djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 13:54:19 GMT -5
This is the part I will never understand about this facet of the mommy wars. None of us would be alive if our mothers didn't take some time off to give birth to us. The very human race can only continue to exist if mothers are able to have some sort of maternity leave to recover. Because only women can give birth, why shouldn't both genders (i.e. humankind) support them? And, on top of that, wouldn't we rather have the top performing women reproduce? And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them? my wife was a SAHM for 42 months.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:02:04 GMT -5
they aren't unable. but it's an increasingly distasteful pill to swallow, especially for those of us that work in very global markets, to realize that our colleagues around the world are getting way better perks and benefits than we are here. why is that? and why can't we have what they do, considering the similar standard of living? past that, stop putting words in my mouth. I WANT employers to offer the benefits that compare to around the world. I don't know what the best mechanism is for that. but what do I know? I haven't saved enough to afford a child, even though I don't want any. I guess my opinion doesn't mean much on this topic. Europeans get tons of perks that we don't get, perks that would benefit ALL employee and not just a subset. For example, they get much more vacation than we do. Significantly more. That is a perk that everyone would enjoy and therefore no one would be treated differently. I think as a whole, Americans do not get enough time away from work. I don't see anyone championing that cause, though. And everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have the opinion that women of child-bearing age will be harmed if we start making employers pay for them to have children. i don't see it as "paying women to have children". i see it as "paying for a benefit so that women can have secure employment". it is a fundamentally different way of viewing it, and i would argue, a more humane one.
childbearing is a biological need. for companies to not accommodate it is not sensible, imo.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:07:45 GMT -5
Europeans get tons of perks that we don't get, perks that would benefit ALL employee and not just a subset. For example, they get much more vacation than we do. Significantly more. That is a perk that everyone would enjoy and therefore no one would be treated differently. I think as a whole, Americans do not get enough time away from work. I don't see anyone championing that cause, though. And everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have the opinion that women of child-bearing age will be harmed if we start making employers pay for them to have children. i don't see it as "paying women to have children". i see it as "paying for a benefit so that women can have secure employment". it is a fundamentally different way of viewing it, and i would argue, a more humane one.
childbearing is a biological need. for companies to not accommodate it is not sensible, imo.
Companies do accommodate it. They just don't have to pay for it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 14, 2019 14:08:31 GMT -5
And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them? my wife was a SAHM for 42 months. I went back after 6 weeks with both kids. My husband was in law school so we didn't have a lot of choices. I never complained because it didn't even occur to me how much better quality of life is in other countries, and that this benefit would exist. I am still not complaining, because it is what it is, and I am fortunate. But, that first month back was rough, and the quality of my work was down for 9-12 months.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:09:49 GMT -5
For me the answer isn't the status quo but it's also not squeezing what's remaining of the middle class even more. A lot of people in certain situations absolutely need and deserve help but I'd argue there's more of the "can't" mentality from them than other groups as you move up the economic scale. If it's something the government should provide by all means but both sides have convinced their hardcore supporters into believing what they're selling while making them more dependent on the government. Giving more money and promises for votes won't fix that mentality it just makes it a lot harder to ever take anything away while the point of most programs should be to help and not enable or create a dependency. for me, the answer is to move to a country that already has my priorities, and stop arguing with people and government officials who don't share them. what most people in the US don't realize is that there are nations that have a higher standard of living because their costs are LOWER than here. and the blame for that lies in the fundamental structure of the US, and (as i said above) our national priorities. we seem to have fallen into the bathtub with Grover Nordquidst, but i will be damned if i am going down with him. the government should foster independence, but that is not accomplished by making us dependent on employers, imo. that is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between myself and most Americans. you guys will have to work it out, because i am done trying to convince you. So we should be dependent on the government? Serious question because I do not know where you are coming form with that statement.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:12:07 GMT -5
i don't see it as "paying women to have children". i see it as "paying for a benefit so that women can have secure employment". it is a fundamentally different way of viewing it, and i would argue, a more humane one.
childbearing is a biological need. for companies to not accommodate it is not sensible, imo.
Companies do accommodate it. They just don't have to pay for it. companies HERE don't have to pay for it. companies most other places do. i prefer those places.
let me ask you this: if you were in France, where you get a year of paid leave for childbearing and a year of in home care afterwards at no charge to you, would you object to it, and not take the benefit? or would you appreciate it?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:12:13 GMT -5
Europeans get tons of perks that we don't get, perks that would benefit ALL employee and not just a subset. For example, they get much more vacation than we do. Significantly more. That is a perk that everyone would enjoy and therefore no one would be treated differently. I think as a whole, Americans do not get enough time away from work. I don't see anyone championing that cause, though. And everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have the opinion that women of child-bearing age will be harmed if we start making employers pay for them to have children. I was referring to vacation time as well. in a previous company, I walked away from 8wks PTO (14y with the company) when I left. this current one, US employees earn vacation time at different rates than European and Japanese colleagues. why is that? why do employers not have to offer US employees the same perks as other countries? vacation, maternity leave, all of that. why aren't we having THAT conversation? I'm on board with that conversation because that impacts everyone. It seems all that is focused on is maternity leave. I paid for my maternity, I paid for my college so yes it pisses me off when people want me (either through the company I work for or my taxes) to pay for those same things. But increasing everyone's vacation would benefit all of us.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,910
|
Post by bean29 on Aug 14, 2019 14:13:07 GMT -5
This is the part I will never understand about this facet of the mommy wars. None of us would be alive if our mothers didn't take some time off to give birth to us. The very human race can only continue to exist if mothers are able to have some sort of maternity leave to recover. Because only women can give birth, why shouldn't both genders (i.e. humankind) support them? And, on top of that, wouldn't we rather have the top performing women reproduce? And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them? Why are you talking about people staying out for a year? Is that the proposal? When I had my first child my STD policy was 6 weeks at 66 2/3 pay. When I had my second I got 8 weeks at full pay. I think we should offer some kind of disability pay (to all working mothers) - but a year is more than is needed. 6-8 weeks is fine - I agree with you that if someone wants much more than that, they can save up their own funds to manage it.
eta: I actually am not in favor of government funded maternity care because I do consider it a form of disability pay, and my current employer does not offer disability pay. I figure if one group is going to be provided STD coverage, then everyone should get it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 14, 2019 14:13:35 GMT -5
i don't see it as "paying women to have children". i see it as "paying for a benefit so that women can have secure employment". it is a fundamentally different way of viewing it, and i would argue, a more humane one.
childbearing is a biological need. for companies to not accommodate it is not sensible, imo.
Companies do accommodate it. They just don't have to pay for it. Not past 12 weeks they don't.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 14, 2019 14:13:55 GMT -5
I respect your opinion but this reminds me of my entry level philosophy class where we're given a topic to argue that neither of us doesn't necessarily support. My response was in regards to democratic socialism and not against making other changes. America can do a lot more but as a middle class taxpaying citizen I'm not going to support giving more money to the federal government who has shown no ability on either side to live within their means. that is not really true. we were within a gnats hair of having a balanced budget in 2000. that is because we had fiscal restraint coupled with sound tax policy.
if W, Obama, and Trump had followed up on that, we would be running surpluses. we are not. but it is not because both parties were fiscally irresponsible. it is because we had irresponsible leadership.
and yeah, i can back that up. it is not just Clinton. hell, even NIXON was fiscally responsible.
PS- i resent the suggestion that this is a sophomoric discussion. i think it is more important than that.
Not true 100% of the time but in my lifetime except for one instance over the last 4 decades or even if you want to say Clinton's 2 terms our elected leaders have had no issue adding to the debt. I applaud Clinton for getting there and would gladly vote for any politician that supported and implemented a balanced budget but that seems to be the furthest thing from either parties mind. Leadership or parties is an issue of semantics - our elected officials for the better part of going on 40 years now had no issue growing the debt to an alarming level with no signs of slowing down. There's been detractors over the years but not enough and despite one party claiming to be more fiscally conservative their actions have proven otherwise.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:14:25 GMT -5
Companies do accommodate it. They just don't have to pay for it. companies HERE don't have to pay for it. companies most other places do. i prefer those places.
let me ask you this: if you were in France, where you get a year of paid leave for childbearing and a year of in home care afterwards at no charge to you, would you object to it, and not take the benefit? or would you appreciate it?
I've already told you that I only work to get ahead in life. The minute we turn socialist and everything is funded by the government, my natural slacker state will come out. If people want to pay for my healthcare I can retire quite comfortably effective immediately. If this country wanted to pay me to sit home for a few years to take care of my children, I'm all over it. The fact that I will take as much advantage of it as possible does not mean I think it is could for our economy. But I'm tired of fighting the "we want everything free" mentality. Fuck it, I will join them.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:15:32 GMT -5
And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them? Why are you talking about people staying out for a year? Is that the proposal? When I had my first child my STD policy was 6 weeks at 66 2/3 pay. When I had my second I got 8 weeks at full pay. I think we should offer some kind of disability pay (to all working mothers) - but a year is more than is needed. 6-8 weeks is fine - I agree with you that if someone wants much more than that, they can save up their own funds to manage it. Because I'm replying to several people and I know weltz keeps talking about the year. I can't swear that chiver did as well as the conversations are now blending!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:15:33 GMT -5
for me, the answer is to move to a country that already has my priorities, and stop arguing with people and government officials who don't share them. what most people in the US don't realize is that there are nations that have a higher standard of living because their costs are LOWER than here. and the blame for that lies in the fundamental structure of the US, and (as i said above) our national priorities. we seem to have fallen into the bathtub with Grover Nordquidst, but i will be damned if i am going down with him. the government should foster independence, but that is not accomplished by making us dependent on employers, imo. that is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between myself and most Americans. you guys will have to work it out, because i am done trying to convince you. So we should be dependent on the government? Serious question because I do not know where you are coming form with that statement. my understanding is that government is here of, by and for the people. if the people decide that they want their government to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, i think that is within the bounds of government. that is not DEPENDENCY. that is SOCIALIZING PUBLIC NEEDS.
i think it is INSANE to leave such needs up to the will of private entities, unaccountable to anyone other than themselves. but that is the way we do stuff here. i can't deal with that level of crazy any more, MT. i have truly "had it".
people should be way more demanding of their government than they are, and they should pay more for it. that is my opinion. and that is the opinion of the majority of humankind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:17:10 GMT -5
Companies do accommodate it. They just don't have to pay for it. Not past 12 weeks they don't. unpaid leave is so shitty that i am reluctant to even call it a BENEFIT.
and childcare for a 12 week old is about the same as most jobs pay. which is STUPID. AND turning your 12 week old over to a daycare center is irresponsible parenting, imo.
this country is off in the weeds somewhere on this issue.
#nuts
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:19:15 GMT -5
And how many women on this board had children, took their 12 weeks and went back to work? out of all of my professional friends (who also tend to be more likely to be feminists, btw) there were only 2 of us that didn't go right back to work. Not one of them complained that the government or employer didn't pay for them to stay home for a year. We have been having children for several decades now since women really entered the workplace in large numbers and higher level positions. Why now are women unable to have children unless someone else pays for them? Why are you talking about people staying out for a year? .
probably because i brought it up. sorry if that seemed distracting.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:20:52 GMT -5
that is not really true. we were within a gnats hair of having a balanced budget in 2000. that is because we had fiscal restraint coupled with sound tax policy.
if W, Obama, and Trump had followed up on that, we would be running surpluses. we are not. but it is not because both parties were fiscally irresponsible. it is because we had irresponsible leadership.
and yeah, i can back that up. it is not just Clinton. hell, even NIXON was fiscally responsible.
PS- i resent the suggestion that this is a sophomoric discussion. i think it is more important than that.
Not true 100% of the time but in my lifetime except for one instance over the last 4 decades or even if you want to say Clinton's 2 terms our elected leaders have had no issue adding to the debt. I applaud Clinton for getting there and would gladly vote for any politician that supported and implemented a balanced budget but that seems to be the furthest thing from either parties mind. Leadership or parties is an issue of semantics - our elected officials for the better part of going on 40 years now had no issue growing the debt to an alarming level with no signs of slowing down. There's been detractors over the years but not enough and despite one party claiming to be more fiscally conservative their actions have proven otherwise. this is precisely why i gave up being a Republican in 2016. i KNEW that Trump was going to be no different in terms of deficits, and nobody who ran on either side was campaigning for balanced budgets. that is one of TWO issues i care about.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 14, 2019 14:25:57 GMT -5
Not true 100% of the time but in my lifetime except for one instance over the last 4 decades or even if you want to say Clinton's 2 terms our elected leaders have had no issue adding to the debt. I applaud Clinton for getting there and would gladly vote for any politician that supported and implemented a balanced budget but that seems to be the furthest thing from either parties mind. Leadership or parties is an issue of semantics - our elected officials for the better part of going on 40 years now had no issue growing the debt to an alarming level with no signs of slowing down. There's been detractors over the years but not enough and despite one party claiming to be more fiscally conservative their actions have proven otherwise. this is precisely why i gave up being a Republican in 2016. i KNEW that Trump was going to be no different in terms of deficits, and nobody who ran on either side was campaigning for balanced budgets. that is one of TWO issues i care about. That's my biggest issue and why I approach politics the way I do. It's not a matter of me thinking we can't do it I just don't trust our elected officials to do it. At a point the debt and other things they keep kicking down the road will become something they absolutely have to address. Instead of doing that gradually and dealing with the short term pain it will continue to snowball until they have no other choice and it will be a rougher landing. If they want to pay for healthcare, some form of college, etc. that's fine but they need to do it by living within their means. Don't try to sell me on some trickle down BS projections while you're cutting taxes and raising expenses.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:26:21 GMT -5
companies HERE don't have to pay for it. companies most other places do. i prefer those places.
let me ask you this: if you were in France, where you get a year of paid leave for childbearing and a year of in home care afterwards at no charge to you, would you object to it, and not take the benefit? or would you appreciate it?
I've already told you that I only work to get ahead in life. The minute we turn socialist and everything is funded by the government, my natural slacker state will come out. i don't view this as "slacker state". i view this as "not being forced back to work at a critical stage of childrearing".
my mom stayed at home when i was little. after that, she had a 20 year career as a librarian.
you seem to think that PAYING for a benefit then USING IT is somehow "slacking", and i fervently disagree with that.
life is made up of various stages. for women, more than men. you start out as a dependent. you then go to work and build up benefits. then you take advantage of those benefits WHICH YOU HAVE PAID FOR. then you die.
i really don't get the attitude that if you take advantage of a paid-for benefit you are a slacker. even Trump doesn't think that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:27:23 GMT -5
this is precisely why i gave up being a Republican in 2016. i KNEW that Trump was going to be no different in terms of deficits, and nobody who ran on either side was campaigning for balanced budgets. that is one of TWO issues i care about. That's my biggest issue and why I approach politics the way I do. It's not a matter of me thinking we can't do it I just don't trust our elected officials to do it. At a point the debt and other things they keep kicking down the road will become something they absolutely have to address. Instead of doing that gradually and dealing with the short term pain it will continue to snowball until they have no other choice and it will be a rougher landing. If they want to pay for healthcare, some form of college, etc. that's fine but they need to do it by living within their means. Don't try to sell me on some trickle down BS projections while you're cutting taxes and raising expenses. we finally agree 100% on something. that's comforting.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:30:11 GMT -5
I've already told you that I only work to get ahead in life. The minute we turn socialist and everything is funded by the government, my natural slacker state will come out. i don't view this as "slacker state". i view this as "not being forced back to work at a critical stage of childrearing".
my mom stayed at home when i was little. after that, she had a 20 year career as a librarian.
you seem to think that PAYING for a benefit then USING IT is somehow "slacking", and i fervently disagree with that.
life is made up of various stages. for women, more than men. you start out as a dependent. you then go to work and build up benefits. then you take advantage of those benefits WHICH YOU HAVE PAID FOR. then you die.
i really don't get the attitude that if you take advantage of a paid-for benefit you are a slacker. even Trump doesn't think that.
Well, I paid for my own children so instead of getting the taxpayers to support me then, they can support me now. I have no desire to work, earn a significant living just to be taxed to death to pay for others. I'm done fighting and arguing. If the will of the americans is to vote in a socialist who wants everyone to live off the government teat, I will gladly do it. Let the next generation of people worry about how we are going to provide for everyone. I'm tired. Edited to clarify...I will not be able to benefit from free college or free paid years long maternity leave...so I will have to take early retirement to offset it. I'm not paying for a benefit that I will use years later, I would be paying for benefits for others that I will never benefit from.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:37:28 GMT -5
i don't view this as "slacker state". i view this as "not being forced back to work at a critical stage of childrearing".
my mom stayed at home when i was little. after that, she had a 20 year career as a librarian.
you seem to think that PAYING for a benefit then USING IT is somehow "slacking", and i fervently disagree with that.
life is made up of various stages. for women, more than men. you start out as a dependent. you then go to work and build up benefits. then you take advantage of those benefits WHICH YOU HAVE PAID FOR. then you die.
i really don't get the attitude that if you take advantage of a paid-for benefit you are a slacker. even Trump doesn't think that.
Well, I paid for my own children so instead of getting the taxpayers to support me then, they can support me now. right. so, you are saying that you were not paying for a benefit, and therefore were reluctant to take it.
that's fine. that's moral.
but what about entire nations of women that PAY for the benefits they get? what exactly is the problem with that?
NOTE: I am not asking for what you, in your current situation would do. I am asking what is the issue with people in their 20's and 30's making rational decisions about what benefits THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR, and then TAKING those benefits?
I understand that you are extremely reluctant to pay for stuff you don't agree with and won't get. I am too. for example, I am MORALLY OPPOSED to war. therefore, having 25% of my taxes go to funding the military is an OUTRAGE to me. so, as I say, I get it entirely. we each have our misgivings about taxes. that is NOT what I am asking about.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 14:41:00 GMT -5
Well, I paid for my own children so instead of getting the taxpayers to support me then, they can support me now. right. so, you are saying that you were not paying for a benefit, and therefore were reluctant to take it.
that's fine. that's moral.
but what about entire nations of women that PAY for the benefits they get? what exactly is the problem with that?
NOTE: I am not asking for what you, in your current situation would do. I am asking what is the issue with people in their 20's and 30's making rational decisions about what benefits THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR, and then TAKING those benefits?
I understand that you are extremely reluctant to pay for stuff you don't agree with and won't get. I am too. for example, I am MORALLY OPPOSED to war. therefore, having 25% of my taxes go to funding the military is an OUTRAGE to me. so, as I say, I get it entirely. we each have our misgivings about taxes. that is NOT what I am asking about.
But it isn't just women paying for a benefit they would get. Only women of child-bearing age can every get paid maternity leave. If they want to buy disability insurance to pay for that leave, that would be them paying for their benefit. In Chiver's example, the employer would have to pay for the woman's maternity leave. In weltz's case, the tax payers pay for it. Unless you are suggesting that only women of child-bearing age pay the tax.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,371
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 14, 2019 14:41:24 GMT -5
We aren't going socialist. Giving a Medicare option isn't socialism. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy isn't socialism. And asking companies to step up a little and take care of employees better so they don't need government assistance isn't socialism. But, those three things would solve a metric fuck ton of problems in our society, and make life a little better for many, many people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:44:55 GMT -5
We aren't going socialist. Giving a Medicare option isn't socialism. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy isn't socialism. And asking companies to step up a little and take care of employees better so they don't need government assistance isn't socialism. But, those three things would solve a metric fuck ton of problems in our society, and make life a little better for many, many people. 47% of healthcare in the US is already socialized. having universal insurance is socializing INSURANCE. that was a decent compromise, but nobody likes it, because it is still private healthcare. Medicare for all would be socialized medicine. but the private systems would still be there for the rich.
I am really not sure why everyone goes on and on about how horrible it would be. if you ever visit countries that have these systems, they think they are national treasures, they pay for them willingly, and they can't imagine living without those systems. those are CHOICES that nations can (and in my opinion, SHOULD) make.
our way of doing it is highly irrational. I can explain why if it is not obvious to everyone.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 14:48:20 GMT -5
right. so, you are saying that you were not paying for a benefit, and therefore were reluctant to take it.
that's fine. that's moral.
but what about entire nations of women that PAY for the benefits they get? what exactly is the problem with that?
NOTE: I am not asking for what you, in your current situation would do. I am asking what is the issue with people in their 20's and 30's making rational decisions about what benefits THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR, and then TAKING those benefits?
I understand that you are extremely reluctant to pay for stuff you don't agree with and won't get. I am too. for example, I am MORALLY OPPOSED to war. therefore, having 25% of my taxes go to funding the military is an OUTRAGE to me. so, as I say, I get it entirely. we each have our misgivings about taxes. that is NOT what I am asking about.
But it isn't just women paying for a benefit they would get. Only women of child-bearing age can every get paid maternity leave. no, but you are a woman, so I am asking you.
we can expand the argument, but I know you don't like the broader argument, so I am simply asking this:
is it WRONG for a woman of child bearing age to want to pay into a system that allows them to spend the first year with their newborn?
I am trying to make a very narrow argument here, to avoid the "side issues".
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 15:01:51 GMT -5
We aren't going socialist. Giving a Medicare option isn't socialism. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy isn't socialism. And asking companies to step up a little and take care of employees better so they don't need government assistance isn't socialism. But, those three things would solve a metric fuck ton of problems in our society, and make life a little better for many, many people. We want free college, waiving of student loans, paid maternity for lord knows how long, free healthcare (yet do nothing about the actual COST of healthcare!). It is in my best interest to have free healthcare that is taxpayer funded as that is what is holding me back from retiring. But in the end, if we are going to be the land of the free stuff, I'm damn well taking advantage of it. Getting welfare would not give me a comfortable lifestyle so I would never go that route. But if I can live comfortably with a lot of taxpayer benefits, I will totally do it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 15:03:21 GMT -5
But it isn't just women paying for a benefit they would get. Only women of child-bearing age can every get paid maternity leave. no, but you are a woman, so I am asking you.
we can expand the argument, but I know you don't like the broader argument, so I am simply asking this:
is it WRONG for a woman of child bearing age to want to pay into a system that allows them to spend the first year with their newborn?
I am trying to make a very narrow argument here, to avoid the "side issues".
It is not wrong for the person who would get the benefit to want to pay into the sytem to get the benefit. I disagree with taxpayers providing this benefit because I have already had to pay for my own so I do not think I should have to pay for others.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 15:06:27 GMT -5
We aren't going socialist. Giving a Medicare option isn't socialism. Raising taxes on the uber wealthy isn't socialism. And asking companies to step up a little and take care of employees better so they don't need government assistance isn't socialism. But, those three things would solve a metric fuck ton of problems in our society, and make life a little better for many, many people. We want free college, waiving of student loans, paid maternity for lord knows how long, free healthcare (yet do nothing about the actual COST of healthcare!). It is in my best interest to have free healthcare that is taxpayer funded as that is what is holding me back from retiring. But in the end, if we are going to be the land of the free stuff, I'm damn well taking advantage of it. Getting welfare would not give me a comfortable lifestyle so I would never go that route. But if I can live comfortably with a lot of taxpayer benefits, I will totally do it. ok, now we are getting somewhere. you know, I am not going to pester you any more, MT. I would describe that position as highly rational.
people in France feel precisely the same way. my point is that people in these countries are "happy" to pay for the benefits, for the most part- even those that don't take them- because they CAN take them. they just choose not to.
NOTE: BOTH my parents had FREE COLLEGE. that was the norm in the time they grew up. taxes paid for it. the top tax rate was 94% during most of the time they grew up.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 14, 2019 15:07:49 GMT -5
no, but you are a woman, so I am asking you.
we can expand the argument, but I know you don't like the broader argument, so I am simply asking this:
is it WRONG for a woman of child bearing age to want to pay into a system that allows them to spend the first year with their newborn?
I am trying to make a very narrow argument here, to avoid the "side issues".
It is not wrong for the person who would get the benefit to want to pay into the sytem to get the benefit. I disagree with taxpayers providing this benefit because I have already had to pay for my own so I do not think I should have to pay for others. ok, I would dig down deeper on that, but I like you, and I don't want to waste your time. you have your priorities, and I understand them. I have mine, and you understand them. I am not trying to convince you of anything, and you are not trying to convince me of anything. so I will let it rest.
thanks for the discussion.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 14, 2019 15:11:34 GMT -5
We want free college, waiving of student loans, paid maternity for lord knows how long, free healthcare (yet do nothing about the actual COST of healthcare!). It is in my best interest to have free healthcare that is taxpayer funded as that is what is holding me back from retiring. But in the end, if we are going to be the land of the free stuff, I'm damn well taking advantage of it. Getting welfare would not give me a comfortable lifestyle so I would never go that route. But if I can live comfortably with a lot of taxpayer benefits, I will totally do it. ok, now we are getting somewhere. you know, I am not going to pester you any more, MT. I would describe that position as highly rational.
people in France feel precisely the same way. my point is that people in these countries are "happy" to pay for the benefits, for the most part- even those that don't take them- because they CAN take them. they just choose not to.
NOTE: BOTH my parents had FREE COLLEGE. that was the norm in the time they grew up. taxes paid for it. the top tax rate was 94% during most of the time they grew up.
But in my case, it will take me from a giver to a taker. I will no longer be working and contributing to society because there would be no point. Less point if they want to jack up the tax rates to crazy rates to pay for the free stuff. so yes, my inherent nature is quite lazy and the only thing that motivates me is not starving (my motto literally is "hunger motivates"). Of course, they could always change the tax code and no longer allow depreciation against rental income and that would screw up my plans!lol I honestly do not know many people who want to work just for the sake of working. I would never depend on a man but if the taxpayers are hell bent on providing me with everything I need to make the move to early retirement, I am all for it. My goal was to retire by age 50. it is the healthcare that is tripping me up.
|
|