double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs vietnamese seafood double-skinned crabs mud crab exporter double-skinned crabs double-skinned crabs crabs crab exporter soft shell crab crab meat crab roe mud crab sea crab vietnamese crabs seafood food vietnamese sea food double-skinned crab double-skinned crab soft-shell crabs meat crabs roe crabs
Opinion

The paid sick-leave tax

Pressure for a crushing new tax on small business continues to grow — so three cheers for City Council Speaker Chris Quinn, who’s resisting the crowd.

The question is whether the council should force private business owners to provide paid sick leave to workers.

A bill to do just that is before the council, but Quinn — wisely — won’t allow it on the agenda.

True enough, she yesterday scheduled a hearing on an amended version for Nov. 1 — which is worrisome.

But the speaker promises that her position hasn’t changed — and we take her at her word.

Since most large companies already offer sick days, this is a matter of concern principally for small employers.

And, given that the bill now being pushed by 37 of the body’s 51 members will cost businesses an estimated $560 million a year (and maybe as much as $800 million), small entrepreneurs can be forgiven their concerns.

Make no mistake: What’s being proposed is a tax, pure and simple. The only difference between this and a more traditional impost is that nobody will be writing checks payable to City Hall.

But there will be a lot of checks written, with the immediate effect being the loss of as many as 10,500 private-sector jobs, according to the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas — who placed the $560 million price tag on the scheme.

Meanwhile, The Partnership for New York estimates it will cost $800 million — and even a low-balling advocacy group, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, puts costs at an eye-popping $332 million.

Supporters, of course, don’t just reject the notion that paid sick leave has any downside; they also assert that it will ultimately save money with fewer individuals having to rely on emergency-room visits.

Even if one accepts that premise — a stretch, considering that paid sick leave doesn’t automatically equal full health coverage — are such “savings” worth the potential loss of thousands of jobs?

Of course not.

Again, paid sick leave amounts to a de facto half-billion-dollar tax on small businesses — with a fully predictable result.

Let’s be clear: If the council deems the need for mandatory paid sick leave to be so compelling that it warrants the imposition of a huge tax, it should at least have the courage (heh!) to spread the pain over all of the citizens of New York.

Singling out a class of taxpayers — in this case, hard-pressed small-business owners — is economically corrosive and manifestly unfair.

Quinn, again, says the bill is going nowhere. She needs the support of all New Yorkers who believe in tax equity and a sound municipal economy.