long term maternity leave (debate)

[DarrenSt]

Well put ML.

 

[DarrenSt]

Jrydberg so you are saying as an example that your tax dollars that go to the school are just paying for your daughter and they do not cover another person or child I think you are mistaken. Just like income tax goes just to you wrong again it supporst many thing you may have no use for. EI premiums I am sure you have something like this in the US for if and when someone gets laid off etc well the EI premiuims we pay cover that and many other things such as maternity leave it is a tax deducted form your pay wether you ever get laid off or lose a job to a closing or go on maternity leave the money is there to help you out in those times.

 

[maxie]

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

So no else is paying for the education of your daughter thru education taxes. Geez your tuition must cost a fortune.

 

[jfulcer]

Originally posted by 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. 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.

It is. The poster I was quoting was saying that she did not feel she should 'have' to pay this Employment Insurance and that she could save her own money and do a better job of it and that should be ok. I was trying to point out that while she may be responsible enough to take care of saving her money for use when she is out with a baby on her own, there are many many others that would say they were going to do the same and don't.

So the people that don't save won't have the money to live on their own and take care of their bills. Medicaid is just the tip of the iceberg. Welfare is another example - they would go on welfare and guess what, we pay for that!

My point is that by making it 'mandatory' the government is thereby reducing the reliance on other public services. Since it's probably cheaper for the goverment to do it as an 'insurance' type deal, they have money available for other services - like national health care, public schools, country infrastructure, etc... Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by maxie
So no else is paying for the education of your daughter thru education taxes. Geez your tuition must cost a fortune.

Can't think of a single nice thing to say in response to that, so I'll just leave it alone and go to a more civil thread

 

[maryliz]

I thought Maxie was making her point in a very polite, humourous way. To use your phrase "bottom line", the true bottom line is that no one is solely responsible for everything in life that their children need. I thought her example of education taxes was excellent. I have lots of friends who never had any children, and yet they pay the same education portion of taxes that someone with 5 kids pays. But those someone else's 5 kids are going to be around in the future to pay taxes to support other services that they will use, long after they are out of the workforce.

Death and taxes ... the only 2 real sure things about life !

Mary-Liz

 

[jrydberg]

Snide, sarcastic remarks are making your point in a polite, humorous way? Sorry, but I disagree. I have no problem discussing issues in a civil manner -- that is not civil, in my book.

The education example is an excellent one, but there's no need for the attitude.

As for the subject at hand, I think schools ought to be funded only by those with children. Making one mistake (in my view) in the funding of schools doesn't mean we should compound that mistake by paying for someone's time off work.

I ask for nothing from the government other than providing for my defense and upholding my basic rights. To borrow a snippet from JFK, ask not what your country can do for you...

We are greatly overtaxed IMO because government is constantly creeping into our lives further and further. Everyone seems to be asking what their country can do for them. Pretty sad, IMO.

 

[maryliz]

As has been pointed out before, things "typed" on the boards don't always reflect the posters intended feelings.

As for schools only funded by those who attend -- please remember that the future taxpayers that will keep our countries secure, and our roads paved, and in our case, our health care system are the kids that we are currently supporting in education today. Education provides for everyone's future

Mary-Liz

 

[Hedgie81677]

So where should are tax money go to?

Defense - I agree

Education - I agree

Medicare - I agree

Social Security - I agree

Disability - to an extent, I truly believe this needs to be regulated. My husband has a friend who is has a disability but his disability doesn't enable him to work, he uses it as an excuse, these people annoy me.

Section 8 (low income housing) - I agree, these are people who work for a living but still can not make ends meet, Section 8 consists of living expenses only.

International Affairs - TOTALLY DISAGREE, I don't believe we should be paying countries a million here, a million there, to keep up relations, the money this country generates should be use within our country to keep us florishing, I understand if we send money because a major disaster has occurred, but honestly to we need to support Puerto Rico, they don't pay taxes, but we support them as if they were any other state in the US.

Government officials give themselves a yearly raise. Do you honestly believe Senators need 100K+ each year to do there job, I don't. They have two homes one in Washington, DC (paid for by the government) and in their homestate.

If we paid attention to our own citizens on a daily basis maybe we could have the perks as in many other countries who allow mothers to stay home with they newborn for 6 months or so, and not be worried that they won't have a job to return to.

 

[jmmom80]

They have two homes one in Washington, DC (paid for by the government) and in their homestate.

i'm not sure this is accurate. i don't recall ever hearing or reading that the dc homes of senators and reps are paid for by the government.

 

[KarenC]

I work in the financial markets. I had the poor timing to become pregnant with my son in August of 1987. In October the market crashed and the financial services industry underwent a severe contraction.

The brokerage firm I worked for didn't do large scale RIFs, but they did decide to trim their payroll through attrition. I had to go on bed rest for toxemia and preterm labor. If I didn't, both the baby and I could die. When I was getting ready to go back to work when he was six weeks old my boss told me they did not have a job for me to come back to.

This situation made me a strong supporter of FMLA. I absolutely think people should be able to take time off work to take care of their own health or that of their family without being worried about losing their jobs. But another experience made me question the wisdom of mandatory, extended paid maternity leave.

Later in my career I worked on a project where much of the effort was taking place in Germany. Women in Germany get paid maternity leave. I think they get a bunch (2 years maybe ). But the consequence is, at least in the organization I was working with, there are very few women, and almost no mothers, in positions of responsibility. I would frequently be in meetings that included 50 men--and me. I guess it's hard to get promoted when the boss thinks you're going to take a couple years off when you have a child.

While women in the US don't have the perks women have in other parts of the world when it comes to maternity leave, I think we have more opportunities for career growth than many of them do. (Sweden seems to be an exception; I've worked with several Swedish women who were professionals and who were moms.)

 

[septbride2002]

i'm not sure this is accurate. i don't recall ever hearing or reading that the dc homes of senators and reps are paid for by the government.

I've never heard that either. But what I have heard is that they get free healthcare for themselves and their families even after they are no longer in office. Which I find to be a bunch of bull.
~Amanda

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by septbride2002
But what I have heard is that they get free healthcare for themselves and their families even after they are no longer in office. Which I find to be a bunch of bull.
~Amanda

i don't believe that is accurate either. my understanding is that members of congress have access to the same health care plans as civilian federal employees, which they pay for.

 

[sha_lyn]

Originally posted by maxie
So no else is paying for the education of your daughter thru education taxes. Geez your tuition must cost a fortune.

At least in our case we do pay for everything related to our childrens education, and we pay the taxes that pay for the education of others. That is why I fully support vouchers for those of us who refuse to send our children to the failing public schools.

 

[septbride2002]

At least Im our case we do pay for everything related to our childrens education, and we pay the taxes that pay for the education of others. That is why I fully support vouchers for those of us who refuse to send our children to the failing public schools.

I support vouchers as well - but I think it is an awfully broad statement to say that all public schools are failing. We have very good public schools in my area and will not hesitate at all to send my children there.

~Amanda

 

[Canadian]

I haven't had a chance to read all of the posts in this thread, but I just wanted to clarify a few things about Canadian Maternity Leave that you might not get...

Every paycheque, the government takes off a hefty chunk of money, which is then put into E.I. (Employment Insurance) in my name. Whether I lose my job or not, or whether I decide to have a baby or not, this money is accumulating in an account somewhere in the magical world of our government. We are required by law to have this money taken off our cheques, whether we ever use it or not.

However. With that said, you must have paid a certain amount of money into E.I. in order to be eligible for Maternity Leave Pay. You can't just start working, and 2 weeks later decide that you want to have Maternity Leave, and get all kinds of free money. It doesn't work like that.

Basically, you pay into the fund... and when you meet the requirements, you are allowed to "take out" the money you've put in. It works out to being 55% of your regular pay (up to a maximum per week).

Employers don't pay this.
Other taxpayers don't pay this.
It's coming out of the money you've already paid into your E.I. fund.

Meanwhile, your employer has the opportunity to hire someone to fill your shoes for the year of leave. Usually, employers save money while someone is on maternity leave, because they can pay the replacement worker a smaller salary during the year.

So it works out for everyone!

Also, regarding health care... we get most "essential" medical services covered by our government (i.e. not cosmetic surgery, or other elective treatments)... but it comes at a price. Our taxes are definitely higher than they are in the states. As well, we recently had a law come in to Ontario where the government takes a sum of money from every paycheque to go into the health system as well. Sure, we complain up here about our high taxes and this new health premium we have to pay... but I'm sure we all appreciate it when we are able to walk into a hospital, get all kinds of medical service and walk out without ever seeing a bill.

That's all... just wanted to voice my opinion!

 

[sha_lyn]

Originally posted by septbride2002
I support vouchers as well - but I think it is an awfully broad statement to say that all public schools are failing. We have very good public schools in my area and will not hesitate at all to send my children there.

~Amanda

Where did I say all public schools are failing?

 

[Parkerpooh]

Okay, this thread has really ticked me off! As a mother who just finished with my one year mat leave finds this "discussion disgusting and reminds me exactly why Canada will always be our home! I have paid my EI premiums for 13 years and definitely felt justified in using MY MONEY that was put there through 13 years of work to take a year off with my son so he can grow up being nurturing and well adjusted. I could not even imagine dumping my child in a daycare at 6 or 8 weeks of age! The child/parent bond is essential for the normal growth and health of the child's spirit and sense of self worth. I feel as a canadian woman that it is a terrible shame that americans do not have the same opportunities or want them. It is only the children that will suffer and your country in the long term. If I had chosen not to have children of my own I would have more than happy to pay my premiums for other mothers(or laid-off workers) to have that money aside in their time of need. I feel I would be contributing to society by ensuring children have the emotional connection with their parents so they too can grow up to be mature, responible law-abiding citizens. Although, perhaps that's what the difference between our 2 countries is, I ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE AROUND ME NOT JUST WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME,ME,ME!!!!!!Oh,well at least I can send my kids to public school knowing that some ill-adjusted kid won't come in with gun and blow them away!!!!(we have excellent gun laws as well, but that's a whole other debate!!) JENN

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by Canadian
I haven't had a chance to read all of the posts in this thread, but I just wanted to clarify a few things about Canadian Maternity Leave that you might not get...


Basically, you pay into the fund... and when you meet the requirements, you are allowed to "take out" the money you've put in. It works out to being 55% of your regular pay (up to a maximum per week).

Employers don't pay this.
Other taxpayers don't pay this.
It's coming out of the money you've already paid into your E.I. fund.

but other taxpayers DO pay it, at least in many, if not most cases. earlier in the thread, i think someone mentioned that a worker must contribute for 40 weeks (please correct me if i'm wrong) before collecting maternity benefits. so if my annual salary is (for ease of calculation) $52,000, in 40 weeks i pay $840 into the system (2.1% tax on $40,000 in earnings). i then have a baby and take 52 weeks off, drawing $28,600 (55% of $52,000). where does the additional $27,760 come from? i've taken out much more than i put in, so who exactly is paying for it?

 

[jmmom80]

I have paid my EI premiums for 13 years and definitely felt justified in using MY MONEY that was put there through 13 years of work to take a year off with my son so he can grow up being nurturing and well adjusted.

after 13 years, you probably did use your money. how about the people that take the leave a year after they start working? who's money are they using? if i were forced to pay such a tax, i'd expect to be able to use it as well. but as i said before, i have no desire for the u.s. to go down this road.