Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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