long term maternity leave (debate)

[jmmom80]

The vast majority will have put in enough to pay themselves.

but that wasn't was has been put forth by a couple of posters here. they've said that people are only taking out what they have put in, which is obviously not true.

 

[damo]

Originally posted by jmmom80
earlier on the thread i gave an example, but i'll be happy to do it again.

say an employee makes $1000/week or $52,000/year. that employee pays in about $21/week to ei. three months into the job, the employee becomes pregnant, and continues to work up to her delivery date. so this employee has worked for a year and paid in $1092 to ei. she now takes one year off with 55% pay, or $28,600. where does the additional $27,508 come from? it obviously isn't

That is exactly why it is called insurance. Insurance doesn't necessarily mean you get exactly what you have paid into it.
If you have car insurance for one year and then have an accident, you are certainly able to receive more than what you have paid. The money that is put in collectively earns enough to pay out those in need. Like any insurance, more money is taken in than is given out.

Also, the money that is received from the mother on leave, is taxed as income.

Here is a site that may clear up any questions.
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/ei/types/special.shtml&hs=aed#much

 

[maxie]

Originally posted by jmmom80
but that wasn't was has been put forth by a couple of posters here. they've said that people are only taking out what they have put in, which is obviously not true.

Well obviously in any insurance setup some people will get more benefit than others depending on the unique situation of each person.

 

[jmmom80]

thanks for the link damo. yes, i do understand what insurance is, and how it works. but there are people that continue to insist that women are only taking out what they have put in, and that obviously isn't the case.

 

[jrydberg]

But insurance is for people who might have to use it. If one is single, infertile or has some other reason why they definitely will not have children, they don't need maternity leave "insurance" and yet they are paying for it. Call it whatever name you like. It's a tax.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by maxie
Well obviously in any insurance setup some people will get more benefit than others depending on the unique situation of all.

then why are some people insisting that people are only taking out what they have put in?

 

[maxie]

Originally posted by Maleficent13
I know quite a few women who never go back to work after the baby is born, whether they worked one year or ten before the birth.

Of course that is possible however many SAHM do eventually work when there kids are older and do end up returning some of their money to the system. And if they never go back to work after baby #1 they will not qualify for future maternity leaves.

 

[septbride2002]

I live in the United States, and I have no desire to live anyplace else, but I think people are making it sound like it's so bad in Canada because they HAVE to pay this. Well, I would much rather pay this kind of tax, if you want to call it that, than pay into taxes that allow people to stay home and be lazy, which is exactly what our welfare program is set up to do.

Exactly! I would not mind paying this kind of tax - actually lets route all the money I am paying into Social Secuirty into this system! That way I will actually see the benefit of it.

I meant to tell you earlier Madi that I agree - I think that we as Americans get a warped sense of values after awhile. Work is important but I think people have started to put work before family. There is not a good balance between the two, this day in age you have to choose between one and the other.

~Amanda

 

[damo]

"then why are some people insisting that people are only taking out what they have put in"
Well, in a way they are correct but only if the woman continues to work after maternity leave and doesn't need to use the insurance again. This is probably the case in the vast majority of women.

They may not have already contributed their total wages that they will get during leave, but throughout the course of their working years, they will have.

 

[maxie]

Originally posted by jmmom80
then why are some people insisting that people are only taking out what they have put in?

Probably the posters who have said that have. I can't answer for others. No difference than someone who pays EI premiums all their lives and never has a reason to use it as they have stable employment compared to seasonal workers who ofter claim for short periods frequently. It's there for who needs it.

Why are you so worried if someone pays themselves anyhow?

 

[Madi100]

Originally posted by jrydberg
But insurance is for people who might have to use it. If one is single, infertile or has some other reason why they definitely will not have children, they don't need maternity leave "insurance" and yet they are paying for it. Call it whatever name you like. It's a tax.

From what has been said here, this is also for lay-offs or injury. And, even if you don't have children, someone had you and perhaps got to take advantage of the insurance. So, then you are just helping pay for your way. It's like a school tax. People who don't have kids don't want to pay them. However, they were once in school too. Now, it's their turn to pay.

 

[damo]

Originally posted by jrydberg
But insurance is for people who might have to use it. If one is single, infertile or has some other reason why they definitely will not have children, they don't need maternity leave "insurance" and yet they are paying for it. Call it whatever name you like. It's a tax.

Then they use their benefits for a time when they are sick or need to use it to take care of a sick family member or are unemployed. It is an umbrella insurance that covers all different situations of unemployment. It is not called "maternity insurance".

Does your car insurance only cover damage to the car? No it covers damage to the people hurt as well. Insurance does not need to be as specific as you are making it.

I think you are getting hung up over the fact that EI is paid to the government and not an insurance company.

 

[Madi100]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Exactly! I would not mind paying this kind of tax - actually lets route all the money I am paying into Social Secuirty into this system! That way I will actually see the benefit of it.

I meant to tell you earlier Madi that I agree - I think that we as Americans get a warped sense of values after awhile. Work is important but I think people have started to put work before family. There is not a good balance between the two, this day in age you have to choose between one and the other.

~Amanda

Thanks. I'm glad someone agrees with me

 

[jrydberg]

Lumping maternity leave in with unemployment doesn't make it insurance.

I agree that it's like a school *tax*

Just trying to clarify that it is not insurance in the case of paid maternity leave.

 

[damo]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Lumping maternity leave in with unemployment doesn't make it insurance.

I agree that it's like a school *tax*

Just trying to clarify that it is not insurance in the case of paid maternity leave.

Okay, then all unemployment insurance is tax, whether you are in Canada or the US. Who cares what it is called, why do you get so hung up on giving money to your government? Do you not trust them? Do you prefer that the insurance companies take your money and profit from it? What is the difference?

In Canada, we see the insurance companies as the crooks, not the government.

 

[Maleficent13]

Re: the "insurance" vs. "tax" debate. I think what some posters are having the problem with is that they have no say in whether or not they have to contribute to this fund. They are required by the government to do so, whether they want to or not. No matter what term you label it with, it comes out to the same thing...an involuntary payment out of your paycheck.

 

[sha_lyn]

As for the Tax ve Insurance wording....
I think it really boils donw to the fact that here in the US we pay for Social Security Insurance (SSI) through a Social Security tax.
Generally any money that is collect by the gov, controlled by the gov, and distributed by the gov is a tax.

 

[damo]

Then yes, it is a tax. Here in Canada, we don't get so hung up on paying the government as long as the money is coming back to the people.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by damo
Okay, then all unemployment insurance is tax, whether you are in Canada or the US. Who cares what it is called, why do you get so hung up on giving money to your government? Do you not trust them? Do you prefer that the insurance companies take your money and profit from it? What is the difference?

In Canada, we see the insurance companies as the crooks, not the government.

Maternity leave is a choice one makes. Unemployment insurance is not (at least in the US) for those who choose to leave their job.

As for the government, no, I don't trust government with my money. With an insurance company, I can choose what company to go with or whether to even have insurance at all. I'd prefer to spend my money as I see fit.

 

[MECH8T7]

The fact that most people have put in enough to cover the benefits they receive is somewhat irrelevant and, quite frankly, as is whether the scheme is characterized as insurance or a tax. (for my views on that topic, you can see an earlier post in this thread). The former is really only about whether the program can be self-sustaining which, if you do the math, is probably only true because EI is collected from the pool of all employed individuals. (Presumably the Canadian government previously had its own concerns in this regard because Canadian on this post will recall about 5 years ago, they used to claw back benefits dollar for dollar if your annual income exceeded a certain threshhold. Ironically, this aspect of the program has since been repealed). By the way, the 12 month mat-leave thing has only been in place up here for about 3 years.

The reality is that it is a government mandated program and, what is being missed a little bit in the examples posters have been putting together is that there is an employer contribution to the program that is about 140% of the employee premium.

So, in INMO, I think the tax versus insurance focus might be a bit misplaced. Personally, I don't think you can go too far with the nomenclature the government used. It's called insurance but Canadians will recall that it used to be called "unemployment" insurance before the government realized that it might be sending the wrong message. So -- and, I am sure there was great expense associated with this -- the government changed the name of the program to "employment" insurance. The only point is that the government is doing its own spin-doctoring here and likely part of the reason the government called it "insurance" was to obfiscate the fact that the premiums might be considered to be a tax.

To me, the real issue is just a social / philosophical one about whether or not you want to live in a society that encourages mom's to stay home for up to a year for giving birth to a newborn child. The program has been in place for a long time but its only been the past few years that it went from 6 months (or whatever) to 12 months. I'm sure our government looked at it for a long time before implementing it and the program was extended as part of a package of legislative reforms to address the welfare of children. It wasn't really about trying to help out the poor moms, though of course they would obviously benefit.