Bill Overview
Title: No Tax Breaks for Radical Corporate Activism Act
Description: This bill disallows a business expense tax deduction for any reimbursement paid by an employer to an employee for travel expenses to obtain an abortion, or for the costs of any gender transition procedure for the employee's minor child.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking employer-reimbursed abortion or gender transition services
Estimated Size: 1250000
- The bill targets businesses that provide reimbursements for specific purposes: abortions or gender transition procedures for minor children of employees.
- Employees who receive these reimbursements for abortion or gender transition procedures would be impacted financially, as the tax benefits their employers currently receive for these expenses would no longer be available.
- Employers may be less likely to offer such reimbursements if they cannot claim them as tax-deductible, thus affecting employees' access to financial support for these services.
- Businesses that currently offer these benefits may experience increased tax liabilities.
- The bill indirectly affects anyone seeking abortion services or gender transition procedures for minors, as it may reduce their ability to secure financial support through their employer's benefits.
- According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 73 million induced abortions occur worldwide annually, indicating a significant global population potentially impacted by changes in reimbursement policies.
- For gender transition procedures, global data is harder to determine, but a 2016 estimate presented in the American Journal of Public Health suggested that approximately 1.4 million adults identify as transgender in the United States alone, with a portion of these individuals likely under the age of 18 having access to medical procedures.
Reasoning
- The target population of individuals impacted by this policy are employees whose employers currently offer reimbursements for abortion-related travel or gender transition procedures for their children. The disallowance of tax deductions on these business expenses may lead employers to reconsider such policies due to increased tax implications, indirectly reducing access to these services.
- The U.S. has approximately 930,000 abortions annually, and with only a subset being employer-reimbursed, the exact number of directly impacted individuals is harder to estimate.
- For gender transition services, it is noted that approximately 300,000 transgender youth exist, and again a smaller number would seek medical procedures through employer support.
- Employers facing an increased tax burden might reduce or eliminate these reimbursements, thus lowering employee wellbeing if previously these were used to offset costs.
- The policy directly influences corporate practices and indirectly affects employee financial wellbeing and healthcare access decisions.
- Estimating the population likely impacted is complicated due to varying corporate policies on reimbursements and regional differences in abortion and transition care access.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Executive (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe that companies should support their employees by covering necessary healthcare, including reproductive health and gender-affirming procedures.
- This policy will discourage companies from offering such support due to financial penalties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're constantly evaluating our benefits, and removing tax benefits makes supporting employees' needs more challenging.
- This may force us to drop some reimbursements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Software Engineer (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Receiving support through work for my transition has been invaluable.
- If my employer drops this benefit, I'll face significant financial strain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Teacher (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our union negotiated these benefits to help women access necessary services.
- Losing tax deductions could push schools and organizations to reduce this support, hurting teachers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Entry-Level Marketing Associate (Florida)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven’t needed these benefits, but it's reassuring they exist.
- Policies like this may make finding supportive employers harder.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Healthcare Worker (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having seen the struggles of transgender youth, anything that limits support resources is detrimental.
- This adds a burden to families already seeking extensive support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
HR Manager (Ohio)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might need to redirect funds to other benefits due to tax implications.
- Employees reliant on these services will be hard hit, impacting morale and retention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Lawyer (New Jersey)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a legal standpoint, this policy will require many firms to rethink their benefit structures.
- Clients are concerned about retaining talent in light of these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Accountant (Missouri)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe companies shouldn't be incentivized to support what I consider non-essential services.
- This act brings corporate focus back to core business operations.
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 |
Nonprofit Worker (Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing these deductions may prevent companies from supporting crucial LGBTQ+ related employee benefits.
- This is disappointing as it steps back progress made in employee inclusivity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- This policy could stimulate changes in corporate attitudes towards benefits related to social issues.
- Potential backlash from businesses and employees concerning changes to benefits packages.
- Legal challenges may arise from businesses or advocacy groups opposing the restrictions.
- The policy may shift corporate strategies that could influence broader legislative trends around social issue-based corporate activism.