https://boards.hellobee.com/ Pregnancy, Baby and Parenting blog, by Hellobee en Sun, 03 May 2026 08:43:37 +0000 https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655516 Fri, 23 May 2014 15:40:21 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655516@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@jedeve: I also wanted to say please don't interpret my replies as an endorsement of our current tax system. I definitely think there should be (many) changes! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655503 Fri, 23 May 2014 15:25:33 +0000 Kemma 1655503@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>It always interested me that one of the arguments that continues to crop up around the parental leave debate involves the sky falling in and the complete collapse of the economy just because working women are having babies (ok, slight exaggeration but you get my point!).</p> <p>We have 14 weeks paid parental leave in New Zealand (soon to be 18 weeks) as well as protected employment until the child is twelve months old) and it works pretty well! I don't necessarily agree with funding a full year of time off because I believe having children is a personal decision but I do believe that women should be able to spend those valuable first few months with their children without fear of losing their jobs.</p> <p>And at the end of the day the success and growth of the economy relies on population growth and pregnancy and having babies is just a fact of life that affects a huge chunk of the population. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655463 Fri, 23 May 2014 15:01:05 +0000 yoursilverlining 1655463@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Ah yes, the liberal pipe dream of paid maternity leaves tries to live again! </p> <p>Id fully support a proposal like this, because it's similar to how several state programs (successfully) run today. But, id also support the "honeybear proposal" :wink: too, even if it's a benefit I would pay but not receive, because I disagree that I wouldn't receive anything. I think making some sort term financial stability available to lower/lowest wage working mothers (who are going to have children whether or not "we" think they should and whether or not they can keep 2/3 of their salary for 12 weeks after birth) would keep more in the workforce longterm; which definitely saves me much more longterm. I also happen to think it's the type of pro-family benefit program that I think countries like ours should provide. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655413 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:31:25 +0000 MrsH 1655413@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@jedeve: I edited my earlier comment because I made an incorrect assumption. I assure you my effective tax rate is much higher than 7.4% or 11% and that doesn't include the sales tax I pay :) </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655405 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:25:43 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655405@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@jedeve: I'm not going to argue with you about the percentage of my income that I pay in taxes. So, I'm just going to move on. :) </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655404 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:25:03 +0000 MamaMoose 1655404@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@honeybear: well if it does pass I certainly would want it officially on the books as the Honeybear Amendment!! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655384 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:13:20 +0000 jedeve 1655384@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: @mrsH: you can't do the math like that though. It's like saying if I pay 10% of my income in tax! and my husband pays 10%, then we pay 20%, lol. </p> <p>I did the math. The top 20% pay 7.4% of their income on those taxes I mentioned. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655382 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:11:36 +0000 honeybear 1655382@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@mrbee: @MamaMoose: Yeah, I was simply tweaking the Gillibrand-DeLauro proposal. You'd have to pay in to receive benefits under the Honeybear Amendment, too. :) </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/3#post-1655372 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:04:40 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655372@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Anagram: lol! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655368 Fri, 23 May 2014 14:02:08 +0000 Anagram 1655368@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: OMG, is it crazy that until you wrote that, I always thought "MrSH" in my head? Even though I knew MrsH is a woman!</p> <p>I need coffee. or sleep. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655365 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:59:07 +0000 MamaMoose 1655365@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: amen on knowing exactly what our effective tax rate is and being slightly horrified by it </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655364 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:58:45 +0000 heartonastring 1655364@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Anagram: I am not American and yes, some of the opinions/issues that come up in these sorts of threads always perplex me. I just don't feel like getting into any arguments today because I'm already having a crappy day and don't want to invite in any more negativity :P </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655363 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:58:09 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655363@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: Your 20-20 comparison is a good start to a more complete analysis . . . </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655362 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:57:55 +0000 MamaMoose 1655362@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@mrbee: you are definitely correct that was a stipulation of the original proposal. @honeybear:'s amended version did not include a provision where benefits are determined by past history of what you have paid into the system. But she may have just not directly addressed it. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655360 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:57:30 +0000 jedeve 1655360@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MrsH: no, that is average percent of income paid. The top quintile is just broken down into smaller segments. </p> <p>@MsLipGloss: yes it's not broken just into income tax. Income taxes are nowhere near all of what people pay in taxes. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655356 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:54:33 +0000 MrsH 1655356@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: &lt;&lt;I know exactly where we fall as a family, and what percentage of our income is paid in taxes . . . and it's truthfully very scary.&gt;&gt; This!!!!!! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655351 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:50:27 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655351@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@jedeve: I also just noticed that the info in your link is not limited solely to income tax (I was distracted by percentage signs - *gah*). That makes a huge difference (in terms of percentages). At the end of the day, I just have to SMH. I know exactly where we fall as a family, and what percentage of our income is paid in taxes . . . and it's truthfully very scary.</p> <p>@Anagram: Yes. An unbelievable amount in taxes. Thanks. :) ETA: And I agree that the US does not have *low* taxes. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655350 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:50:08 +0000 mrbee 1655350@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>&lt;&lt; I think where your plan sort of falls short of being fiscally sustainable is in recognizing that we are essentially encouraging those who are least financially capable of providing for children, to go ahead and have them. So the government assistance is very unlikely to to stop with paid maternity leave. &gt;&gt;</p> <p>@MamaMoose: I thought that this was an earned benefit, and that people have to pay into the system (as an employee) in order to earn the benefit?</p> <p>The people least financially able of providing for children typically don't have a job, so they wouldn't qualify for this benefit (as I understand it - could be wrong though!). </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655348 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:48:38 +0000 MrsH 1655348@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Edit - apparently my math was based off a wrong assumption. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655344 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:46:52 +0000 Anagram 1655344@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: I agree that high-income earners who are not in the top 1% pay a lot in the way of taxes. </p> <p>My opoint is that the effective tax rate in the U.S. is really complicated and that the U.S. does not have "low" taxes compared to other countries like Canada for many people---in fact, the people you are referencing in the top brackets that are not getting their income from investments. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655336 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:42:09 +0000 jedeve 1655336@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: </p> <p>Here is the whole line up: </p> <p>Lowest 20% - 11.1%<br /> Second 20% - 10%<br /> Middle 20% - 9.4%<br /> Fourth 20% - 8.7%<br /> Next 15% - 7.7%<br /> Next 4% - 7.2%<br /> Top 1% - 5.4%</p> <p>Sorry to thread jack, OP! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655333 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:39:48 +0000 MamaMoose 1655333@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@honeybear: I think where your plan sort of falls short of being fiscally sustainable is in recognizing that we are essentially encouraging those who are least financially capable of providing for children, to go ahead and have them. So the government assistance is very unlikely to to stop with paid maternity leave. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655313 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:27:34 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655313@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@jedeve: There are a great number of households excluded from that lineup . . . they are missing the folks who are taxed the most, i.e., they have not accounted for 59% of households (they only included bottom 20%, middle 20% and top 1%). Where you will see the biggest/largest contributions come from are those that fall in the 10-15% just below the top 1%. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655302 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:23:20 +0000 jedeve 1655302@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Anagram: @MsLipGloss: if you look at state and local taxes, and property and sales taxes, low and middle income families pay a much greater share of their income than high income families. The bottom 20% on average pay 11.1% and the top 20% pay 5.6% of their income in these taxes. (<a href="http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopayses.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopayses.pdf</a>)</p> <p>Things like the mortgage interest tax deduction and capital gains tax credits benefit the middle and upper class significantly, but rarely the lower income class. Not to mention employer sponsored insurance, which is a whole different type of tax loophole. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655301 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:23:06 +0000 MsLipGloss 1655301@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Anagram: the majority of those deductions are only available to those who make less than a certain amount of money. The class of people to whom you refer (and their employment status) are not eligible to claim those deductions. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655296 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:21:31 +0000 Anagram 1655296@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>To any non-american Bees who are reading this thread: is there anything in this thread about our opinions that surprises or perplexes you? </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655284 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:18:01 +0000 Anagram 1655284@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@honeybear: I'm actually not opposed to a millionaire paying into it and withdrawing the $400/week or whatever the top capped payout would be, </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655263 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:12:30 +0000 Anagram 1655263@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@honeybear: As I put in the original post, there is a cap on what you can both contribute and receive. And only 12% of working women in this country receive any kind of paid family leave, so we really need something more comprehensive for our country.</p> <p>I agree with other posters that no one in the country would support everyone paying into a system that only low income people will benefit from. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655245 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:06:26 +0000 honeybear 1655245@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@Freckles: I don't mind including some middle class ($50k is nowhere near the poverty line), but if a family making $100k who already enjoys these types of benefits is "middle class," then no, I wouldn't support including them, because I doubt that would be fiscally sustainable. I'd need to see estimates to be sure about that, but I doubt even Reps. Gillibrand and DeLauro have any idea whether 0.4% per worker would be enough to keep their program in the black. </p> <p>@MamaMoose: It suddenly becomes a lot less attractive if it is aimed only at people who need it the most, and that's precisely my point. On a happier note, my proposal wouldn't have the effect of causing your employer to dump your benefits. </p> <p>@mrsjazz: You are exactly right that almost no one would support my proposal. But helping the people who need it the most is the only policy goal that we, as a nation, should have, given the reality of limited resources. It's easy to make a program popular by saying nearly everyone gets a benefit. But as a matter of long-term policy, creating broad government subsidy programs like this is unsustainable. Even multimillionaires could receive benefits under the Gillibrand-DeLauro plan. It's not tailored to help the middle class and below at all. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/have-you-heard-of-the-family-act-do-you-support-it/page/2#post-1655243 Fri, 23 May 2014 13:05:06 +0000 Anagram 1655243@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@MsLipGloss: I don't know many people that pay their taxes straight without claiming deductions for housing insurance, interest, student loan interest, charitable deductions, credits for electric cars and green window refurbishments and home offices and "travel expenses" for "work related" purposes (that are also combined with personal purposes). I mean, I do all of that myself and it's all totally legal. </p> <p>But the tax code is complicated and geared towards people who have the time, inclination, and/or money to make sure they are paying as little tax as possible. The middle class in our country pays the majority of the country's taxes. </p>