SB-1: ‘Premium on wages’ is another way of describing NH’s new income tax

To The Daily Sun,

“Whenever the Democrats in Concord tell you that a mandatory ‘premium on wages’ from which you have no opportunity to opt out is not an income tax, they are lying.”

This statement from Jennifer Horn, former state Republican Party chair, said it so well I couldn’t resist “borrowing” it. Great quote, don’t you agree?

One thing the leftist Democrats are good at is attaching names to things in ways that make those things sound benign and often attractive. Right? The phrase “premium on wages” appears in discussions concerning … wait for it … The Family Leave Act …good grief! Who could be anti-family? Premium on wages? Uh, that phrase is a little more concerning. Upon closer inspection, this “premium” is revealed to be nothing more than an INCOME TAX! Yep, there they go again!

Like AOC’s Green New Deal! Wow, who wouldn’t sign up for this? Oh wait, it’s projected to cost more than all the cash currently available in the world … or something like that. I think I’ll pass on this one.

Or Medicare for all, the plan to give free healthcare to everyone. Great! Right? Not so fast … over 150 million people would lose their current private insurance because this big government plan allows no room for anything else. Worse, this plan would cost more than 32 trillion dollars over a short 10 years! Unfortunately, coverage would likely be a skeleton of the current Medicare program and be controlled by government bureaucrats residing in a brand-new department.

Each one of these government-run proposals is just another attempted power grab by big-government-loving-Democrats. Big government needs big budgets which require big taxes which no one really cares for. Hence the term “premium on wages” as a way to mask the downside of this proposal.

Concerning the proposed NH Family Leave Act, aka SB-1: New Hampshire has not had family leave benefits nor an income tax in its 230-plus years as a state. Yet we thrive and our quality of life continues to improve for all. SB-1 would set up an insurance program that would provide 60 percent of wages for up to 12 weeks of qualified leave annually, funded by 0.5 percent universal withholding from paychecks. Here’s the rub:

1. Individuals could not opt out of the program, unless their employers offered a similar benefit independently.

Oh gee, have businesses pay; is this a good idea? Anyone think that this wouldn’t lead to an increase in costs to goods and services supplied by those businesses?

2. There’s a provision in the bill that allows the Commissioner of Employment Security the power to raise premiums to ensure the solvency of the fund.

Ok, wait a second. The Commissioner can raise premiums? I guess that’s the “premium on wages” that we’ve revealed to be an income tax … right? Just who is this Commissioner and is this position elected or appointed? More concerning, we must now accept the notion that one lone individual will soon be able to determine the rate of New Hampshire’s income tax?

I agree with the popular comedian John Pinette when he says: Oh Nay, Nay!

Pinette is really funny.

Democrats are really dangerous!

It is not the role of our government to relieve the stresses of ordinary life. Government interference like this is classic Socialism. Socialism on the whole diminishes personal ambition. In the extreme, Socialism leads to standard-of-living declines, an oppressed citizenry and often a complete societal collapse. (e.g., Venezuela). Not good!

Alternatively, Senate Minority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, says: “It is my hope that the governor vetoes SB-1 so that we can come to a bipartisan compromise that will deliver an opt-in paid family and medical leave insurance plan to Granite Staters who need it, without an income tax.”

There you have it: Big Government, Big-Tax Democrats vs. Small Government, Low-Tax Republicans. Things don’t change much in the world, do they?

Count me in on the side of Small Government, Low Taxes.

Your vote matters. What say you?

David Rivers

Thornton