3 ms·

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 g

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.

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.