Bill Overview
Title: Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill imposes an excise tax on large employers (employing an average of at least 500 full-time employees in the preceding calendar year) for qualified federal benefits received by their employees. The bill defines qualified federal benefits to include food stamps, school lunches, section 8 housing subsidies, and Medicaid benefits. It exempts employers that pay their employees $15 per hour and have less than $100 million in assets from classification as a large employer, thus exempting such employers from the excise tax. The bill also makes it an unlawful employment practice for any large employer to inquire whether an applicant for employment receives federal benefits.
Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Target Audience
Population: Employees of large employers who receive federal benefits
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill impacts large employers with at least 500 full-time employees, particularly those whose employees receive federal benefits like food stamps, school lunches, housing subsidies, and Medicaid.
- It also affects employees of large employers who receive such federal benefits, as it creates a disincentive for these employers to have workers who need federal benefits.
- The overall population using federal benefits is substantial, given that millions rely on programs like Medicaid and food stamps (SNAP) globally.
- A significant share of these beneficiaries is in the United States, where the programs are established and populations are sizable.
Reasoning
- We have chosen a diverse range of individuals in terms of occupation, location, and socioeconomic status to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the policy's impact.
- The policy targets employees of large employers who rely on federal benefits, so our interviews focus on individuals working in companies with at least 500 employees and whose compensation leads them to rely partially on federal benefits.
- The budget constraints of $50 million in year 1 and $581 million over 10 years imply the need to target a specific subset of workers; therefore, prioritizing those in regions with high living costs relative to wages could focus the policy’s impact more effectively.
- The policy also has implications for employers, who may adjust their practices or employment strategies, so we've included perspectives from individuals in managerial roles in these firms.
- Individuals unaffected by federal benefits or those in small companies are included for contrast and to gauge broader awareness of the policy's intended impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried the company might reduce my hours or make changes that affect my job because they have to pay more taxes.
- I think the policy could encourage them to pay us better, but I'm not sure if it will happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Manufacturing Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our union is pushing for better wages, and this policy might give us more leverage.
- I do worry about job cuts if they can't handle the extra taxes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Human Resources Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to review our employment policies to make sure we don't breach the new rules.
- This might complicate hiring processes, as we cannot ask about federal benefit usage anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Fast Food Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad employers will be pushed to pay more. Maybe I'll get closer to a living wage.
- But I'm also scared about losing my job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Warehouse Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Something needs to change; it’s difficult surviving on the current wages.
- This policy might make the company reconsider part-time work strategy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
IT Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might make companies less willing to hire hourly workers.
- Overall, I think it’s important to ensure fair compensation, but we need to see the broader impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope hospitals choose to compensate staff better instead of shifting hours.
- The uncertainty about job stability is concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Hospitality Worker (Orlando, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tourism is volatile, and I fear losing hours if the resort feels financial pressure.
- I think it's fair for companies benefiting from federal help to give back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Call Center Supervisor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might push for more comprehensive employee reviews to ensure compliance.
- It's time companies are accountable for their workers’ welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Bartender (Boston, MA)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m relieved I don't work for a large company impacted by this policy.
- It seems like a move in the right direction, but my immediate concern is if rent or food prices rise.
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: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $64000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $68000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Key Considerations
- Behavioral responses of firms could lead to redesigning compensation to avoid tax.
- The exemptions for paying $15/hr may motivate wage increases which can affect the low-wage labor market.
- Monitoring systems and enforcement could become critical for determining firm classification and compliance.
- Impact will vary geographically based on regional cost structures and living standards.