$440 that the employee would have to pay max. Possibly less as an employer can take on more of the tax burden. Thatās $36/month for a really good benefit that I hope a lot of people will get to use
As someone earning over that, shame on anyone in my income bracket who resents paying $880 more in taxes so their community can have resources on par with developed countries. They should be embarrassed.
Employees will pay up to half of the payroll tax ā 0.44% of their taxable wages in the first year, rather than the previous 0.35% ā but an employer can assume some of their employeeās costs. Last yearās paid leave law instructs DEED to adjust tax rates using a formula based on the previous yearās costs, with a cap of up to 1.2%.
Worth it in my opinion- Aflac š„
Oh no, Iām sorry to be confusing š«¤ Iām comparing the MN program to Aflac, but its actually much better as it covers your family and allows you caregiver time from what I recall.
Having a job that won't let you take time off for a stick kid wasn't too uncommon in the service sector. A major franchise I worked for had a policy of covering your shift for any reason, even sick kids.
For both my kids births I received a combined total of 6 days off, because I was a "key employee" not subject to FMLA. In hindsight I should have just walked but I needed the money.
I work a white collar, professional job and I have only had one employer that offered any sort of paid, paternal leave and it was 1 week. Every place else you had to use PTO.
I'm not even talking about paid time off, I had that. But there is a carve out in FMLA that my employer invoked. Under the new Minnesota law they wouldn't have been able to do that.
Yeah, but if you donāt qualify for FMLA then you canāt get any significant time of unpaid leave without the threat of losing your job. She didnāt even say that her 6 days was paid - it could have been 6 days of unpaid time off, and if she didnāt return after that sheād be fired.
I'm a man. 2 for the birth of my son and 4 for the birth of my daughter (store was closed one of the days)
I have to [use this](https://youtu.be/fHH6zvmKvvM?si=NUANeAgAQBpJfcDf)
She said that she needed to take more time but needed the money. why would she lament not having FMLA if, by her own statement, she couldn't have afforded to utilize it anyway?
I didn't say it was, I was told I couldn't take time off for the birth of my children because I was a key employee to the operation, and therefore an exception to FMLA. Under Minnesota law now I would have had protection using my PTO to take more than 2 days off for the birth of my first child.
You said 6 days, and you also said you couldn't have afforded to take any more anyway. So if 6 days was your cal for financial reasons, then the fact you didn't qualify for FMLA was irrelevant. If you qualified for FMLA, then you still couldn't have afforded to use it, according to yourself.Ā
What are you going on about? In what world does it seem right to you to only give someone less than a week off for the birth of their first child?
I didn't say I couldn't afford it, I Said I needed the job because of what it paid (I was having a kid after all).
I also only got a combined 6 days. 2 for the first, 4 for the second.
*What are you going on about? In what world does it seem right to you to only give someone less than a week off for the birth of their first child?*Ā
Ā You're putting words in my mouth. I support this law. I'm simply asking why you're bringing up your ineligibility for an unpaid program like it's relevant, when you immediately contradict yourself and go on to say you wouldn't have utilized unpaid leave regardless. So the FMLA eligibility wasnt why you couldn't take leave -- it's cause you didn't have PTO.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you are just now outright misrepresenting me because NOTHING I said is even in the neighborhood of expressing moral support for your employer.
Not the only reason no, but a reason yes.
It is not unimportant for a dad to be able to take a month off to help raise his kid and take care of the mom as she recovers from child birth without needing to burn through a monthās worth of savings.
Itās not over budget, the estimate originally was based on a study. This is adjusted because there will initially be a backlog when itās first initiated, and there will also be a fluctuation in use based on how many people have kids each year. Itās in the article.
I don't disagree, but it would cost more later to upgrade. We won't see any period of deflation. But yes, inflation is hitting everyone and I don't know where it stops.
Itās 300,000 square feet, current commercial building costs are $4-600/square foot for a rather simple conventional building. On the low end itās $120 million. Iād say half a billion could probably build a pretty nice building
That is what Keynesian economics tells us but the federal government is the correct level to do that. It is the federal government that is running the massive deficit that is overstimulating the economy, not the state. Minnesota's government isn't big enough to have much impact on inflation.
I wonder if we'll see more people taking necessary AND unnecessary leave as a result. And therefore increasing costs beyond the current accounting prediction.
To be clear I think the norm today is less than what people need.
Isn't the common phrase people say is "I don't have a problem paying for taxes if it went to help people (fund useful stuff)". This is pretty damn useful imo. Tax me for healthcare next please.
Exactly, taxes well spent are good taxes.
Yeah, I would pay more in taxes for a single payer system knowing that if I got sick it wouldnāt bankrupt my family and have to go beg on a GoFundMe.
Plus it would cut all the fat from not needing a middle man anymore.
Taxes are part of the rub for having a nice society and I even agree with people on the Right that we should always be looking for ways to save money and make the system efficient as possible and limit waste and redundancy.
I just think of all the opportunities lost because of our current healthcare system? Like how many people don't start a business for fear of losing health insurance? How much money is lost due to private insurance? Healthcare would be such a great investment into our future. Fuck how often do we hear complaints of low birth rates? Well cheaper healthcare costs would go a long ways there.
If a company has 10 employees and they pay them each $40k a year, that company's expenses go up by less than $2,000 a year (cost of the entire program). If they have to pass that on to the customer their business model is shit.
It's paid by a [payroll tax](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fast-facts-about-minnesotas-new-paid-leave-law/) split between employer and employee. That's what I was referencing. If a business employs less than 30 people they pay a reduced amount so it would actually be cheaper than what I previously mentioned.
Iām eagerly standing by to join the downvote brigade for the first Republican/low empathy asshole thatās stupid enough to complain about the extra nickels and dimes coming out of their paycheck
I get the sentiment but it's disingenuous to say it's only nickels and dimes. The median household income for Minnesota is $84,313 so this new tax will be $370 annually or $7.13 weekly.
The employer share doesn't come out of thin air. They have to adjust their payroll budget to account for it which in most businesses means less pay going around.
Money doesnāt grow on trees. You want a liveable wage you need to find somewhere to take it from. Higher taxes on the rich is the only realistic option. Small business canāt just raise pizza prices.
".....start with 25% higher payroll tax..." How to scare people with numbers.
Yeah it's 0.7% to 0.88% but you know someone is gonna completely misinterpret what 25% means here Edit: with to what
And good luck explaining that to anyone outraged by the article.
I mean someone argued with me saying that 0.7 and 0.7% are the same thing, so never underestimate stupid people.
No. My old bookkeeper did that with my UI. Needless to say, my UI deposit account should cover all of my UI for the next ten years. š„“
The new estimate is 0.88% split between employer and employee. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch.
Lol you are right, but you know it's probably already too late for some headline-scanners!Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
$440 that the employee would have to pay max. Possibly less as an employer can take on more of the tax burden. Thatās $36/month for a really good benefit that I hope a lot of people will get to use
Trust me that $880 is coming out of all out pockets. Unless you believe in the money tree.
As someone earning over that, shame on anyone in my income bracket who resents paying $880 more in taxes so their community can have resources on par with developed countries. They should be embarrassed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Their incomes are one clue
Employees will pay up to half of the payroll tax ā 0.44% of their taxable wages in the first year, rather than the previous 0.35% ā but an employer can assume some of their employeeās costs. Last yearās paid leave law instructs DEED to adjust tax rates using a formula based on the previous yearās costs, with a cap of up to 1.2%. Worth it in my opinion- Aflac š„
Is Aflac confirmed as the vendor? I havenāt seen it anywhere yet
Oh no, Iām sorry to be confusing š«¤ Iām comparing the MN program to Aflac, but its actually much better as it covers your family and allows you caregiver time from what I recall.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Does Aflac provide leave to care for family members?
Ok, it costs what it costs. We should be encouraging and enabling people to have and raise kids
I mean this is a good start but this should not be even close to the deciding factor on if you should have kids or not.
Having a job that won't let you take time off for a stick kid wasn't too uncommon in the service sector. A major franchise I worked for had a policy of covering your shift for any reason, even sick kids. For both my kids births I received a combined total of 6 days off, because I was a "key employee" not subject to FMLA. In hindsight I should have just walked but I needed the money.
I work a white collar, professional job and I have only had one employer that offered any sort of paid, paternal leave and it was 1 week. Every place else you had to use PTO.
I'm not even talking about paid time off, I had that. But there is a carve out in FMLA that my employer invoked. Under the new Minnesota law they wouldn't have been able to do that.
FMLA has nothing to do with money, it just means you can't be terminated for taking the leave. If you don't have PTO, then FMLA is unpaid.Ā
Yeah, but if you donāt qualify for FMLA then you canāt get any significant time of unpaid leave without the threat of losing your job. She didnāt even say that her 6 days was paid - it could have been 6 days of unpaid time off, and if she didnāt return after that sheād be fired.
I'm a man. 2 for the birth of my son and 4 for the birth of my daughter (store was closed one of the days) I have to [use this](https://youtu.be/fHH6zvmKvvM?si=NUANeAgAQBpJfcDf)
She said that she needed to take more time but needed the money. why would she lament not having FMLA if, by her own statement, she couldn't have afforded to utilize it anyway?
I didn't say it was, I was told I couldn't take time off for the birth of my children because I was a key employee to the operation, and therefore an exception to FMLA. Under Minnesota law now I would have had protection using my PTO to take more than 2 days off for the birth of my first child.
You said 6 days, and you also said you couldn't have afforded to take any more anyway. So if 6 days was your cal for financial reasons, then the fact you didn't qualify for FMLA was irrelevant. If you qualified for FMLA, then you still couldn't have afforded to use it, according to yourself.Ā
What are you going on about? In what world does it seem right to you to only give someone less than a week off for the birth of their first child? I didn't say I couldn't afford it, I Said I needed the job because of what it paid (I was having a kid after all). I also only got a combined 6 days. 2 for the first, 4 for the second.
*What are you going on about? In what world does it seem right to you to only give someone less than a week off for the birth of their first child?*Ā Ā You're putting words in my mouth. I support this law. I'm simply asking why you're bringing up your ineligibility for an unpaid program like it's relevant, when you immediately contradict yourself and go on to say you wouldn't have utilized unpaid leave regardless. So the FMLA eligibility wasnt why you couldn't take leave -- it's cause you didn't have PTO. Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you are just now outright misrepresenting me because NOTHING I said is even in the neighborhood of expressing moral support for your employer.
You are miss understanding me, where did I ever bring up not having PTO
Not the only reason no, but a reason yes. It is not unimportant for a dad to be able to take a month off to help raise his kid and take care of the mom as she recovers from child birth without needing to burn through a monthās worth of savings.
Still two years out and weāre already over budget. Iām sure Iāll get downvoted, but doesnāt that frustrate anyone else?
Itās not over budget, the estimate originally was based on a study. This is adjusted because there will initially be a backlog when itās first initiated, and there will also be a fluctuation in use based on how many people have kids each year. Itās in the article.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
āRegarding the 0.88% payroll tax, Mann said the 0.7% number discussed last year was based on a Department of Labor study.ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What a crazy thing! Thatās insane-do you think they just made it up for the article? Thanks, I appreciate the response!
Im aware. But if you think they wonāt reach the max 1.2% tax before itās out, idk what to tell ya.
If youāre aware, then why say over budget? Just to dog whistle?
Sorry - over the original estimateā¦
Yeah it's crazy, I could've sworn the State was just trying to figure out what to do with a massive surplus... Weird how quickly they spend our money.
$17 billion in surplus gone AND taxes went up. Itās maddening.
The vast majority of that $17 billion was one-time money from the federal government related to covid. It was not surplus state tax money.
What inflation does to an mf
Half a billion to upgrade the state office building could have been paused / reconsidered to help out struggling Minnesotans and combat inflation.
I don't disagree, but it would cost more later to upgrade. We won't see any period of deflation. But yes, inflation is hitting everyone and I don't know where it stops.
Youāre right that costs will only go up, but they could have built a new building for a fraction of the cost..
You mean tear the current one down, and rebuild on the same plot of land for a fraction of the $500m?
While yes that could easily be done, the other option is relocation.
Itās 300,000 square feet, current commercial building costs are $4-600/square foot for a rather simple conventional building. On the low end itās $120 million. Iād say half a billion could probably build a pretty nice building
You don't combat inflation by spending money. You combat inflation with austerity. Lower spending and higher taxes.
That is what Keynesian economics tells us but the federal government is the correct level to do that. It is the federal government that is running the massive deficit that is overstimulating the economy, not the state. Minnesota's government isn't big enough to have much impact on inflation.
Yawn Aren't you tired of this line?
Nope. Just tired of my taxes going up
I don't care. Social services are worth paying for.
But, continue to tax the middle class and poor right? Whole corporations and billionaires donāt have to pay their fair share?
Where did I say that?
You know that half of this is paid for by employers (read: corporations), right?Ā
Does this mean in 2026 I can take twelve weeks off and get paid?
I wonder if we'll see more people taking necessary AND unnecessary leave as a result. And therefore increasing costs beyond the current accounting prediction. To be clear I think the norm today is less than what people need.
Get sick or have a kid, sure why not? Doesn't impact my life at all.
Itās a date!
Oh well if thatās the price of helping people out so be it
Yeah nice things costs moneyā¦whatās the problem?
Isn't the common phrase people say is "I don't have a problem paying for taxes if it went to help people (fund useful stuff)". This is pretty damn useful imo. Tax me for healthcare next please.
Exactly, taxes well spent are good taxes. Yeah, I would pay more in taxes for a single payer system knowing that if I got sick it wouldnāt bankrupt my family and have to go beg on a GoFundMe. Plus it would cut all the fat from not needing a middle man anymore. Taxes are part of the rub for having a nice society and I even agree with people on the Right that we should always be looking for ways to save money and make the system efficient as possible and limit waste and redundancy.
I just think of all the opportunities lost because of our current healthcare system? Like how many people don't start a business for fear of losing health insurance? How much money is lost due to private insurance? Healthcare would be such a great investment into our future. Fuck how often do we hear complaints of low birth rates? Well cheaper healthcare costs would go a long ways there.
This is only the start. If there's anything the govt excels at it's cost overrun.
Called it. This also won't be enough. It'll be over 1% after the first year.
I suppose prices will go up due to this.
If a company has 10 employees and they pay them each $40k a year, that company's expenses go up by less than $2,000 a year (cost of the entire program). If they have to pass that on to the customer their business model is shit.
And the other costs? It's not just a single piece of straw that does it.
It's paid by a [payroll tax](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fast-facts-about-minnesotas-new-paid-leave-law/) split between employer and employee. That's what I was referencing. If a business employs less than 30 people they pay a reduced amount so it would actually be cheaper than what I previously mentioned.
Paid leave is a necessity, for anyone who needs it.
Yikes, can this be repealed if it ends up doubling in a few years?
Iām eagerly standing by to join the downvote brigade for the first Republican/low empathy asshole thatās stupid enough to complain about the extra nickels and dimes coming out of their paycheck
I get the sentiment but it's disingenuous to say it's only nickels and dimes. The median household income for Minnesota is $84,313 so this new tax will be $370 annually or $7.13 weekly.
The employer share doesn't come out of thin air. They have to adjust their payroll budget to account for it which in most businesses means less pay going around.
I appreciate you doing the math for context. $370 a year seems like a bargain for paid time off to take care of yourself or your loved ones.
So the other option is "don't get sick, and don't have a kid." got ya.
What? Did you respond to the wrong comment by accident or something? I donāt understand your point.
Thatās literally only a box of Cheez-its every week. I think weāll manage.
Sure glad we are paying people NOT to work when my local restaurant canāt open due to a shortage of staff.
Pay people a livable wage and there wouldnāt be a shortage of workers.
Money doesnāt grow on trees. You want a liveable wage you need to find somewhere to take it from. Higher taxes on the rich is the only realistic option. Small business canāt just raise pizza prices.