-
@Anagram: lol!
-
@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.
-
@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.
I did the math. The top 20% pay 7.4% of their income on those taxes I mentioned.
-
@honeybear: well if it does pass I certainly would want it officially on the books as the Honeybear Amendment!!
-
@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.
-
@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
-
Ah yes, the liberal pipe dream of paid maternity leaves tries to live again!
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"
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.
-
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!).
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.
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.
-
@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!
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.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
88 comments