long term maternity leave (debate)

[tcwitt]

I think it is very sad that this is an argument at all. I wouldn't have any problem with paying an Employment Insurance premium even if I never had to use it. I don't plan on having any more kids but as Septbride pointed out, accidents happen.

I also don't understand the general upset at the government mandating an employment insurance. As Jenn Lynn pointed out, the government requires us to have car insurance so what, pray tell, is the difference.

Christine

 

[sha_lyn]

As Jenn Lynn pointed out, the government requires us to have car insurance so what, pray tell, is the difference.

The difference is you are not required to own a car, however life pretty much makes it necessary to hold a job. also if your car is paid for you can pretty much pick what level on insurance you have on the car, other than state required liability. You can also shop around for insurance, there is not a set rate/tax taken out of your check by the government. Also I don't believe all states require insurance (I know at one time not of of them required it), or atleast I know the requirements vary from state to state.
If the car is not paid for in is the leinholder that requires the insurance that is above the state requirements. Also insurance is required by the state, not the federal government.

BTW I am not agaisnt non paid parental leave.

I strongly feel that if someone wants to have a child, and stay at home with said child, it is the parents responsibility to put money aside. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to pay for the time spent at home.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

You still don't get it Sha Lyn it isn't everyone else paying for you you are contributing to a fund to aid you in the time you are off. Yes others are also contributing to it for when they are off due to pregnancy or job loss it is there for all of us to use. You have to get past the whole I don't want to pay for somone else mentality it shows a very selfish attitude and a me me me it's all about me demeanor. Sorry to say but if I know I have been paying into sometyhing like this just in case something were to happen I am happy it is there just like those women that pay into it knowing it will be there for when they decide to have children. Or if something happens to their job.

 

[sha_lyn]

yes I do get it. Unless someone is unable to collect until they pay in the entire amount they will collect, others are paying for it also.

So it is selfish to expect to carry your own weight, and expect others to do the same? If so, then darn right I am selfish. Oh don't I just love the socialist mentality.

 

[DIZNYFAN]

To much So say you start working at 21 after you are done school you start paying in then at 31 you get pregnant do you still think you have not paid in enough to get out what you will make for the leave? Regardless of how long you pay in you are still entitled to the leave and think about it you take out x number of dollars for your leave and you keep payuing in after for the time you work I would have to say it wopuld have been paid back many times over to cover those that may have helped cover your time off.

 

[sha_lyn]

What % of your pay goes to the insurance?
Since I don't have numbers I'll use 1%

If they take out 1% of your pay each week for the insurance, you would have to work 55 weeks to pay for 1 week of leave(according to Tetley's post it is 55% of wages)
so you would earn just under 1 week a yr. Lets round that off to a yr. to keep it simple. So you would have to work 15 yrs to pay for 15 weeks maternity leave, and another 35 weeks to pay for the parental leave.
Lets say (for sake of keeping it simple) that the mother and father earn the same wages. Between the 2 of them it would seem that they would have to each work 25 years per kid to pay into the system the amount they would collect off of one child. Of course that does not account for wage increases.
However if it is typical that the man earns more, and the mother takes off more time then him, it would take less than 25 yrs to pay into the system the amount that they collected.

Without a % to go on, my guess is that the % is not higher than 1% of wages. However if someone has the correct numbers please post them.

Editted to add:
The entire point of this post is that one would not pay into the system many times over. They would perhaps pay 2x if they had only 1 child, would be equal with 2 kids. that is if the average person work 50 years. Of course the amount is off a bit because of pay increases, however I don't think it woudl be way off considering one would pay in less in the beginning. It would really depend on when in their career they had children, and how much their wages increased after they collected.

 

[septbride2002]

So it is selfish to expect to carry your own weight, and expect others to do the same? If so, then darn right I am selfish. Oh don't I just love the socialist mentality.

While I love capitalism I do sometimes feel that it sets people up to fail. Unless you are wealthy you depend on your job, you depend on your car, you depend on your health insurance. I don't think that taking an exact model of the Canadian system is the answer - but I do think that there are alternatives to what we currently offer. I don't think there is any mother out there that thinks that 8 weeks maternity leave is enough time. This is what I would get if I was to have a child today. I would be in a rough situation - I have to work, I have to have health insurance, and now I have to care for a child. I therefore become a slave to a system that has set me up to not get ahead.

By the way - just to clarify before anyone gets any ideas - I do not plan on having any children right now or anytime in the next 4 to 5 years due to this. At that point my husband will have to be a stay-at-home Dad because if I quit my job we lose medical insurance. So yes we do have a plan in place for when we have children. However as I pointed out accidents/surprises happen.

~Amanda

 

[MECH8T7]

I don't think there is any getting away from the fact that the premiums for the EI program are essentially a tax (whether in connection with unemployment with job loss or maternity/parental leave).

In addition to the employee premium there is also a corresponding employer's premium. The employer contribution is either equal to or 1.7 times the employee premium. (I get mixed up between the employer contribution rates for EI and CPP). I think the employee's portion is probably between 1% to 2% of employment earnings but there is an annual max somewhere around $1,000 per year (and so does the maximum weekly benefit).

Only individuals who are employed contribute to the program and are eligible for benefits. So, self-employed people are not entitled to benefits.

I think its safe to say that most employers view it as a tax. If you do the math on the contribution rates versus benefits that would be received for a mother who took the max mat leave for, say, two children, it should be pretty clear that the program is basically a form of income redistribution and the program is a tool for social policy. I believe similar programs might be available from private insurers but I think its safe to say that the premiums would be rediculously high in comparison with the EI premium rates but that's because private insurers would price it like real insurance.

Now, even though I think it is a tax, the program is just part of what "is" Canada and a program that all expectant mothers and fathers (and adoptive parents) can get access to. We certainly took advantage of it when my spouse gave birth to our two kids and, on top of that, her employer "topped-up" her benefits to 95% of her weekly pay for somewhere around 16 weeks of her mat leave.

 

[totalia]

DIZNYFAN

I agree with you completely.

 

[jfulcer]

Originally posted by jmmom80
but i would rather forego the benefit, take the responsibility myself for maternity leave or not, and not be forced into paying the tax.

Ok fine, so let's say it's optional then. You decide not to pay into it and save your money for when you need it.

But your neighbor decides that she wants to do the same thing too, and so she doesn't pay in but doesn't save the money like you do. She also works for an employer that does not provide health insurance for her. Surprise! She becomes pregnant! Guess who is going to pay for that baby? YOU! Through Medicaid and many other well baby care programs that are offered through the local and federal government.

While you may be fiscally responsible it's a proven fact that a large number of people are not. So instead of paying for a benefit that <i>everyone</i> can use, you pay for <i>their</i> benefits through your 'other' taxes, which you will never use because you have insurance yourself and can manage your money. Life sucks, but that's the social situation we are in.

 

[Lachesis00]

What an interesting topic...

So the way I understand you can not opt out of this? :/ What if you'll never ever have children... Just curious.

 

[poohandwendy]

As Jenn Lynn pointed out, the government requires us to have car insurance so what, pray tell, is the difference.

Actually there is a big difference because our government ONLY requires liability car insurance. Loan companies are the only ones who can require comprehensive insurance. The required (liability insurance) is to cover any damages you cause to another persons body or property (not your own property).

What you are all talking about is the government requiring you to cover yourself if the need arises. I liken it to mandatory life insurance for those who have minor children. Yes, children would benefit if parents were covered and happened to die, but I think people should take care of themselves more and make choices for their own futures. I don't think the government should be in business of deciding how people should plan for future bumps in the road, I believe those decisions should be left up to individual.

If your world would come crumbling down if you get pregnant, all the more reason to protect yourself from that happening. Most people are very capable of handling unexpected pregnancies without government involvement. As they should be.

I totally understand the concept and benefits, but I wouldn't vote in favor of it. Not for paid leave for the first year after a baby is born. Unexpected unemployment, that is another story. We already have a system in place for that.

 

[jmmom80]

I really do think you are coming off very rude by using the word EXPECT all the time.

you're certainly free to read it however you like, but facts are facts. they have built a system where they expect to get a year off with pay because they pay into they system. i don't want this country to go down that road where people expect government to solve all their problems for them.

 

[poohandwendy]

I guess I am just wondering, where is the need for something like this in the US? I mean, it would be a nice 'perk' for those of child-bearing age who work full time, but I don't think government policy should be made strictly for personal comfort level.

But your neighbor decides that she wants to do the same thing too, and so she doesn't pay in but doesn't save the money like you do. She also works for an employer that does not provide health insurance for her. Surprise! She becomes pregnant! Guess who is going to pay for that baby? YOU! Through Medicaid and many other well baby care programs that are offered through the local and federal government.

How would a 6-12 month postnatal leave help the situation you describe? I thought the thread was about leave after the birth of a baby, not health insurance.

 

[MikeyNS]

I think one of the points not covered here is that we have had this policy here "Up North" for many a year and it has worked out fine.. in fact many other countries around the world have the same "sort of" policy.

Just because the US doesn't have it doesn't make it automatically wrong.

 

[Hedgie81677]

I have read many of your threads, and everyone has made some great points, but here is the problem with America today. I worked for a company who creates software for Housing Authorities, if you never heard of them they are government agencies that provide assistance to people on welfare, section 8, etc.

I understand these agencies need to exist, but my issue is when a mother decides to have more children while on assistance which allows them to receive more of our tax money, I have a problem with that. If the government would push the law in place of welfare to work. Which basically states, you have one year to take the assistance given to you get an free education or training, plus free daycare and help you find a job. Then the US could afford to a least pay the 12 weeks that is given to mothers as part of the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act).

 

[DarrenSt]

Lachesis this is not just for when and if you have kids EI also covers lay offs or closings etc. So if you wored at say FORD or some place like that and they closed a plant you are entitled to EI or you got laid off you are entitled to it. This isn't just for maternity leave just wanted to let you know as you asked about opting out of it.

 

[sha_lyn]

Originally posted by MikeyNS
Just because the US doesn't have it doesn't make it automatically wrong.

No one has said it is "wrong" for Canada. IMPO it is wrong for the US. If someone wants to live in a socialist country, they should move to one. The US should not become one just to appease a few.

 

[maryliz]

It's a TAX ... plain and simple, and not a huge one in the overall scheme of things. And it's there to protect people who are in a situation where they are not working, it's not JUST for maternity leave. The good news is, my job is waiting for me when I return to work. I only got 6 months off with my kids. They announced the 1-year plan when I was pregnant with DS but it didn't take effect until the following year. But with my DH on shift work, it wasn't a lot of fun trying to keep 2 kids quiet while he slept so I was OK to go back to work

It's no different than people who pay "education taxes" as part of their municipal taxes, etc and never "choose" to have kids. They are paying for the education of the future. In this case, the tax is paying for the well-being of our young families. I agree that it is probably a hardship for a small employer who must find a replacement for a year. But I would think that would be easier than finding a replacement for 2 or 3 months -- you'd just get the person trained and the Mom would be back to work.

I have a friend who lives in Ohio and she had to go back to work after 2 months. It just about put her into a mental hospital. After less than 2 months of it, she decided to quit her job and stay home. She's very fortunate that they could afford to do this, because that wasn't their original plan. I thought it was incredibly sad that she had to put such a tiny baby into daycare.

As for the "children are a choice" ... if everyone decided that they weren't going to have them anymore because they couldn't afford to stay home with them, what kind of state would the world be in. There would be no future to support anything. We need our growing population, and this is one way to give parents a good start at it.

Just MHO.


Mary-Liz

 

[jrydberg]

Bottom line, it's not my responsibility to pay for the upbringing of others. My daughter is my responsibility -- no one else's.