Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

flanol t1_j5g23mb wrote

“The amount workers pay for the social program — that many will never need or use — went up this month . . . Why? More people used the program than expected”

Lol

It’s well known that Washington has the most regressive tax structure of all 50 states, and railing against a tax that has a tangible positive effect on those most burdened by this state’s taxes is nothing short of a moral deficiency.

19

teatreez t1_j5gd3xn wrote

That paragraph is comical lol.

Oh no $15 a paycheck instead of $8…might as well quit my job and file for unemployment at that point 🥺🥺🥺

6

[deleted] t1_j5gfbcq wrote

My understanding of the article was that they were saying people making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year shouldn’t qualify for the benefit, but that the working class should.

0

flanol t1_j5go3sk wrote

I understand where you’re coming from because the idea is to give the lion’s share of the benefit to those that need it the most, but this is better achieved by making the benefit apply to all with no income cap and funding it with progressive taxes.

The bottom 20% of earners in Washington, who most need PFML, are taxed at 17.8% of their income while the top 1% statewide are taxed at 3%, which is obviously immoral.

The issue is not between the working class and the middle class, it’s between the 99% and a government that caters only to the rich. This article is just a wormy attempt to obfuscate that.

10

Standard-Ad-6964 t1_j5szen4 wrote

One random survey quoted that 17.8% vs 3% out of thin air and everyone just throws around that number. Food, Medicine & Rent are excluded from taxes in WA. So not sure how the bottom earners are contributing more through car registrations (taxed based on model/year, at least very heavily in King county) & other sin taxes.

1

[deleted] t1_j5fws0x wrote

The state actuary publicly said this would happen before the program was even passed into law. This is what the Washington legislature does. Pass laws with insufficient funding so the increase in taxes seems more palatable at first. Then act surprised when there isn’t enough funding and increase the taxes later.

16

explore509 OP t1_j5fvehz wrote

Washington cares act (LTC) will also start coming out of paychecks in 2023.

15

Jamieobda t1_j5g80cd wrote

If a person has previously opted out of LTC by submitting evidence of paid LTC, they would be fine, yes?

12

non-member t1_j5gc0ga wrote

Still better than the 10% I was paying in California.

7

Jamieobda t1_j5g85b8 wrote

Seems like folks close to retirement shouldn't have to pay it.

−9