Two bills on unemployment insurance (UI) received testimony in the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee this week. H.55 and H.92 address eligibility and participation requirements, with some measures duplicative of preexisting or anticipated programs.

H.92 expands UI eligibility to include people who voluntarily left employment due to their own injury/illness, to escape sexual/domestic violence, to care for a child following an unexpected loss of childcare, or to care for an ill or injured family member. The Department of Labor testified that there are existing programs that already assist Vermonters who experience many of these circumstances and discussed opportunities to make these measures better known to those that need them. The significant childcare and paid family/medical leave packages are being considered this session were also discussed.

H.55 would require that nonprofit employers participate in the UI program and nonprofit reimbursable employers to provide security for the potential cost of UI benefits. An unintended consequence that would have significant cost implications to nonprofit hospitals, a point that the Vermont Chamber has raised with committee members. The bill also updates language on the supplemental benefit. It’s expected that the Vermont Department of Labor will request additional technical corrections for the sunset of the $60 supplemental benefit.

The budget adjustment act was voted out of the House this week with an additional $90 million more of funding allocated than what was proposed by the Governor. The bill requires this additional funding be paid for with FY24 funds. This measure does not immediately offer a suggested revenue source and adds to the legislature’s growing expense list. 

Notably, the Rural Infrastructure Assistance Program that was proposed by the Governor, and advocated for by the Vermont Chamber, did receive the full $3 million of funding. This is an essential step forward to ensuring underserved communities can take full advantage of federal infrastructure funding. 

During a time of great uncertainty, we need to value the economy. Given the economic conditions already facing the Vermont business community, an outpouring of new taxes would threaten the economic sustainability of our communities. A month into the session, the following taxes are all being discussed by the legislature: 

• A payroll tax for childcare 
• A payroll tax for healthcare 
• A payroll tax for paid family and medical leave 
• A cloud tax 
• Changing the property tax for education funding to an income-based tax
• A fee bill 

 We can’t talk about issues like the housing or childcare shortages without talking about the economic conditions that caused and are exacerbating these issues. Understanding regulatory barriers, the workforce crisis, our demographic challenges, and costs that add pressures on businesses must be part of a balanced policy conversation.

Discussion in recent years on how to address aggregating retail theft has been met with resistance due to police department staffing issues, court backlogs caused by the pandemic, and an unwillingness to prioritize nonviolent property crimes.  

However, on the federal level, the INFORM (Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces) for Consumers Act, was passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill in December. The legislation is intended to reduce demand for stolen merchandise and combat organized retail theft. It requires online marketplaces to verify the identities of high-volume third-party sellers by authenticating the seller’s government ID, tax ID, bank account, and contact information.  

The House Ways and Means Committee reviewed a report on recommendations for the creation and implementation of an income-based education tax to replace the homestead property tax. While businesses are facing several significant tax proposals this session, the total impact of new taxes must be considered so the Vermont economy is not overwhelmed. 

The committee that created the report did not weigh the decision of whether it should be adopted and instead opted to outline how the tax should be structured when adopted and did not recommend a specific rate. The executive summary states: “Given the scope of its legislative charge and limited timeframe to accomplish that charge, the Committee decided not to prioritize the policy question of whether an education income tax should be adopted. The Committee decided instead to concentrate on if an education income tax were to be adopted, how should it be structured.” 

Notable recommendations were that homesteads, and two surrounding acres, would be exempt from property tax, but any additional acreage on a homestead parcel would be taxed at the non-homestead rate. Funding would remain tied to the local community’s spending decisions, but rather than being based on property value, it would be based on income. The report recommends that second homeowners would not be taxed on the value of their property, but rather on their earned income in Vermont. However, questions remain on how concerns of out-of-state property owners who do not earn a Vermont income would be addressed.