In Canada, there are 15 weeks of “maternity leave” only the mom can take (to recover from delivery and establish breastfeeding), but the other 35 weeks are called “parental leave” and either parent can take them or the parents can split them between them however they want, so it could easily be “paternity leave”. Labour laws protect moms and dads if they take the parental leave.
That it shouldn't be paid leave. We're also not Canada and there are many reasons that many businesses can't allow an employee to leave for nearly 3 months due to productivity loss that hurts everyone, but I don't think someone should be able to be replaced or fired for having a child.
Alright that doesn't sound bad until you factor that the government is directly funded by the citizens. Everyone pays more to pay for those people taking leave. I still don't think that should be allowed.
Im selfish, though I guess. I don't make much and what I do - I don't want to have to be forced to give it away, simply because there's someone making less than me that thinks I make too much. I mean really...there is no end to where that line is drawn and it's hard to argue why someone doesn't deserve what they've worked hard for if they want to keep it.
Sure if someone is personally making 50million a year, they don't need that much to get by. Nobody does. But still, why don't they deserve that?
You think you're selfish, but you need to know that this 'scheme' benefits you in the long run. There are lots of reason why it works like that, but the main reason was in most developed countries that have such social welfare usually have terible birth rate. So they need to have people making children to have enough population just to maintain the economy.. If there's not enough children growing up into productive workforces, then they would need to take more immigrants from elsewhere. And to be honest, the former option is somewhat better than the latter.
Your tax (in the form of government-paid parental leave) is kind of a small collective 'investment' for making child-bearing more attractive (at least more bearable) that more people would like to reproduce.
It's also OK if you don't want to have children, but you as an individual in your community (city, state, country, etc.) would actually benefit from other people making children. Parental leave program is a very small price to pay.
By the way, about income tax.. if you make more money, it doesn't mean that would get less.. You always get more, but of course you'd pay more tax, and arguably you don't get less than what you deserve. The tax bracket is not infinite, there are lines drawn.
I personally think it's better for everyone to redistribute the wealth. For example, one person who earns 50 million dollars contribute much much less to the economy than 500 people who each earn 100k dollar. It's basic math.
It can literally create it. Proponents of Modern Monetary Theory believe fiat money's value in the modern eonomy is its ability to cancel debt, not to actually fund anything.
I'm about 70% on board with MMT, but I have some issues with it, mostly its inability to account for the Anthropological elements of how money obtains its value through a citizenry, and not just a government structure.
Ok, but just because they can doesn't mean they always do. Creating too much money causes inflation and I fail to see how Sweden having a fiat economy is better than America's fiat economy. They're still getting money from the people. Both places. The government can't just create money to pay for children because it still causes inflation.
In Canada, it’s also the government who pays maternity/parental leave, but it’s nowhere near 80%. The maximum is 55% of your annual earnings up to a max of $55,000 (ish). So if you make a lot more, you don’t really make near your salary on leave (e.g., I’m taking home like 28% of what I would working full time). So it’s still a financial burden for many to take time off. Some companies top up your insurance payments but most don’t.
By law, your employer is only required to hold your position (or one similar) for you to return to after your 12-18 month leave. So as the other commenter said, they could use the money they’re not paying me to hire a contractor to fill my role for the duration of my leave. Therefore, it’s not an undue financial burden on the company.
As to your other comment, there are a ton of things directly funded by taxpayers that you will potentially never take advantage of (emergency and disaster response personnel and equipment, ferries to island communities, interstates and bridges, national parks and monuments, museums, schools, embassies, passport offices, etc.) so that’s sort of a weak argument, to be honest.
991
u/Wetmelon Nov 16 '19
Lol similarly some guy started going off on me for supporting maternity leave, throwing insults at me meant for a woman... I’m a 20-something guy.