Bill Overview
Title: COVID–19 Commuter Benefits Distribution Act
Description: This bill permits a one-time payment of unused transportation fringe benefits to a succeeding month. Under current law, such unused benefits are forfeited.
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: People who receive transportation fringe benefits from their employers
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill addresses transportation fringe benefits which are typically provided by employers to their employees.
- These benefits are often provided in metropolitan areas where commuting is a significant part of employment.
- Thus, the primary impact will be on employees who were receiving such benefits prior to COVID-19.
- The global workforce experienced remote work arrangements due to COVID-19, which decreased commuting needs, resulting in unused benefits.
- Assuming this bill primarily targets those in countries with similar structures of commuter benefits and tax policies, predominantly affecting the USA, UK, and comparable economies.
Reasoning
- Given a budget of $2,500,000,000 USD, if we assume an average per person cost of $250, the budget could potentially cover about 10 million people in the first year. This aligns with the estimate of 10 million people in the US who are anticipated to benefit from the policy.
- The target demographic largely consists of employees in metropolitan areas who received transportation fringe benefits pre-COVID and accumulated unused benefits during remote work periods.
- Considering that the policy targets commuting benefits and these are more relevant in cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, interviews will focus on diverse occupations that commonly receive such benefits.
- People outside major metropolitan areas or sectors unlikely to offer commuter benefits will represent the unaffected or marginally affected population.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York City, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to carry over my unused transit benefits from last year will provide relief, especially as the cost of living continues to rise here in NYC.
- This policy will encourage me to use public transit more once I fully return to the office.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The roll-over of benefits removes the stress of losing out on pre-paid parking due to remote work.
- This makes my transition back to the office smoother and financially manageable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Marketing Specialist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy won't affect me much as I still have irregular office days, but it's nice to have something regained from the aimless spending on benefits beforehand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
HR Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might have helped previously, but now that I’ve switched jobs, the impact is less for me.
- I think it’s good for my former colleagues still using our city's transit system.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Government Employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Carrying unused benefits into future months will certainly help during the months I need to travel in for meetings.
- It aligns with sustainability concerns as it promotes continued use of public transportation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Graphic Designer (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve barely used my metro card since going remote. Rolling benefits allows me to not feel like I’ve wasted them.
- I’m hoping to visit the office more, so this is definitely beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I've been cycling a lot more, having the option to carry over bus and train benefits provides safety for when weather or personal circumstances change.
- Slight benefit upgrade if things revert back to usual commutes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Studio Technician (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the government trying to preserve value, but given the nature of my work and region, this feels somewhat neutral for me now that my work arrangement changed.
- It might help my younger colleagues though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Junior Accountant (Newark, NJ)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't fully explored using the benefits, but this makes me feel secure in knowing they're there when I need them.
- I'm excited about saving money on my limited salary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Sales Executive (Dallas, TX)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The roll-over isn’t as applicable since my benefits are different, but I relate to peers who might find this useful.
- I'm neutral since my benefits aren't typically handled the same way.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Only a subset of the full eligible workforce will receive rollovers of benefits, as not all employees will have accumulated sizable eligible unused benefits due to various caps.
- Employers and administrators may face an immediate need to adjust accounting for rollover amounts, bearing short-term financial impacts.
- Some reduction in future benefit forfeitures for employers, as eligibility for rollovers replaces previous forfeiture structures.