3 ms·

Why's that? You're still not getting those benefits with an above average salary.

jseban 5y ago
You would be better off financing your own "benefits" if you're above average. And everyone would theoretically also be better off without the benefits, because of how much money you would save in all the bureaucracy needed. It's only the people who are not able to take responsibility for having their own money, that are the ones that are really better off. Any tax financed benefits for everyone like this, pensions, maternal leave, unemployment, health care etc are really just an institution forcibly saving money for you, on your behalf. So that you don't have to be responsible for saving money yourself, and don't have to take the risk of over spending or mismanaging. And for that service you will pay the price of salaries for all the people working in these institutions.
- baq 5y ago
  > It's only the people who are not able to take responsibility for having their own money, that are the ones that are really better off. some people don't have the liberty of that privilege. being poor is very expensive.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  But this doesn't seem to be happening. Very well off people in the US still have very very modest vacations and parental leave, very expensive day care etc. What's even the upside if you're just trading universal tax to paying a for-profit corp monthly instead? Skipping the queue through wealth instead of need?
  - jseban 5y ago
    I suspect that "very well off" people in the US most likely have only one breadwinner and one stay at home parent more or less full time. And/or a nanny. The upside like I said, is that you save all that unnecessary work in the bureaucracy around the parental leave systems. Just look at sweden for example, it's a huge mess around the parental leave, they have a centralized agency now to micro manage every single household in the country with exactly how many days here and there, they will stay home with their child. It's basically central planning for child care. And there are tons of edge cases and contradictions and bugs in this, of course. It's even become somewhat of a virtual currency now these "days" that parents are given as a gift from the state. Every single family in the whole country is now basically a welfare case that has to be processed through this machinery, with all the applications, paperwork etc, regardless of how well they actually manage on their own. It's incredibly costly, inflexible and inefficient, compared to just giving people higher salaries and letting them manage their family time themselves. Edit: and, surprise surprise, it's also abused and people game the system. Many parents for example use their parental leave at the same time, to make extended vacations abroad of several months.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > Just look at sweden for example Lucky for me I happen to be Swedish and can call you out on that absolute garbage FUD post that doesn't in the slightest reflect the general Swedish opinion of the parental leave system. Du borde skämmas, dagisnivå.

You would be better off financing your own "benefits" if you're above average. And everyone would theoretically also be better off without the benefits, because of how much money you would save in all the bureaucracy needed. It's only the people who are not able to take responsibility for having their own money, that are the ones that are really better off. Any tax financed benefits for everyone like this, pensions, maternal leave, unemployment, health care etc are really just an institution forcibly saving money for you, on your behalf. So that you don't have to be responsible for saving money yourself, and don't have to take the risk of over spending or mismanaging. And for that service you will pay the price of salaries for all the people working in these institutions.

baq 5y ago
> It's only the people who are not able to take responsibility for having their own money, that are the ones that are really better off. some people don't have the liberty of that privilege. being poor is very expensive.
cloudfifty 5y ago
But this doesn't seem to be happening. Very well off people in the US still have very very modest vacations and parental leave, very expensive day care etc. What's even the upside if you're just trading universal tax to paying a for-profit corp monthly instead? Skipping the queue through wealth instead of need?
- jseban 5y ago
  I suspect that "very well off" people in the US most likely have only one breadwinner and one stay at home parent more or less full time. And/or a nanny. The upside like I said, is that you save all that unnecessary work in the bureaucracy around the parental leave systems. Just look at sweden for example, it's a huge mess around the parental leave, they have a centralized agency now to micro manage every single household in the country with exactly how many days here and there, they will stay home with their child. It's basically central planning for child care. And there are tons of edge cases and contradictions and bugs in this, of course. It's even become somewhat of a virtual currency now these "days" that parents are given as a gift from the state. Every single family in the whole country is now basically a welfare case that has to be processed through this machinery, with all the applications, paperwork etc, regardless of how well they actually manage on their own. It's incredibly costly, inflexible and inefficient, compared to just giving people higher salaries and letting them manage their family time themselves. Edit: and, surprise surprise, it's also abused and people game the system. Many parents for example use their parental leave at the same time, to make extended vacations abroad of several months.
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > Just look at sweden for example Lucky for me I happen to be Swedish and can call you out on that absolute garbage FUD post that doesn't in the slightest reflect the general Swedish opinion of the parental leave system. Du borde skämmas, dagisnivå.