-
@MamaMoose: I agree that this would make many companies provide less benefits for employees.
-
@jedeve: I agree with you.
Just from my own personal experience, I find that a lot of my friends have ended up changing jobs or quitting altogether because 6-12 unpaid weeks just wasn't long enough with their child. I can't imagine that constantly retraining employees is cost-effective for a small business, so although I think there would be plenty of grousing at the beginning (just because people don't like change and gut reactions are often negative), I do think it would even out in the end.
-
@MrsH: I wasn't talking specifically about you when I talked about "the rich". We also make well over 100K a year and we are definitely not rich. I'm talking about the US tax system in general.
-
No, I wouldn't support this proposal as it is currently explained. But here is an amended proposal that I would happily support.
Our goal should be to help working families who do not already have family leave benefits and who are poor or low-income. Otherwise you are subsidizing families who do not need financial help as urgently and you are also providing an incentive to employers not to offer leave benefits. Therefore I would propose an income cap on benefits. If you make under a certain amount (let's say $50k total household income) and your employer does not offer paid leave in the amount specified in the Act then you would be eligible for benefits. Everyone else pays in, but would not receive benefits. I suspect that this would probably also have the benefit of making this proposal fiscally sound due to the fact that more people with higher incomes will be paying in but not receiving benefits.
I'm fine with a wealth transfer of this sort from richer to poorer, but I don't think the richer (defined here as anyone who makes a certain amount or makes less than a certain amount and has leave benefits) should have access to the a welfare program conceived to help the poor. Broadening the class of beneficiaries might be politically astute but does not serve the fundamental policy goal of the effort and it generally creates a financial nightmare for the program. I should add that I personally would pay into this version, but would not benefit from it.
-
@Anagram: There is a long-time contributor to the non-profit I work for who is always asking, "Why can't we keep anybody here?" People stay for 1-2 years because it's a lot of work for little pay and the benefits aren't great. I think a program like this could benefit some non-profits/smaller businesses to prevent that turnover, having to re-train employees, etc. I have been here for less than a year but know that I will most likely leave if I have another child because I have no benefits--definitely leaving for some place bigger. So, @MamaMoose: you let me know if your organization has offices in NYC and needs a communications person!
-
@Anagram: This is the argument that advocates and some economists are making... that it is actually *better* for businesses to offer paid leave - that, over time, it costs a business significantly less to offer paid family leave than to recruit, hire, and train a new employee (because employees often leave companies that don't offer paid leave because they can't afford to take unpaid leave to care for a new baby, sick family member, or aging parent). Note that this argument does not propose *how* to offer paid leave, just that there are economic benefits to companies that do offer it.
-
@Anagram: Understood - I'm solidly in the middle class because it is harder than hell to get out of it.
-
I don't have the exact number, but earning over 100k is somewhere in the top 20%. This is a very different debate for families with incomes around 50,000 or 20,000.
-
@septca: honestly, I'm sure it's not perfect (Haven't lived here long enough to see the flaws and I am sure there are some), but I really like the system we have here in NJ and can't see why the whole country can't do the same thing.
If you are working in this state--anywhere--even if you are self employed, you pay into FLI (Family leave insurance). The great thing is that the amount is so low, and there is a cap.
For what I make, I literally pay about $2 every paycheck. That's an amount I really think *everyone* can live with. You can only draw it once every 1 year (or crap, is it 2 year?) period.
I would be willing to pay $5 or even $10 a paycheck for this to be 12 weeks and a national/federal benefit.
-
@honeybear: Why should the middle class not benefit? Why should this only benefit low income households? The way it works in Canada is that all are eligible for maternity benefits (through employment insurance and if you worked x hours), however, you are eligible for HIGHER benefits if you are under a certain income level.
-
@honeybear: I think I'll have to pass on paying into one more government program that doesn't provide me a benefit
-
@mrsjazz: I'll wall you.
-
@MamaMoose: +1
-
@Freckles: I prefer that method. I think every employed person in the U.S. is entitled to a paid family leave in certain circumstances.
It's not just the working poor who are leaving the workforce in droves to take care of new babies or ill relatives, and it hurts the economy all around.
-
@honeybear: This program wasn't conceived to help the poor. It's to help families, including the poor, working, and middle classes. I don't see why only poor/working class people should benefit from this. Actually, I don't think anyone would be likely to support this if it was just for people who make below a certain wage, they'll just call it "another handout" or welfare program. I have no problem with welfare but a lot of people in this country do.
-
Mamamoose and I work for the same company. When my son was born, I happened to be abroad. As a result of my years of service (11+), I was entitled to 7 months of leave. The standard offered by the government was 12 weeks, but the firm topped it up because they want to be an employer of choice on that country. Edited to add: the company also allows men that are serving in the military 2 weeks paid to fulfill their service requirement, so I do think they "get it."
I personally feel the answer for working parents is not only with leave, but affordable child care.
-
@looch: Everyone in Canada is jealous of Quebec's national daycare program.
I agree that it's a combination of things that are required to help families but at least this is one step towards more progressive policies.ETA: i also think the standards need to be raised to improve the quality of a lot of centres. I think it's easy to find affordable childcare, the question is whether it's any good.
-
@looch: ::standing up and applauding:: The cost of quality child care if unbelievable. I want my nanny to make a good, livable wage, but I also need to eat. (And we would be using a day care center if we could ever get off the wait list... although it would be about the same amount.)
-
@Anagram: "The difference is that there are many deductions and credits and loopholes in the U.S. tax system--so only a few actually pay their tax bracket. And then it gets complicated because there are ways to game the system and the best at the gaming are...the rich and highly educated." That's not true. That might apply to the absolute top 1% of individual earners . . . but that's about it.
-
@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.
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.
-
@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.
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
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.
-
@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,
-
To any non-american Bees who are reading this thread: is there anything in this thread about our opinions that surprises or perplexes you?
-
@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.
-
@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. (http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopayses.pdf)
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.
-
@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%.
-
@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.
-
@MsLipGloss:
Here is the whole line up:
Lowest 20% - 11.1%
Second 20% - 10%
Middle 20% - 9.4%
Fourth 20% - 8.7%
Next 15% - 7.7%
Next 4% - 7.2%
Top 1% - 5.4%Sorry to thread jack, OP!
-
@MsLipGloss: I agree that high-income earners who are not in the top 1% pay a lot in the way of taxes.
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.
-
Edit - apparently my math was based off a wrong assumption.
-
<< 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. >>
@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?
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!).
-
@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.
@Anagram: Yes. An unbelievable amount in taxes. Thanks.
ETA: And I agree that the US does not have *low* taxes.
-
@MsLipGloss: <<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.>> This!!!!!!
-
@MrsH: no, that is average percent of income paid. The top quintile is just broken down into smaller segments.
@MsLipGloss: yes it's not broken just into income tax. Income taxes are nowhere near all of what people pay in taxes.
-
@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.
-
@MrsH: Your 20-20 comparison is a good start to a more complete analysis . . .
-
@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
-
@MsLipGloss: amen on knowing exactly what our effective tax rate is and being slightly horrified by it
-
@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!
I need coffee. or sleep.
I agree that it's a combination of things that are required to help families but at least this is one step towards more progressive policies.
ETA: And I agree that the US does not have *low* taxes.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
88 comments