Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to stipulate that a parking benefit is not a qualified parking fringe benefit unless an employer offers employees the option to receive an equivalent cash benefit or alternative tax-exempt benefit in lieu of the parking benefit.
Description: This bill denies a tax exclusion for qualified parking fringe benefits unless employers providing such benefits offer their employees the option to receive, in lieu of the parking benefit, the fair market value of the parking (e.g., an equivalent cash benefit or alternative tax-exempt fringe benefit).
Sponsors: Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3]
Target Audience
Population: Employees who receive parking benefits as a fringe benefit
Estimated Size: 16000000
- The legislation affects any employee currently receiving a qualified parking benefit through their employer.
- Employees must be exposed to commuting situations where parking is a common benefit to be impacted by the bill.
- The bill specifically targets the tax benefits associated with parking benefits offered by employers, which relates primarily to urban areas where parking is a significant issue for commuters.
- The global workforce with similar employer-provided parking benefits could potentially be impacted if similar bills or corporate policies were adopted around the world.
Reasoning
- The primary population affected by this policy are employees in urban areas where employers provide parking benefits as a fringe benefit. The policy allows these employees to opt for cash or other fringe benefits equivalent to the fair market value of parking.
- The budget allows for a significant portion of the identified American target (16 million) to experience some form of benefit. Spreading the $1.1 billion over ten years indicates some people may see direct financial or utility gains over various years, assuming a significant portion of employers move to adjust benefits.
- A diverse range of occupations, incomes, and living conditions exist within the affected group - the policy's impact will likely vary from high (if parking expense is reduced and employers comply with alternative benefit offerings) to none (if workers do not commute by car or their employer provides no alternative).
- The interview should cover individuals who are part of this 16 million target group. It should also distinguish between those in densely urban areas versus suburban or rural as the impact will differ based on parking availability and costs.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York City, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The option to get cash for parking benefits seems fair, especially since I don't drive every day.
- It's a positive change because I can use the cash for my subway pass instead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Sales Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would rather keep the parking benefit than get some cash, as parking is a hassle.
- Not sure if this will benefit me. I'd prefer more public transport options over cash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graphic Designer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy won't affect me directly, as I don't receive any parking benefits.
- More flexible transportation benefits would help, but this policy doesn't impact me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I would appreciate a cash option, but it must match what I'm saving with parking.
- High costs of parking in SF make this option more attractive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This doesn't affect me as we don't get parking benefits.
- It would be nice if it applied to public transport subsidies too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If they cut parking, I'd need compensation for other travel.
- Working nights limits my options, so current parking really helps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
HR Specialist (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A direct cash benefit could be more flexible for my remote work routine.
- This would allow better allocation for my occasional trips rather than fixed parking.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Administrative Assistant (Miami, FL)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing the parking discount worries me, as cash won’t cover costs properly.
- I prefer keeping current benefits because they work well for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Accountant (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Partial cash could expand my options but may not be fully beneficial.
- Downtown parking is expensive, so the right balance is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Intern (Houston, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy isn't directly relevant to my situation now.
- Would love to see similar options for public transit aids in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $105000000 (Low: $52500000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $110000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $220000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $240000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The geographical concentration of personnel utilizing parking benefits mainly pertains to urban areas where public transit alternatives exist.
- The policy could lead to a behavior shift by employers and employees regarding benefit selection, impacting company benefits plans.
- Long-term pressure to adopt similar frameworks in global markets could arise if perceived benefits follow policy internationalization.