercollects on property tax. I have friends paying absurdly low amounts based on what the house would list /sell amounts. DC has bigger problems than this new BS with the "imitation" guns. Tht is what all need to complain about loudly and proudly.

I saw that 64% benefit payout est to resdients of MD and VA. What do they estimate is paid in /out by VA/DC/MD? Numbers of people? Wash Post had lots of verbage but ran short on details.

So everyone who works in DC is now getting a salary reduction?