DOCSLIB.ORG

4, ¢, 4, Tax Reform Will Force Complete Realpraisal of Current Employee Benefit Packages and a Return to the Basics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4, ¢, 4, Tax Reform Will Force Complete Realpraisal of Current Employee Benefit Packages and a Return to the Basics E B R I EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE OCIOBER 1986 NUMBER FIFTY-NINE 4, ¢, 4, Tax reform will force complete realpraisal of current employee benefit packages and a return to the basics. 4,4,4, Tax Reform and Employee Benefits The recently enacted tax reform legislation makes dramatic changes in employee benefits both through the numerous provisions directly affecting benefits and through the overall reduction in individual income tax rates. The changes in the pension and welfare benefit area are intended to produce more comparable employee benefit coverage of rank and file employees and of highly compensated employees. Pension changes, assuming that plans are maintained, increase the number of vested workers through faster vesting schedules, increase pension amounts for rank and file employees by limiting the coordination with Social Security benefits, and mandate broader and more comparable coverage of rank and file employees. Higher-paid employees, however, suffer potential losses in benefits: restrictions on 401(k) salary reduction contributions ($7,000 cap, tighter nondiscrimination rules, and inclusion of all after-tax contributions as annual additions under the section 415 limits); a new limit of $200,000 on the amount of compensation that may be taken into account under all qualified plans; a new excess benefit tax of 15 percent on most annual distributions over $112,500; and sharply reduced maximum benefits payable to early retirees under defined benefit plans. Changes in welfare benefit areas aim for the same effect: an intended broadening of benefits because of tighter nondiscrimination rules that also could reduce tax-favored benefits payable to the higher paid. Government staff have argued that reduced tax- favored benefits for the highly paid employees may be viewed as more comparable coverage of rank and file and highly paid when considered in terms of dollars, versus percent of compensation. In all, the employee benefit changes are less punitive than those originally contained in the 1984 Treasury proposal. Favorable tax treatment is retained for most benefits, except education assistance, group legal services, and van pooling, which lose the income tax exclusion. Also, nondiscrimination rules for medical and group life insurance coverage are much more flexible than the original Treasury proposal, and permit a greater disparity between highly paid and rank and file employees. Still, dramatic effects may be anticipated. The reduction in marginal tax rates will remove a significant force that historically contributed to the growth in employee benefits, and future growth will be slowed; coverage may not improve and may actually decline in the small business sector, where a top rate of 28 percent for the owners and a 15 percent rate for 80 percent of taxpayers may make cash more attractive than benefits, which are also more difficult to administer under the new rules. The desirability of deferring compensation for nonretirement purposes under qualified plans is also called into question, because of new penalties on early withdrawals and the expectation that future tax rates may be higher than current rates. Finally, because of the new restrictions on the higher-paid, many employers will face the option of removing the higher-paid from their general qualified benefit plans, which could result in deterioration in benefits for rank and file employees. As more of their compensation is provided through nonqualified plans, the higher compensated might "lose their stake" in the general benefit plan. Obviously, whether nondiscrimination rules cause expanded and more comparable coverage of rank and file employees, or reduce tax-favored benefits for the highly paid, will differ from employer to employer. Employee benefits will remain an important piece of total compensation, but the changes in their tax effectiveness may prompt a reevaluation of overall benefits and a return to the basic purposes employee benefits were intended to fulfill: the promotion of economic security and human resource needs. A monthly periodical devoted to expert evaluations cac a single employee benefit issue Table of Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 4 A New Tax Structurewith New Tax Rates 4 Basic RateStructure 4 Implicationsof a New Basic RateStracture 8 ComparingAfter-TaxandPretaxSavings 9 Contributionsto and Distributionsfrom QualifiedPlans 14 IncludibleCompensation 15 Tax DeferralunderQualifiedPlans 15 Indexationof Limits 15 Tighteningthe 25 PercentLimitation 15 Reducing AllowableEarlyRetirementBenefits 15 Impositionof Excise Taxes on Distributionsabove $112,500 16 Cost-of-Living Arrangements 16 Deductionsfor Conlributions 17 Excise Tax on Reversionsof QualifiedPlan Assets to Employer 17 UniformCommencementDatefor Benefits 17 T_atment of Distributions 17 Taxation of EarlyDisa'ibutions 18 Tax-ShelteredAnnuities 18 LoansunderQualifiedPlans 18 Tax-Favc_l Savings 18 IndividualRetirementAccounts (IRAs) 18 DeductibleIRAs 18 NondeductibleIRAs 20 spousalWAs 20 Inveslmentof IRAs 20 IRA Effective Dates 20 QualifiedCash or DeferredArrangements 20 Limits on Conlributions 20 401(k) NondiscriminationRequirements 20 HardshipWithdrawalsand Other Distributions 21 Participation 21 Tax-ExemptandState and Local GovernmentEmployers 21 EmployerMatchingContributionsand EmployeeConlributions 21 UnfundedDeferredCompensationArrangements(Section 457 Plans) forTax-ExemptEmployers 21 DeferredAnnuity Contracts 22 Tax-ShelteredAnnuities 22 Simplified EmployeePensions 22 Section 501(c)(18) Plans 23 NondiscriminationRequirementsforQualifiedPlans 23 MinimumCoverageRulesfor QualifiedPlans 23 MinimumParticipationRule 23 NondiscriminationRules for 403(b) Tax-ShelteredAnnuities 24 Social SecurityIntegration 24 Uniform Definition of HighlyCompensatedEmployees 2_q DeterminingTop-HeavyStatus 25 Benefit Forfeitures 25 Vesting 25 2 @ EBRIIssueBrief October1986 Miscellaneous Pension and Deferred Compensation Provisions 26 Requirement That Collective Bargaining Agreements Be Bona Fide 26 Penalty for Ove_t_ement of Pension Liabilities 26 Treatment of Certain Fishing Boat Crews as Self-Employed Individuals 26 Cash Out of Certain Accrued Benefits 26 Time Required for Plan Amendments, Issuance of Regulations, and Development of Section 401(k) Master and Prototype Plans 26 Employee Leasing 26 Impli£ations for Defmed Benefit and Defmed ConUibution Plans 27 Statut_y Employee Benefit Exclusions 27 Health Insurance Costs of Self-Employed Individuals 27 Prepaid Legal Services 27 Employer-Provided Transporlation 28 Educational Assistance 28 Dependent Care Assistance 28 Faculty Housing 28 Ac_ued Vacation Pay 28 NondiscriminationRules 28 Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) 29 Additional Tax Benefits for ESOPs 29 Changes in Qualification Requirements for ESOPs 29 Technical Corrections 30 Tax Reform Act of 1984 30 Retirement Equity Act 30 COBRA 30 Revenue Projections under Tax Reform 30 Conclusion 31 Appendix 32 List of Tables Table 1: Estimated Budget Effects of HR. 3838, as Approved by the Conference Committee, for Pensions and Deferred Compensation, Employee Benefits, and ESOPs, Fiscal Years 1987-1991 5 Table 2: 1987 Transitional Individual Tax Rates 7 Table 3: 1988 Individual Tax Rates 8 Table 4: Savings Comparison for 15 Percent Bracket Taxpayers with and without 50 Percent Employer Matching Contribution 11 Table 5: Savings Comparison for 28 Percent Bracket Taxpayers with and without 50 Percent Employer Matching Contribution 13 Table 6: Change in Section 415 Limits for Maximum Early Retirement Benefits Payable under a Defined Benefit Pension Plan 14 Listof _ Chart 1: Savings Comparison for 15 Percent Bracket Taxpayers with and without 50 Percent Employer Matching Contn'bution, Early Withdrawal Lump Sum 10 Chart 2: Savings Comparison for 15 Percent Bracket Taxpayers with and without 50 Percent Employer Matching Contribution, Post-59 1/2 Lump Sum 1O Chart 3: Savings Comparison for 28 Percent Bracket Taxpayers with and without 50 Percent Employer Matching Contribution, Early Withdrawal Lump Sum 12 Chart4: Savings Comparison for 28 Percent Bracket Taxpayers with and without 50 Percent Employer Matching Contribution, Post-59 1/2 Lump Sum 12 Oetoi_ 1986 EBRI Issue Brief ¢ 3 41, Introduction (2) Coverageand nondiscriminationrulesshouldbe designed to assurethatlow- and middle-incomeemployeesactually The March1984EBRI Issue Brief ("BasicTax Reform: benefit fromplans. ImplicationsfoxEmployee Benefits") concludedwith the (3) Benefits providedto the "highlycompensated"on a tax- following point: "Basictax reformproposalswouldrequire favoredbasis shouldbe restrictedto those providedto other employersandemployees to rethinkthe entirebasis of employees(in the case of health and welfare plans)and by compensation."Final provisionsof the Tax ReformAct of bothdollarand percentagelimits (in the case of retirement 1986 (TRAC) will requirea reevaluationof trendsin programs). employeebenefits of recentyears. More specifically,with 80 (4) Tax deductionsforprogramsthatare not subjectto percentof taxpayersat the 15 percentmarginalbracket,tax coverageand nondiscriminationrules, such as individual savings can no longerbe used as the drivingmotivation for retirementaccounts(IRAs), shouldnot be availableto "high" establishingplans. Programsand plandesign will have to be income taxpayerswithpension coverage. framedin terms of meeting economicsecurityobjectives in (5) Defined benefitand defined contributionprogramsshould the most tax-effective manner,consistentwith human have a.commonprimarypurposeof deliveringincomeat
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1960
    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Richard M. Scammon, Director tr H. Hodges, Secretary CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS CONSUMER INCOME January 17, 1962 Washington 25, D .C . Series P-60, No. 37 INCOME OF FAMILIES AND PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES: 1960 (Advance data on the 1960 income of families and persons were issued in June 1961 in Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 36. Data for 1959 and 1960 include Alaska and Hawaii which were not covered in earlier years) For the country as a whole, the average (median) of approximately 3+ percent. This was about 1 per- income of familiesin1960 was $5,600; but, for families centage point more than the corresponding average rate headed by persons 65 years and over, the average was for the 13-year period since 1947, reflecting the only $2,900, according to estimates released today by marked upswing in economic activity and the introduc- the Bureau of the Census, Department of Comnerce. The tion of a full-employment economy that took place dur- all-family average was $200, or 4 percent, higher than ing the early 1940's. in 1959, despite the downturn in economic activity in In 1960, about 6 million families (groups Of two "-e closing months of 1960. Since prices rose some- or more related persons residing together) received ft between 1959 and 1960, the gain inreal purchasing money incomes of less than $2,000. They comprised power of the median family in the United States, how- 13 percent of the 453 million families in the Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Income Forecast DRAFT 08.12.2020
    Household Income Forecast DRAFT 08.12.2020 HOUSEHOLD INCOME FORECAST Thurston County DRAFT 08.12.2020 Thurston Regional Planning Council Household Income Forecast DRAFT 08.12.2020 Title VI Notice Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) hereby gives public notice that it is the agency’s policy to assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI requires that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any Federal Highway Aid (FHWA) program or other activity for which TRPC receives federal financial assistance. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI has a right to file a formal complaint with TRPC. Any such complaint must be in writing and filed with the TRPC’s Title VI Coordinator within one hundred and eighty (180) days following the date of the alleged discriminatory occurrence. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information Materials can be provided in alternate formats by contacting the Thurston Regional Planning Council at 360.956.7575 or email [email protected]. For more information contact: Michael Ambrogi, Senior GIS Analyst Thurston Regional Planning Council 2424 Heritage Court SW, Suite A Olympia, WA 98502 360.956.7575 [email protected] This report was funded by the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater through grants from the Washington State Department of Commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Income Tax: Arin / Istock © Sk the Basics and New Changes
    PAGE ONE Economics® Individual Income Tax: arin / iStock © sk The Basics and New Changes Jeannette N. Bennett, Senior Economic Education Specialist GLOSSARY “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Adjusted gross income: Gross income minus —Ben Franklin specific adjustments to income. (Gross income is the total amount earned before any adjustments are subtracted.) Earned income: Money you get for the work Introduction you do. There are two ways to get earned income: You work for someone who pays Taxes are certain. One primary tax is the individual income tax. Congress you, or you own or run a business or farm. initiated the first federal income tax in 1862 to collect revenue for the Income: The payment people receive for pro- expenses of the Civil War. The tax was eliminated in 1872. It made a short- viding resources in the marketplace. When lived comeback in 1894 but was ruled unconstitutional the very next year. people work, they provide human resources (labor) and in exchange they receive income Then, in 1913, the federal income tax resurfaced when the 16th Amend- in the form of wages or salaries. People also ment to the Constitution gave Congress legal authority to tax income. earn income in the form of rent, profit, and And today, the federal income tax is well established and certain. interest. Income tax: Taxes on income, both earned (salaries, wages, tips, commissions) and 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1913) unearned (interest, dividends). Income taxes can be levied on both individuals The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever (personal income taxes) and businesses source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard (business and corporate income taxes).
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of the Florida Minimum Wage Proposal
    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE PROPOSAL Dr. Robert Pollin Dr. Mark Brenner Ms. Jeannette Wicks-Lim Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst Economic Analysis of the Florida Minimum Wage Proposal 3 Economic Analysis of the Florida Minimum Wage Proposal 3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE PROPOSAL September 2004 Dr. Robert Pollin Professor of Economics and Co-Director Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) University of Massachusetts, Amherst Gordon Hall, 418 N. Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 577-0126; [email protected] Dr. Mark Brenner Assistant Research Professor Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ms. Jeannette Wicks-Lim Graduate Research Fellow Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst We are grateful for the research support from Liana Fox, James Heintz, Nuria Malet, and Ozgur Organhazi. We also benefited from comments on a previous draft by staff members of the Center for American Progress, especially Christian Weller. Robert Pollin is also grateful for comments on a preliminary oral presentation of parts of this analysis by members of the State’s Fiscal Impact Estimating Conference, at their June 3, 2004, public hearing. 4 Economic Analysis of the Florida Minimum Wage Proposal 5 4 Economic Analysis of the Florida Minimum Wage Proposal 5 Economic Analysis of Florida Minimum Wage Proposal Table of Contents Highlights of Basic Findings . 6 Summary. 10 Full Analysis of Florida Minimum Wage Proposal . 17 I. Introduction. 17 II. Background on Minimum Wages and Living Wages in the United States . 18 III. Statistical Methods and Sources . 19 IV. Estimated Costs of Minimum Wage Measure for Florida Businesses .
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5 Explanation of Terms
    Section 5 Explanation of Terms he Explanation of Terms section is designed to clarify Additional Standard Deduction the statistical content of this report and should not be (line 39a, and included in line 40, Form 1040) T construed as an interpretation of the Internal Revenue See “Standard Deduction.” Code, related regulations, procedures, or policies. Explanation of Terms relates to column or row titles used Additional Taxes in one or more tables in this report. It provides the background (line 44b, Form 1040) or limitations necessary to interpret the related statistical Taxes calculated on Form 4972, Tax on Lump-Sum tables. For each title, the line number of the tax form on which Distributions, were reported here. it is reported appears after the title. Definitions marked with the symbol ∆ have been revised for 2015 to reflect changes in Adjusted Gross Income Less Deficit the law. (line 37, Form 1040) Adjusted gross income (AGI) is defined as total income Additional Child Tax Credit (line 22, Form 1040) minus statutory adjustments (line 36, (line 67, Form 1040) Form 1040). Total income included: See “Child Tax Credit.” • Compensation for services, including wages, salaries, fees, commissions, tips, taxable fringe benefits, and Additional Medicare Tax similar items; (line 62a, Form 1040) Starting in 2013, a 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax • Taxable interest received; was applied to Medicare wages, railroad retirement com- • Ordinary dividends and capital gain distributions; pensation, and self-employment income that were more than $200,000 for single, head of household, or qualifying • Taxable refunds of State and local income taxes; widow(er) ($250,000 for married filing jointly, or $125,000 • Alimony and separate maintenance payments; for married filing separately).
    [Show full text]
  • This Table Shows the Total Tax Paid ($) on Annual Taxable Income. For
    This table shows the total tax paid ($) on annual taxable income. For example, a person with an annual taxable income of $60,000 will pay $4,990 plus 25% of ($60,000 - $36,250) Total Tax Paid ($) at the top of this taxable Annual Taxable Income Bracket ($) Tax Rate income bracket 0 - 8,950 10% 895 8,950 - 36,250 15% 4,990 36,250 - 87,850 25% 17,890 87,850 - 183,250 28% 44,602 183,250 - 400,000 33% 116,129 400,000 and over 39.6% Question 1 Bill has an annual taxable income of $28,950. The income tax, to the nearest $, he has to pay is: A. $2,895 B. $3,895 C. $4,342 D. $4,510 E. $5,237 Answer 1 It is very easy to get the wrong answer if the question is not read carefully and make the incorrect assumption of placing Bill's income into the $8,950-36,250 income bracket and taxing his entire salary at 15%. 0.15 x 28,950 = $4342.5 By reading the example they give in the question 'For example, a person with an annual taxable income of $60,000 will pay $4,990 plus 25% of ($60,000 - $36,250)' it is clear that each part of their salary is taxed at a separate rate. To get the correct answer we need to divide his total salary into the correct brackets and calculate the allocated tax for each part. His salary is $28,950 which means $8,950 is taxed in the first bracket (10% tax) and the remaining $20,000 is taxed in the second bracket (15% tax).
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Income Volatility of Low Income Populations
    Addressing Income Volatility of Low Income Populations Prepared for The Financial Clinic By Virginia Andersen Sarah Austin Joel Doucette Ann Drazkowski Scott Wood Workshop in Public Affairs Spring 2015 ©2015 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System All rights reserved. For an online copy, see www.lafollette.wisc.edu/research-public-service/workshops-in-public-affairs [email protected] The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a teaching and research department of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors. The University of Wisconsin–Madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative-action educator and employer. We promote excellence through diversity in all programs. Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Does Work Pay at Older Ages?
    Does Work Pay at Older Ages? Barbara A. Butrica Richard W. Johnson Karen E. Smith Eugene Steuerle The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 December 2004 The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (CRR). The opinions and conclusions are solely those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of SSA or any agency of the Federal Government or of the CRR, or the Urban Institute, its board, or its sponsors. The authors thank Len Burman and especially Adeel Saleem for their help with computing tax burdens. THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M STREET, N.W. / WASHINGTON D.C. 20037 Does Work Pay at Older Ages? Abstract Encouraging work at older ages is a critical policy goal for an aging society, but many features of the current system of benefits and taxes provide strong work disincentives. The implicit tax rate on work increases rapidly at older ages, approaching 50 percent for some workers by age 70. In addition, by age 65 people can typically receive nearly as much in retirement as they can by working. If older Americans could overcome these barriers and delay retirement, they could substantially improve their economic well-being at older ages. For example, many people could increase their annual consumption at older ages by more than 25 percent by simply retiring at age 67 instead of age 62. Executive Summary Does Work Pay at Older Ages? Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States 2007
    OECD - Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Country chapter - Benefits and Wages (www.oecd.org/els/social/workincentives) THE UNITED STATES 2007 1. Overview of the system Generally, unemployed persons can receive unemployment compensation for a maximum of 26 weeks. There are a number of provisions for low income families. The most important are Food Stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which are granted to families in need. Responsibility for administration of Food Stamps is shared, with the Federal government paying for the benefit costs and setting broad rules and the States directly administering the program. Responsibility for TANF belongs to the individual States. An Earned Income Tax Credit is available to poor working families. The tax unit is the individual, but couples have the option to be taxed jointly. Tax and benefit systems vary from State to State. The State of Michigan is used to represent a typical manufacturing region. Michigan TANF and Unemployment Insurance benefits are somewhat above the average for all States. 1.1. Average worker wage (AW1) The 2007 AW level is USD 39 481. 2. Unemployment insurance The US Department of Labor oversees the system, but each State administers its own programme. Eligibility conditions differ from State to State, as do maximum benefit levels. Generally, all States require that UI-recipients be able to, and available for, work. 2.1 Conditions for receipt 2.1.1 Employment conditions The minimum employment record is 20 weeks, with a minimum gross salary of USD $2997 per annum in Michigan. 2.1.2 Contribution conditions Employers pay 0.06 to 10.3 per cent of the first USD 9,000 for each covered employee in Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Care and Development Fund Plan for Ffy 2006-2007
    STATE PLAN FOR CCDF SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD 10/1/05 – 9/30/07 CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT FUND PLAN FOR FFY 2006-2007 This Plan describes the CCDF program to be conducted by the State for the period 10/1/05 – 9/30/07. As provided for in the applicable statutes and regulations, the Lead Agency has the flexibility to modify this program at any time, including changing the options selected or described herein. The official text of the applicable laws and regulations govern, and the Lead Agency acknowledges its responsibility to adhere to them regardless of the fact that, for purposes of simplicity and clarity, the specific provisions printed herein are sometimes paraphrases of, or excerpts and incomplete quotations from, the full text. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 162.57 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. (Form ACF 118 Approved OMB Number: 0970-0114 expires 06-30-2008) Page 1 Effective Date: October 1, 2005 Amended Effective: ____________ STATE PLAN FOR CCDF SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD 10/1/05 – 9/30/07 TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENTS LOG PART 1 ADMINISTRATION 1.1 Lead Agency Information 1.2 State Child Care (CCDF) Contact Information 1.3 Estimated Funding 1.4 Estimated Administration Cost 1.5 Administration of
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Report Description
    City of Montebello Los Angeles County, California DRAFT August 2020 City of Montebello 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5 A History of Montebello................................................................................................................... 5 B Legal Background ....................................................................................................................... 5 1) Federal Laws ....................................................................................................................... 5 2) California Laws..................................................................................................................... 6 C Fair Housing Defined................................................................................................................... 8 1) Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Report Description ................................... 8 2) Organization of the Report ................................................................................................... 9 3) Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2: Public Participation ............................................................................................................. 12 1) Public Participation Activities and AI Review ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Living Wage in Virginia?
    What Is a Living Wage in Virginia? Rebecca L. Easby-Smith Anne Louise Mason Andrew B. Shaw Ebony L. Walton Client: Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Contact: Greg Rest TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: POVERTY MEASURES AND AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD FOR VIRGINIA....3 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................................................................3 POVERTY MEASURES ................................................................................................................................................................................4 THE FEDERAL POVERTY MEASURE ................................................................................................................................................................4 THE MINIMUM WAGE.....................................................................................................................................................................................6 THE SELF-RELIANCE MEASURE .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 THE LIVING WAGE ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]