Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Paid Maternity Leave?

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:28:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The United States is one of only three countries in the world that does not offer a monetary supplement to new mothers on maternity leave from their jobs, according to a United Nations study." [http://www.rt.com...]

Should the U.S. mandate that companies offer maternity leave? If so, should it be paid? Should paternity leave be mandatory, too, and paid? Should if be offered to temp workers, workers of small businesses, and/or foreign workers?

Please share your thoughts!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
pencilpusher
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 6:02:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes, but only if the company fulfills certain requirements so not to make it harder for small business. Foreign workers? Since every other country in the world has paid maternity leave, why exclude foreign workers if they have a greencard. They'll just go home if we don't. We need the manpower. America! Temp workers... well that's a tough one. Undecided on that one. Don't yet know how temp agencies work in this country. My guess it will work much the same as university. The more study hours you have, the more classes you qualify for. Could be wrong.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:02:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:19:07 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
I think companies should be required to offer both maternity and paternity leave. That it still isn't mandated shocks me.

This. I found out recently that (some?) academic institutions in the U.S. mandate women take maternity leave, but they are filed as "sick days" or disability. How messed up that pregnancy is seen as a sickness/disability.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:42:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:19:07 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
I think companies should be required to offer both maternity and paternity leave. That it still isn't mandated shocks me.

I'm pretty sure the FMLA allows for both maternity and paternity leave. If not that law, then some law does mandate the employer allow the leave, although pay is not mandatory.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:52:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 4:28:44 AM, bsh1 wrote:
"The United States is one of only three countries in the world that does not offer a monetary supplement to new mothers on maternity leave from their jobs, according to a United Nations study." [http://www.rt.com...]

Should the U.S. mandate that companies offer maternity leave? If so, should it be paid? Should paternity leave be mandatory, too, and paid? Should if be offered to temp workers, workers of small businesses, and/or foreign workers?

Please share your thoughts!

Well, first, we do mandate they offer leave.
http://www.dol.gov...

Should it be paid? No.
The business is already hampered with paying benefits and attempting to keep a job open for the parent upon their return while filling the position by using either a temp or burdening other employees to cover the slack, to further burden the employer with pay (and further taxation) is asking a lot, especially for smaller businesses.

Legally speaking, what is the difference between any other medical issue or having a baby (especially if it is planned)? Why should a baby warrant six months of pay, but me getting injured in a motorcycle accident not? I'm assuming neither were part of the job nor occurred on the job.
My work here is, finally, done.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think grouping this type of thing together with something like employment insurance is, to me, the simplest solution to the problem. Rather than burden smaller businesses overwhelmingly, or even disincentivize larger corporations, have it be paid for by taxpayers at broad through Parental Benefits. I know that inherently seems icky to some people, but I'm fairly sure that's how the system is managed in my country -- simply mandating that the employer offers a reasonable "x" month leave, and then offering the same parental benefits to all new mothers and fathers across the board. I like that system.

The issue of Paternity Leave might make it a bit trickier, but I don't really think it should necessarily be treated any differently than Maternity Leave. I like the idea of establishing a principal caregiver.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 5:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"On top of mandating maternity leave, the government offers paid leave for one or both parents through Canada"s employment insurance plan. A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Either the mother or father can take 35 weeks of parental leave after the baby is born or adopted. The parents can share the leave however they choose. If eligible for the program, the benefits equal 55 per cent of the parent"s average weekly insurable wage, up to a maximum of $485 per week. For low-income families, the rate of benefits can increase to up to 80 per cent, with the same maximum of $485 per week. Employment insurance benefits are taxable in the same way as wages."

This is actually how it works.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 5:32:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On balance though, I think mandating the employer to pay for the entirety of the leave is (whether they are a small business or a larger one) the definite wrong way to go about it.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 10:27:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mandatory maternity leave is not based on free market ideas, nor on ideas of liberty. Firstly, maternity pay isn't free. The money would have to come out of someone's pocket. The business owner is not likely to take a loss for a woman who wants to get pregnant and then be paid for it. So the business owner will be forced to pay his employees less. Maternity leave would drive wages down. At the same time it would drive prices up. Not only would the business owner save money by lowering wages, but also by raising the prices of his goods. Maternity leave would be a horrible downfall for our free market. One reason the USA's economy is still relatively strong compared to what's going on in the rest of the world is because we don't try to punish business owners by making them pay for a woman's pregnancy.

Maternity leave would be bad for business. People wouldn't start new businesses for fear that they would be forced to pay a woman a huge sum of money for a six month leave of absence. Also, women would suffer. Companies would stay small and secretly keep women out of their businesses, and for good reason. No person on planet earth deserves to get money for free that they didn't work for.

Women would abuse maternity leave. They'd screw like rabbits and pump out many, many children. Imagine getting free money for 25 years and all you have to do is keep pushing out babies. Maternity leave isn't fair to men. Again, we are going down that old road of one group of people getting goodies, while the other group slaves away and pays for the goodies of said group, in this case the women. The men would predominately be paying the bills of some woman that they themselves didn't even get to sleep with. That would be demoralizing to men. They might not work as hard. Production goes down. The whole nation suffers.

Paid Maternity leave opens a door for all kinds of abuses by employers. The employer would almost certainly feel like they should have access to the women that they are giving free money too. The women, in turn, will be in the position of pleasuring the husband or entity that provides for them, in this case it would be the employer. Maternity leave would wreck marriage. It would lead to dissatisfied men who, in disgust, will not produce as much as they did when they were free.

Maternity leave is a thug system, since no thinking person would ever think it was justifiable to force a person to pay for a child that wasn't his. Since no thinking man would agree with this predicament, the government will have to point guns at people to enforce it. In reality, however, paid maternity leave is the beginning of Communism. I think you know that. A Commune of workers and businesses would have to be set up to pay for this woman's child, and since a long leave of absence costs a lot of money, the commune or coop would be forced to pool their money together to pay to the mother. The pooling of money would happen when the checks were made out so that the workers wouldn't see what was happening to their money nor protest. Since money equals labor, you would stealing from their labor, which is equal to slavery, especially when the government points guns and people and tells them that they have to give money to so and so. But maternity would just be the beginning. Eventually we would share everything. And then the real thugs come and start locking people up that are dis-satisfied with the Commune system. Then everyone would get scared and try to leave. But oh no!!!!! Not so fast!!!! You are not free anymore. Go work!!!! Don't like it? No problem we are already building the big work camps right now. Don't worry, you'll get your ten year sentence, just like everyone else.
Are you working for a Communist run organization? Just wondering. I thought I saw some other posts from you on here before.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 11:10:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It will provide a huge advantage to unmarried persons in the marketplace, so I am all for it.

Job interview:

Them: You are aware we comply with all government mandates for paid leave?

Me: I don't plan on having anymore kids and I am single.

Them: When can you start?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 11:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, if the government provides for it through taxation:

Them: Sally Sue will be gone for 6 months.

Me: I won't have anymore kids.

Them: When can you start?

Win.
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 12:45:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A mandate would be the most efficient way to ensure mothers attain full maternity leave. To assume that government doesn't "have a right" to mandate a company is ridiculous. It's like saying regulations shouldn't be allowed, which means that companies would be able to dump their harmful waste products in lakes and rivers, which is where a large number of Americans get their drinking water.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 12:51:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 12:45:38 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
A mandate would be the most efficient way to ensure mothers attain full maternity leave. To assume that government doesn't "have a right" to mandate a company is ridiculous. It's like saying regulations shouldn't be allowed, which means that companies would be able to dump their harmful waste products in lakes and rivers, which is where a large number of Americans get their drinking water.

Once upon a time, parents planned financially to raise children.

The End.

Also, once upon a time Lawyers were way less powerful than dumping regulations.

The End.
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 12:54:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 12:51:41 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/14/2015 12:45:38 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
A mandate would be the most efficient way to ensure mothers attain full maternity leave. To assume that government doesn't "have a right" to mandate a company is ridiculous. It's like saying regulations shouldn't be allowed, which means that companies would be able to dump their harmful waste products in lakes and rivers, which is where a large number of Americans get their drinking water.

Once upon a time, parents planned financially to raise children.
That's because they actually had the means to afford children. Without Maternity Leave, mothers would have to make the hard decision of leaving the child at home with someone (when it's essential for mothers to stay with the child at this young age) or stay at home and lose out on a check (which is also essential for a child).

The End.

Also, once upon a time Lawyers were way less powerful than dumping regulations.
What do you mean by this?

The End.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:20:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's be fair...somebody's business suffers whenever this happens. Not only is their employee not doing anything of value (which is excusable under the circumstances but still) but they have to PAY their employee though they're not doing anything of value.

If you're a business owner, your duty is not to your employees. Your duty is to your business and to yourself. You're simply obligated to pay your workers what they earn. If businesses aren't able to make a profit, they aren't businesses.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Oreo222
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 2:11:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 1:20:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Let's be fair...somebody's business suffers whenever this happens. Not only is their employee not doing anything of value (which is excusable under the circumstances but still) but they have to PAY their employee though they're not doing anything of value.
I'm fairly certain that raising a child is something of value. Denying them the ability to do that is immoral.

If you're a business owner, your duty is not to your employees. Your duty is to your business and to yourself. You're simply obligated to pay your workers what they earn. If businesses aren't able to make a profit, they aren't businesses.
This kind of mindset is tainting our world. The idea that CEO's should only care about the business and not living people is insane.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 4:08:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 2:11:45 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
At 8/14/2015 1:20:05 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Let's be fair...somebody's business suffers whenever this happens. Not only is their employee not doing anything of value (which is excusable under the circumstances but still) but they have to PAY their employee though they're not doing anything of value.
I'm fairly certain that raising a child is something of value.
True, but is it something the business should have to pay for?
Denying them the ability to do that is immoral.
Who is being denied the ability to take time of work, or even quit to raise a child? No one.

If you're a business owner, your duty is not to your employees. Your duty is to your business and to yourself. You're simply obligated to pay your workers what they earn. If businesses aren't able to make a profit, they aren't businesses.
This kind of mindset is tainting our world. The idea that CEO's should only care about the business and not living people is insane.

Who said anything about CEO's? Did you know that over 70% of businesses have less than four employees?
Why don't you start a business and hire someone you don't need, since you care about living people?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 4:18:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 12:45:38 AM, Oreo222 wrote:
A mandate would be the most efficient way to ensure mothers attain full maternity leave. To assume that government doesn't "have a right" to mandate a company is ridiculous. It's like saying regulations shouldn't be allowed, which means that companies would be able to dump their harmful waste products in lakes and rivers, which is where a large number of Americans get their drinking water.

So, for an elective medical procedure, you think people should get paid leave. Do you believe this for necessary medical procedures? Other elective ones?
The problem with being a nation of laws is that the laws need to apply equally, and we can't just pick and choose when they apply.
My work here is, finally, done.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 4:24:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Paid maternity and paternity leave both seem like good ideas to me. I would say they should be handled like other benefits. At a lot of companies, you get vacation time or other benefits until after a set amount of time. I see no reason that a company couldn't do something like that with parental leave. If I were running a business, my paid parental leave plan would work like this:

1. Parental leave is accrued as a deduction from the base salary, like health insurance benefits. So the employee earns a month of leave each year, and makes 8.3% (1/12) less during that time.

2. Parental leave is optional. So if you think you could do something better with that 8.3% that would offset the unpaid leave if you had a child, you can. Or if you are confident you won't need to take leave, then you don't have anything deducted.

3. Parental leave starts accruing immediately, but can't be taken until after the first year. If you get fired or leave the company at any time, you'll receive the pay that was withheld.

Then I'd use the withheld salary as part of some relatively safe investment plan to help offset other costs associated with having an employee out on leave.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an employer to treat the employees well. So many companies these days have forgotten the importance of treating workers like valued members of the team. Parental leave shows recognition that employees' needs are important and they aren't just cogs in the machine.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 4:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 4:24:54 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Paid maternity and paternity leave both seem like good ideas to me. I would say they should be handled like other benefits. At a lot of companies, you get vacation time or other benefits until after a set amount of time. I see no reason that a company couldn't do something like that with parental leave. If I were running a business, my paid parental leave plan would work like this:

1. Parental leave is accrued as a deduction from the base salary, like health insurance benefits. So the employee earns a month of leave each year, and makes 8.3% (1/12) less during that time.

2. Parental leave is optional. So if you think you could do something better with that 8.3% that would offset the unpaid leave if you had a child, you can. Or if you are confident you won't need to take leave, then you don't have anything deducted.

3. Parental leave starts accruing immediately, but can't be taken until after the first year. If you get fired or leave the company at any time, you'll receive the pay that was withheld.

Then I'd use the withheld salary as part of some relatively safe investment plan to help offset other costs associated with having an employee out on leave.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an employer to treat the employees well. So many companies these days have forgotten the importance of treating workers like valued members of the team. Parental leave shows recognition that employees' needs are important and they aren't just cogs in the machine.

While that is a fair plan, it isn't really you, the company, paying it, are you? It is helping the employee save for it, and while I actually like that plan (which could be used for any short-term medical FMLA issue), it isn't what is meant by paid maternity leave.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy8
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:42:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you want companies to abstain from hiring women, mandatory paid maternity leave is an excellent policy to endorse.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 4:35:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 4:24:54 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Paid maternity and paternity leave both seem like good ideas to me. I would say they should be handled like other benefits. At a lot of companies, you get vacation time or other benefits until after a set amount of time. I see no reason that a company couldn't do something like that with parental leave. If I were running a business, my paid parental leave plan would work like this:

1. Parental leave is accrued as a deduction from the base salary, like health insurance benefits. So the employee earns a month of leave each year, and makes 8.3% (1/12) less during that time.

2. Parental leave is optional. So if you think you could do something better with that 8.3% that would offset the unpaid leave if you had a child, you can. Or if you are confident you won't need to take leave, then you don't have anything deducted.

3. Parental leave starts accruing immediately, but can't be taken until after the first year. If you get fired or leave the company at any time, you'll receive the pay that was withheld.

Then I'd use the withheld salary as part of some relatively safe investment plan to help offset other costs associated with having an employee out on leave.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an employer to treat the employees well. So many companies these days have forgotten the importance of treating workers like valued members of the team. Parental leave shows recognition that employees' needs are important and they aren't just cogs in the machine.

While that is a fair plan, it isn't really you, the company, paying it, are you? It is helping the employee save for it, and while I actually like that plan (which could be used for any short-term medical FMLA issue), it isn't what is meant by paid maternity leave.

You're right, of course. I think it's all perspective, though. And I think this is more honest than "company paid leave." As has been pointed out, a company forced to provide leave is just going to pay everyone less than they would if they didn't have to provide it. Something like this is more transparent and doesn't effectively cause those who don't need it to subsidize the leave for people who do.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:17:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:

You're right, of course. I think it's all perspective, though. And I think this is more honest than "company paid leave." As has been pointed out, a company forced to provide leave is just going to pay everyone less than they would if they didn't have to provide it. Something like this is more transparent and doesn't effectively cause those who don't need it to subsidize the leave for people who do.

But, on the same token, those who are likely most to need this paid leave are going to be less able to afford the chunk of their pay that is missing. Keeping in mind, it is taxed.
My work here is, finally, done.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:30:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:19:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:17:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:

You're right, of course. I think it's all perspective, though. And I think this is more honest than "company paid leave." As has been pointed out, a company forced to provide leave is just going to pay everyone less than they would if they didn't have to provide it. Something like this is more transparent and doesn't effectively cause those who don't need it to subsidize the leave for people who do.

But, on the same token, those who are likely most to need this paid leave are going to be less able to afford the chunk of their pay that is missing. Keeping in mind, it is taxed.

There isn't much you can do for people who need money and are making bad decisions. The only way to address them would be to have a system like someone else suggested and make parental leave like unemployment insurance.

I'm not sure how tax figures into this, unless you're thinking that the withheld salary would be taxed twice. I don't think that would be the case. The money gets taxed either right away (if they're opting out of having it withheld) or when they get it back as part of leave. In either case, it should only be taxed once and at the same rate.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:39:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:30:07 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:19:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:17:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:

You're right, of course. I think it's all perspective, though. And I think this is more honest than "company paid leave." As has been pointed out, a company forced to provide leave is just going to pay everyone less than they would if they didn't have to provide it. Something like this is more transparent and doesn't effectively cause those who don't need it to subsidize the leave for people who do.

But, on the same token, those who are likely most to need this paid leave are going to be less able to afford the chunk of their pay that is missing. Keeping in mind, it is taxed.

There isn't much you can do for people who need money and are making bad decisions. The only way to address them would be to have a system like someone else suggested and make parental leave like unemployment insurance.

True, but one could argue that is what welfare is for, which, thus, makes this unnecessary, except for the middle class/upper class losing their status.

I'm not sure how tax figures into this, unless you're thinking that the withheld salary would be taxed twice. I don't think that would be the case. The money gets taxed either right away (if they're opting out of having it withheld) or when they get it back as part of leave. In either case, it should only be taxed once and at the same rate.

In either case, the tax would be upfront. So, not only am I paying payroll taxes on the 8% you withhold, making it over 9%, but income taxes would apply to, which could realistically cost 15% of your income for a few years to ensure paid maternity leave.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:46:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:19:07 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
I think companies should be required to offer both maternity and paternity leave. That it still isn't mandated shocks me.

You can take both, it's just unpaid.
AureusRex
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:46:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 4:28:44 AM, bsh1 wrote:
"The United States is one of only three countries in the world that does not offer a monetary supplement to new mothers on maternity leave from their jobs, according to a United Nations study." [http://www.rt.com...]

Should the U.S. mandate that companies offer maternity leave? If so, should it be paid? Should paternity leave be mandatory, too, and paid? Should if be offered to temp workers, workers of small businesses, and/or foreign workers?

Please share your thoughts!

When you have children, you take yourself out of the game. That is simply how it works, and there's no reason to subsidise the decisions of another person.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:47:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:39:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:30:07 PM, Burzmali wrote:

There isn't much you can do for people who need money and are making bad decisions. The only way to address them would be to have a system like someone else suggested and make parental leave like unemployment insurance.

True, but one could argue that is what welfare is for, which, thus, makes this unnecessary, except for the middle class/upper class losing their status.

I think the middle class is a big part of the discussion, so welfare isn't going to cut it.

I'm not sure how tax figures into this, unless you're thinking that the withheld salary would be taxed twice. I don't think that would be the case. The money gets taxed either right away (if they're opting out of having it withheld) or when they get it back as part of leave. In either case, it should only be taxed once and at the same rate.

In either case, the tax would be upfront. So, not only am I paying payroll taxes on the 8% you withhold, making it over 9%, but income taxes would apply to, which could realistically cost 15% of your income for a few years to ensure paid maternity leave.

I don't think income tax would apply, since you weren't paid that part of the salary. And the 8% shouldn't be taxed when it's withheld, because it's withheld. It's still just the 8.3% being withheld.

And, actually, it could be less. If 1/12 is withheld, then the paid leave would actually be more than the normal salary minus the withholding. It should actually be 1/13 withheld, or 7.7%.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 7:11:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:47:15 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:39:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:30:07 PM, Burzmali wrote:

There isn't much you can do for people who need money and are making bad decisions. The only way to address them would be to have a system like someone else suggested and make parental leave like unemployment insurance.

True, but one could argue that is what welfare is for, which, thus, makes this unnecessary, except for the middle class/upper class losing their status.

I think the middle class is a big part of the discussion, so welfare isn't going to cut it.
But, the middle class ought not be hurt much by the loss of this income, either, right? They ought to have wealth and savings to weather this temporary loss of income.

I'm not sure how tax figures into this, unless you're thinking that the withheld salary would be taxed twice. I don't think that would be the case. The money gets taxed either right away (if they're opting out of having it withheld) or when they get it back as part of leave. In either case, it should only be taxed once and at the same rate.

In either case, the tax would be upfront. So, not only am I paying payroll taxes on the 8% you withhold, making it over 9%, but income taxes would apply to, which could realistically cost 15% of your income for a few years to ensure paid maternity leave.

I don't think income tax would apply, since you weren't paid that part of the salary. And the 8% shouldn't be taxed when it's withheld, because it's withheld. It's still just the 8.3% being withheld.
Unless the government were to create a new law, this would be taxed when it is earned, just like a roth IRA. If the government allowed for it, then it could be treated like a 401k, and not taxed as earned.

And, actually, it could be less. If 1/12 is withheld, then the paid leave would actually be more than the normal salary minus the withholding. It should actually be 1/13 withheld, or 7.7%.
True, but if people could afford to set this aside, especially post tax, then they should put it in the bank and earn interest off it and be better off.
My work here is, finally, done.