Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 45S to increase the employer tax credit for paid family and medical leave by doubling the percentage rates and doubling the increment per quarter. It also removes the credit's sunset provision, making the credit permanent.
Left emphasizes worker benefits and permanence; right emphasizes fiscal cost.
Appeals as a pro-leave incentive but increases revenue loss; likely needs coalition-building or inclusion in a larger tax package.
This bill amends Internal Revenue Code section 45S to increase the employer tax credit for paid family and medical leave by doubling the percentage rates and doubling the increment per quarter.
It also removes the credit's sunset provision, making the credit permanent.
The changes apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Technically simple and broadly favorable in concept, but revenue costs and lack of offsets reduce standalone prospects; more likely if attached to larger legislation.
How solid the drafting looks.
Left emphasizes worker benefits and permanence; right emphasizes fiscal cost.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes worker benefits and permanence; right emphasizes fiscal cost.
Likely strongly supportive: it doubles employer incentives for paid family and medical leave and makes the credit permanent.
Supporters view this as a federal policy encouraging more employer-provided leave, though fiscal effects are uncertain without a CBO score.
Generally supportive but cautious: the bill uses a tax credit to encourage leave rather than mandates, and permanence reduces uncertainty.
Concern centers on fiscal cost, administrative complexity, and whether the incentive actually increases access for all workers.
Skeptical: while a tax credit is preferable to a federal mandate, doubling and permanently extending the credit expands a long-term federal expenditure.
Concerns center on deficits, government picking winners, and regulatory complexity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and broadly favorable in concept, but revenue costs and lack of offsets reduce standalone prospects; more likely if attached to larger legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes worker benefits and permanence; right emphasizes fiscal cost.
Technically simple and broadly favorable in concept, but revenue costs and lack of offsets reduce standalone prospects; more likely if atta…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the emp…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.