3 ms·
> What I hope you can agree with is that if we are going to have paid maternity leave, it should be paid for by a shared pool across companies (i.e. the governm
by conanbatt 8y ago
> What I hope you can agree with is that if we are going to have paid maternity leave, it should be paid for by a shared pool across companies (i.e. the government).
I think only if its mandatory this makes sense. But it's not (significantly) mandatory in the us.
Company Benefits have 2 economic advantages: the first is that employees might care for the benefit more than its cost, thus having less salary for the benefit. (an example might be google's plethora of in-company benefits). The second is purely taxes: high incomes get high income taxes, which means that you get a 30%+ margin on any inefficient cost a company takes.
Paid leave is a combination of distortions. In the non-salaried world, its not even a debate: people freely choose what to do and to what degree. Think about offering paid leave benefits to small businesses and see what happens to the government coffers!
- gpm 8y agoMy arguments basically assume mandatory anyways, so sure. > Think about offering paid leave benefits to small businesses and see what happens to the government coffers! Nothing if it's funded properly. If you have, say, 5% of people taking paid leave, you tax everyone 5% of their salary and give that to the people on leave (roughly speaking). This is just a question or redistributing income not creating money out of thin air.
- conanbatt 8y agoIf we wanted to just give money to people with kids there are better ways to do it than paid leave. A tax that gave everyone paid leave would be so high that it would probably be politically untenable: it is now not effectively a tax, and its not redistrbuted properly, so it can fly as it is.