Paid Leave
Comments
-
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses.
Subsidizing poor people to have kids is FS, that's a different issue, and no doubt it needs to be fixed. -
Yeah, but that's the old "just write it off or pass it on" argument. Thing is, I have to charge it, earn it, collect it, set it aside, calculate it, and pay it to the government, without being compensated for my extra time or my bookkeeper. Plus I run the risk of getting sued or being on the hook during a slow season when profits are low. Why should that ever be the business's responsibility to pay AND administer? There's a cost to everything, and all those extra steps to pass it along take time and money, too, and no customer wants to pay higher prices. Direct vs Indirect costs. WTF does this perk have to do with my mission statement? That's where I need to be spending my time and investment, while creating more jobs, not paying more for a speculative, theoretical benefit to my business.Southerndawg said:
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses. -
TurdBuffer said:
Yeah, but that's the old "just write it off or pass it on" argument. Thing is, I have to charge it, earn it, collect it, set it aside, calculate it, and pay it to the government, without being compensated for my extra time or my bookkeeper. Plus I run the risk of getting sued or being on the hook during a slow season when profits are low. Why should that ever be the business's responsibility to pay AND administer? There's a cost to everything, and all those extra steps to pass it along take time and money, too, and no customer wants to pay higher prices. Direct vs Indirect costs. WTF does this perk have to do with my mission statement? That's where I need to be spending my time and investment, while creating more jobs, not paying more for a speculative, theoretical benefit to my business.Southerndawg said:
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses.
You're arguing with yourself. We don't disagree on this point ..... "Either way, it's wrong" -
Ouch!!!BallSacked said:
I wish the govt had paid your mom to give you a scrape job.greenblood said:Now Trump is making this part of his agenda.
Having a child is a choice. If you can't afford a child don't have a child. An employer shouldn't have to pay for paternity or maternity leave.
I don't care if other countries pay it. The other countries have it wrong. -
Got it. It's just not as simple as simpletons think it is.Southerndawg said:TurdBuffer said:
Yeah, but that's the old "just write it off or pass it on" argument. Thing is, I have to charge it, earn it, collect it, set it aside, calculate it, and pay it to the government, without being compensated for my extra time or my bookkeeper. Plus I run the risk of getting sued or being on the hook during a slow season when profits are low. Why should that ever be the business's responsibility to pay AND administer? There's a cost to everything, and all those extra steps to pass it along take time and money, too, and no customer wants to pay higher prices. Direct vs Indirect costs. WTF does this perk have to do with my mission statement? That's where I need to be spending my time and investment, while creating more jobs, not paying more for a speculative, theoretical benefit to my business.Southerndawg said:
Successful business will pass the costs along to consumers, just as a tax will pass the cost along to those who actually pay taxes. Either way, it's wrong.TurdBuffer said:
But, but, but: There's a huge cost to only subsidizing poor people and immigrants having all the kids like we do now. An immigrant family nearby has 10 kids, lives in an SHA house, and we pay for it all. Since those programs aren't going anywhere soon, we need to balance the subsidies so having kids isn't cost prohibitive for productive, responsible middle-class and working-class families, too.Southerndawg said:
Options that include tax credits or employer subsidies, the cost of which will be passed along to consumers, snag monies from non beneficiaries. The best and most fair solution is an employee funded portable HSA. If you can't afford to fund the HSA, then you can't afford kids and shouldn't have them. If you can, then you're demonstrating a level of responsibility commensurate with being a parent, and you should have kids if you choose to.TurdBuffer said:
Pretty much agree. If society at large wants this subsidy, tax for it so everybody contributes, even the employees themselves. Otherwise, it's just raiding the business's bank account for things it has no control over and derives no ROI for.UWhuskytskeet said:We already pay the most in the world for childbirth:
Would be nice for our wives to not have to return to work with a bleeding vagina and an empty wallet.
But fuck it, if Papua New Guinea is doing it, you know it's right.
I'd be all for setting up an unemployment-like fund that you can opt-in and draw up to $500 a week, preferably based on a percentage of what you pay into. Three month minimum for maternity, two weeks for paternity.
There isn't enough job mobility or freedom of information to leave these benefits up to employers. I can't go to fucking Amazon.com and pick out the employer with the best maternity leave. Leave employers out of it altogether.
It's just wrong to mandate that the employer pays for it. Again, if society at large supports it, it should be a tax, not a penalty exacted on successful businesses.
You're arguing with yourself. We don't disagree on this point ..... "Either way, it's wrong" -
Think this is bad policy for a right idea. Don't care much either way on the paid leave...we have enough other govt hands in the business' pockets not that much of a deal to have this, especially if its reward desired behavior (i.e. working). If it's set up to push companies not to offer it because the govt picks up the tab its 'effed up policy though.
Only saw a bit of the "speech", but as far as the tax breaks/etc for day care looks like not the best policy but still towards what is really the right concept/desire. If you look at the 50's, the govt set up a $10K/kid tax deduction and suddenly there was a big boom in the middle class having kids. Now, that tax deduction has barely moved and we've seen the birth rate for the middle class going down and down, while its not impacting other sections of society. Its kinda nuts...
I'd just make it simple...don't set up another program or even paid leave and just bump up the child tax credit to $20K or $25K...think it would accomplish much the same in a much more simple manor. -
The best part of the speech as always, was the intro by Ivanka
-
Yup. If an employer wants to offer paid leave as part of the deal of you working there, then great. If they don't offer it, and it's something you really need, then go work somewhere else or make them work it into the budget. Offer to take like 10k a year or less in salary/wages in exchange for continuing to get normal paychecks while on leave.
If a company automatically gives all it's employees paid leaves, then the people who don't have kids wind up getting screwed over because wages across the board will be cut so that there is money available to pay people to not work. -
The point is it's beneficial to the kid and parents to allow the mother time to spend with the newborn. Tax credits several months after the fact don't do much to offset the lack of income at the time of birth.HoustonHusky said:Think this is bad policy for a right idea. Don't care much either way on the paid leave...we have enough other govt hands in the business' pockets not that much of a deal to have this, especially if its reward desired behavior (i.e. working). If it's set up to push companies not to offer it because the govt picks up the tab its 'effed up policy though.
Only saw a bit of the "speech", but as far as the tax breaks/etc for day care looks like not the best policy but still towards what is really the right concept/desire. If you look at the 50's, the govt set up a $10K/kid tax deduction and suddenly there was a big boom in the middle class having kids. Now, that tax deduction has barely moved and we've seen the birth rate for the middle class going down and down, while its not impacting other sections of society. Its kinda nuts...
I'd just make it simple...don't set up another program or even paid leave and just bump up the child tax credit to $20K or $25K...think it would accomplish much the same in a much more simple manor.
Fair point about the inefficiencies of setting up a new program. Wonder if something like the Bush stimulus credit could work. Get the money at the time of birth and pay it back on the next tax return (preferably offset by the additional child tax credit). -
If you want to spend time with your newborn, go spend time with your newborn. There is no law against spending time with your newborn.
