4 ms·

I always used to be for paid parental leave, and I still am, on an emotional and possibly practical level. I do wonder, though, if it’s really fair to househol

I always used to be for paid parental leave, and I still am, on an emotional and possibly practical level. I do wonder, though, if it’s really fair to households that choose to have one stay at home parent ... so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent who is also staying at home, but used to work? It seems confusing. Edit: I guess I’m wondering, should we by this logic extend a salary, even if temporary, to all new parents?

skapadia 6y ago
> so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent > who is also staying at home, but used to work? You can extend that argument to any benefit provided by a government. I'm sure there are (many) benefits you (and I) receive that are in part funded by those who receive no direct benefit from it. We are all interdependent and interconnected in many ways.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Paid maternity leave isn't supposed to be a "Congrats on your new baby" present, it is so women don't need to choose between their or their child's health and getting back to work ASAP. So, it doesn't make sense for someone who is not working to get paid maternity leave.
- foota 6y ago
  I don't think that's what OP is asking/stating. It's like: couple A decides someone needs to stay home to support kids/whatever reason, and say they cut back on their spending to do this. Couple B doesn't do this and struggles by wrt home duties, but makes higher income. When both couples have someone go on paid child leave they have the same situation, but couple B gets to keep their higher income. Op is stating couple A pays income taxes which go to a different couple to subsidize their paid leave instead of keeping it for themselves. I think the difference from other govt taxes going to people is the decision to not work ends up with them in a worse situation. The obvious counterpoint is that couple B paid higher taxes due to their dual income status (and contributed more to the economy) and so deserves to receive the benefit more, but this isn't entirely satisfactory to me since couple A did still play taxes, which some portion of went to this benefit. Perhaps it would make sense for there to be a tax deduction for couple A for the equivalent duration of their caretaking? Maybe equivalent to whatever the paid leave would otherwise have been? Or maybe half of that amount? I don't believe taxes need to be "benefit neutral" on an individual basis, but I do somewhat believe it makes sense for them to be free of weird incentives.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    I(and pretty much anyone that pays taxes) pay into all sorts of programs the indivudual will never use, so I don't really see how fairness of payment comes into play.
    - maerF0x0 6y ago
      one aspect would be that some households would collect 2 Parental leaves, others only 1. Canada has a program to address this where it defines 18 months parental leave across both parents and allows them to choose how to allocate (ie one can transfer their leave to the other). Keep in mind that developed world parental leaves are usually < 100% salary and upto a fixed maximum. Eg: Canada parents get 33 per cent for up to 61 weeks https://archive.is/ymOa8 https://archive.is/ymOa8
- dudul 6y ago
  Doesn't this argument automatically void paternity leave though? And even non-birth parent leave in general? To me the leave is, yes, in part a health thing, but also just a bit of support (we're talking a few weeks) for the family to adjust to the disruptive event.
ngngngng 6y ago
I extend this same thinking to homeschooling. I know many bright, well educated, home schooled individuals that save the US tax payers $200k to teach their kids themselves. I think the benefit of a stay-home parent is just too abstract or far off to ever get support in economic policy. We know that children with a stay at home parent do better in all areas of life. But if the "traditional values" party isn't talking about supporting stay at home parents now, I'm not sure why they would ever start.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
It seems like the same weirdness that comes with tying healthcare to employment. If the government paid for X days of parenting or something, regardless of employment, and just said that you have to have the job available when they come back within Y days, then it wouldn't be so different for the working parent versus the stay at home parent.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  Took me several readings to get what you’re saying. Yeah! Why is the payment benefit tied to the return-to-work benefit? That’s arbitrary!

skapadia 6y ago

> so they pay taxes to then fund the leave of another parent > who is also staying at home, but used to work? You can extend that argument to any benefit provided by a government. I'm sure there are (many) benefits you (and I) receive that are in part funded by those who receive no direct benefit from it. We are all interdependent and interconnected in many ways.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Paid maternity leave isn't supposed to be a "Congrats on your new baby" present, it is so women don't need to choose between their or their child's health and getting back to work ASAP. So, it doesn't make sense for someone who is not working to get paid maternity leave.

foota 6y ago
I don't think that's what OP is asking/stating. It's like: couple A decides someone needs to stay home to support kids/whatever reason, and say they cut back on their spending to do this. Couple B doesn't do this and struggles by wrt home duties, but makes higher income. When both couples have someone go on paid child leave they have the same situation, but couple B gets to keep their higher income. Op is stating couple A pays income taxes which go to a different couple to subsidize their paid leave instead of keeping it for themselves. I think the difference from other govt taxes going to people is the decision to not work ends up with them in a worse situation. The obvious counterpoint is that couple B paid higher taxes due to their dual income status (and contributed more to the economy) and so deserves to receive the benefit more, but this isn't entirely satisfactory to me since couple A did still play taxes, which some portion of went to this benefit. Perhaps it would make sense for there to be a tax deduction for couple A for the equivalent duration of their caretaking? Maybe equivalent to whatever the paid leave would otherwise have been? Or maybe half of that amount? I don't believe taxes need to be "benefit neutral" on an individual basis, but I do somewhat believe it makes sense for them to be free of weird incentives.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  I(and pretty much anyone that pays taxes) pay into all sorts of programs the indivudual will never use, so I don't really see how fairness of payment comes into play.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    one aspect would be that some households would collect 2 Parental leaves, others only 1. Canada has a program to address this where it defines 18 months parental leave across both parents and allows them to choose how to allocate (ie one can transfer their leave to the other). Keep in mind that developed world parental leaves are usually < 100% salary and upto a fixed maximum. Eg: Canada parents get 33 per cent for up to 61 weeks https://archive.is/ymOa8 https://archive.is/ymOa8
dudul 6y ago
Doesn't this argument automatically void paternity leave though? And even non-birth parent leave in general? To me the leave is, yes, in part a health thing, but also just a bit of support (we're talking a few weeks) for the family to adjust to the disruptive event.

ngngngng 6y ago

I extend this same thinking to homeschooling. I know many bright, well educated, home schooled individuals that save the US tax payers $200k to teach their kids themselves. I think the benefit of a stay-home parent is just too abstract or far off to ever get support in economic policy. We know that children with a stay at home parent do better in all areas of life. But if the "traditional values" party isn't talking about supporting stay at home parents now, I'm not sure why they would ever start.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

It seems like the same weirdness that comes with tying healthcare to employment. If the government paid for X days of parenting or something, regardless of employment, and just said that you have to have the job available when they come back within Y days, then it wouldn't be so different for the working parent versus the stay at home parent.

whiddershins 6y ago
Took me several readings to get what you’re saying. Yeah! Why is the payment benefit tied to the return-to-work benefit? That’s arbitrary!