yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 9:55:21 GMT -5
Wouldn't we want to incentivize some level of repopulation? Maybe cap it at 2 deductions/credits allowed or something, but at some point a society has to continue to replenish itself. Who is going to be working to pay taxes that will come to support those who didn't have children of their own? Of course the YM crowd won't need anyone to take care of them in their old age, but there's a large population that will!! Maybe I'm really naïve but do people really have kids for the deduction? Would our population go down that much?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jan 29, 2015 9:55:53 GMT -5
Not all parents take off from work to go to their kids' games and whatnot. Let's see, when I was working, my boss had 2 kids. She almost never took off for them, worked on vacations, etc. Her underling had a kid with a serious medical condition. She took off once a month to get him transfusions. I'm sure she made up her time on the weekends. Plus, they both worked way > 40 hrs/week.
Others without kids had tons of dentist appointments. Oh well. Another co-worker with 2 kids always took off for her kid's games. She would make up the time, however. She had an attitude about it though. She felt entitled to go to every freakin' game her kid had. Another 50's-ish woman took off all the time for her mother's many Dr. appointments, and also was off for a couple months after a spinal surgery. I rarely took off for anything kid related, but I had more frequent demands on my time with my parents' medical issues. I also worked that dreaded week between Christmas and New years, even after the kids were born. It was no big deal. Very few were in the office that week, but Fridays in the summer were even more deserted. Another older lady frequently would not come in if the roads were bad, but she was absolutely dependable in every other respect. She had some stomach issues/surgery where she was gone for 6 weeks though. Another guy would just not come in after going on benders...
As you can see, it was all over the board. We all got the same 2 weeks' personal/sick time to use and made up the time for anything more. Time off taken wasn't all for kids though. Not even close. The only person that created a problem was the lady who took off for her kid's games, but that had to do with her attitude and only a few had a problem with that.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,139
|
Post by giramomma on Jan 29, 2015 9:55:50 GMT -5
Why people think the ability to breed should get them extra perks is completely beyond me (such as those who are whining for paternity leave now for gosh sakes - I mean really? - what would we give the childless people - puppy leave?) I know, dad wanting to be involved and bond with a baby for a week. That's really criminal.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 29, 2015 9:57:10 GMT -5
Just for the sake of discussion let's explore that statement a little... Take out the word "company" and replace it with "tax system" and I think you have the gist of what some peeps are trying to say and I agree with them. Society should not be forced to subsidize my choice to have a child. Why people think the ability to breed should get them extra perks is completely beyond me (such as those who are whining for paternity leave now for gosh sakes - I mean really? - what would we give the childless people - puppy leave?) I agree ... and in the same token I was always annoyed at the people who were so jealous of my short term disability after having a kid. Guess what, if you want to bleed out of your vag for 6 weeks, you can get paid too! I had a kid. Was hauling laundry up and down stairs the second day home and mowing the lawn after a week. Most women work desk jobs. It doesn't take 6 weeks to be able to physically return to work. Let's be honest with ourselves... At the company where I worked STD didn't kick in until you were out 10 weeks, so yep no pay - and since that applied to everyone I was good with that.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 29, 2015 9:57:17 GMT -5
I guess our government jobs are better in some ways I am a parent but I would wholeheartedly disagree with any company that provides more benefits to those with children than those without. I really don't think that is the norm, though, at least not in this region. If you are an hourly or salaried employee and use up all your paid time off, you can take FMLA if you really need to care for a sick child/parent/etc., but you won't be getting a paycheck. I work for a small company and that is the way it works here as well. In general, there is some flexibility for everyone (just a benefit of working for a small business) but everyone gets the same PTO, etc. In what seems like another life (back in the mid - late 90s, right after college) I worked for a very large well known employer. I will say that parents did get some special treatment from that particular company. If you were a parent and wanted to do flex time it was fine and dandy but when (for example) a few people requested flex time to complete their MBA it was denied. Parents also received an extra 4 hrs per month (or one hr per week - they could use it how they wanted) to volunteer at their child's school. No one else was able to use 4 hrs per month to volunteer at the animal shelter, the food bank or other organization. At any rate, I know that SOMETIMES favoring of parents does happen but I have never experienced it at any other company besides the one I worked at eons ago so it definitely doesn't happen everywhere. In addition, even at the place that gave parents a few "extras" didn't expect other people to pick-up any extra work. In the 4 yrs I worked there I never remember having to "cover" for another employee due to a childcare issue.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 29, 2015 9:58:23 GMT -5
The world in general and yes, even the US - does not have a repopulation problem. We don't need to incentivize people to breed, they manage to do that quite well on their own.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jan 29, 2015 9:58:55 GMT -5
I agree ... and in the same token I was always annoyed at the people who were so jealous of my short term disability after having a kid. Guess what, if you want to bleed out of your vag for 6 weeks, you can get paid too! I had a kid. Was hauling laundry up and down stairs the second day home and mowing the lawn after a week. Most women work desk jobs. It doesn't take 6 weeks to be able to physically return to work. Let's be honest with ourselves... At the company where I worked STD didn't kick in until you were out 10 weeks, so yep no pay - and since that applied to everyone I was good with that. Umm, I had a C-section. I wasn't allowed to lift anything heavier than my baby after being cut open and stitched back together.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 9:59:05 GMT -5
I agree ... and in the same token I was always annoyed at the people who were so jealous of my short term disability after having a kid. Guess what, if you want to bleed out of your vag for 6 weeks, you can get paid too! I had a kid. Was hauling laundry up and down stairs the second day home and mowing the lawn after a week. Most women work desk jobs. It doesn't take 6 weeks to be able to physically return to work. Let's be honest with ourselves... At the company where I worked STD didn't kick in until you were out 10 weeks, so yep no pay - and since that applied to everyone I was good with that. Well I'm glad for you and your laundry but that isn't really the point. The point is that anyone paying into STD can get STD. It isn't a specific pregnancy related thing.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 29, 2015 9:59:21 GMT -5
Why people think the ability to breed should get them extra perks is completely beyond me (such as those who are whining for paternity leave now for gosh sakes - I mean really? - what would we give the childless people - puppy leave?) I know, dad wanting to be involved and bond with a baby for a week. That's really criminal. If it's a benefit that is offered in a discriminatory manner, then yes.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Jan 29, 2015 9:59:50 GMT -5
Wouldn't we want to incentivize some level of repopulation? Maybe cap it at 2 deductions/credits allowed or something, but at some point a society has to continue to replenish itself. Who is going to be working to pay taxes that will come to support those who didn't have children of their own? Of course the YM crowd won't need anyone to take care of them in their old age, but there's a large population that will!! Maybe I'm really naïve but do people really have kids for the deduction? Would our population go down that much? I don't think people have kids for the deductions. But kids are freaking expensive. Deductions would be a way to help support the family indirectly, while credits are more of a direct help for those with lower incomes. We probably phase out of our credits this year - I am scared to see what our tax bill will be.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jan 29, 2015 10:02:13 GMT -5
I agree with most of what is being said. On one hand, I don't like that the tax code has been transformed into a means of social engineering. Want people to do something? Give a tax deduction! I got along fine before the $1600 credit for DD and would get along fine if it went away. I don't expect anyone to subsidize my choice to have a child.
On the other hand, kids are expensive enough that I can't imagine anyone is really choosing to have one for the tax benefits. Especially when people don't even fund their 401(k)s and other things that would give them a much larger deduction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:33:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:03:48 GMT -5
Not all parents take off from work to go to their kids' games and whatnot. Let's see, when I was working, my boss had 2 kids. She almost never took off for them, worked on vacations, etc. Her underling had a kid with a serious medical condition. She took off once a month to get him transfusions. I'm sure she made up her time on the weekends. Plus, they both worked way > 40 hrs/week. Others without kids had tons of dentist appointments. Oh well. Another co-worker with 2 kids always took off for her kid's games. She would make up the time, however. She had an attitude about it though. She felt entitled to go to every freakin' game her kid had. Another 50's-ish woman took off all the time for her mother's many Dr. appointments, and also was off for a couple months after a spinal surgery. I rarely took off for anything kid related, but I had more frequent demands on my time with my parents' medical issues. I also worked that dreaded week between Christmas and New years, even after the kids were born. It was no big deal. Very few were in the office that week, but Fridays in the summer were even more deserted. Another older lady frequently would not come in if the roads were bad, but she was absolutely dependable in every other respect. She had some stomach issues/surgery where she was gone for 6 weeks though. Another guy would just not come in after going on benders... As you can see, it was all over the board. We all got the same 2 weeks' personal/sick time to use and made up the time for anything more. Time off taken wasn't all for kids though. Not even close. The only person that created a problem was the lady who took off for her kid's games, but that had to do with her attitude and only a few had a problem with that. Yeah, I think it's kind of like the welfare scenario. There are a few cases that stand out and everyone in that category gets labeled the same. In this case "the working parents that get all this extra time off". I rarely ever am off for my kids...I feel a little guilty because I probably should go to more school things, but I don't. When I am off it's covered by accrued hours. In the past year I only can think of one day that I had to leave for a sick kid. No school days, early dismissals and snow days I have a couple back ups that can take younger and older son has been taking care of himself for a couple years now.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:04:03 GMT -5
I agree with most of what is being said. On one hand, I don't like that the tax code has been transformed into a means of social engineering. Want people to do something? Give a tax deduction! I got along fine before the $1600 credit for DD and would get along fine if it went away. I don't expect anyone to subsidize my choice to have a child. On the other hand, kids are expensive enough that I can't imagine anyone is really choosing to have one for the tax benefits. Especially when people don't even fund their 401(k)s and other things that would give them a much larger deduction. But a 401k would be delayed gratification - that's hard.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,139
|
Post by giramomma on Jan 29, 2015 10:06:09 GMT -5
I had a kid. Was hauling laundry up and down stairs the second day home and mowing the lawn after a week. Most women work desk jobs. It doesn't take 6 weeks to be able to physically return to work. Let's be honest with ourselves... At the company where I worked STD didn't kick in until you were out 10 weeks, so yep no pay - and since that applied to everyone I was good with that. So you started back working two weeks after giving birth like I did? Shit, I was deep cleaning my house three days after giving birth to my third. You aren't the only one that's resumed normal activity after having kids rather quickly. But I don't go around saying There's got to be something wrong with all women because they don't poop out a kid, sling them on their backs and go back to work two hours later. And, frankly, I SHOULD have cut back on work after the last peanut. I wasn't sleeping hardly at all for a year. I wouldn't drive sometimes because I didn't trust my reaction. I was afraid I was going to harm someone else. That's how bad it was. But I didn't. Because you know, whole breadwinner and kids wanting to eat thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:33:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:07:00 GMT -5
I am a parent but I would wholeheartedly disagree with any company that provides more benefits to those with children than those without. I really don't think that is the norm, though, at least not in this region. Any company that subsidizes dependent health insurance is providing more to those who are married or have kids. I tried to flex a little when I was managing employees with kids (most recently, two bright, hard-working, motivated women). I'd been there and had had a supportive boss but also put in the hours and traveled when needed. Same with these women. There was one memorable time when we entertained her baby while she finished up work before going on vacation (baby had a fever so daycare wouldn't take her, husband had meetings at his job) but it was a one-time Stuff Happens moment. People need a little more support at this time in their lives. OTOH, my nephew quit after being passed over for promotion in favor of a woman who announced that since she was a single mother she couldn't travel. While he got involved in some good projects and made great contacts doing all the travel she wouldn't do, he ultimately tired of it and found a better job. My brother, a CPA who specializes in taxes, had one employee who wanted to telecommute during their crazy season because she had kids. Sorry, you don't get special treatment automatically just because you pull the Parent Card.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:33:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:07:15 GMT -5
I took 3 years off for my first and 3 months with my second. Screw that 6 week crap.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jan 29, 2015 10:07:51 GMT -5
I had a kid. Was hauling laundry up and down stairs the second day home and mowing the lawn after a week. Most women work desk jobs. It doesn't take 6 weeks to be able to physically return to work. Let's be honest with ourselves... At the company where I worked STD didn't kick in until you were out 10 weeks, so yep no pay - and since that applied to everyone I was good with that. Well I'm glad for you and your laundry but that isn't really the point. The point is that anyone paying into STD can get STD. It isn't a specific pregnancy related thing. Exactly. DH has had 4 knee operations in the last 3 years and has spent far more medical time off work than I did for a c-section. One (male) coworker had a heart attack and was out for almost 6 months. I agree that as long as STD is equally granted/applied (and I think it is at most places) there's no problem -- but the "I walked home from the hospital, uphill in the snow -- you don't need 6 weeks of leave" anecdotes are annoying.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:11:19 GMT -5
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Jan 29, 2015 10:12:22 GMT -5
I took 3 years off for my first and 3 months with my second. Screw that 6 week crap. I'll raise you one. I took off nine years with my first.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Jan 29, 2015 10:15:24 GMT -5
Shoot - the two ladies in our office that use FMLA the most (at least one appointment/sick day PER WEEK) are both in their 50's and don't have children at home. I feel bad flexing time around for child appointments - I come in early, work through lunch, and then will even log in again once home if I need to finish up something before the next day. Thankfully I have a job now where my boss isn't tied to 40-hrs of "face" time per week. As long as I am getting my work done I can leave a bit early here & there or run an errand over lunch. But no one is picking up anything for me while I am gone either.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 29, 2015 10:19:20 GMT -5
I had a kid. Was hauling laundry up and down stairs the second day home and mowing the lawn after a week. Most women work desk jobs. It doesn't take 6 weeks to be able to physically return to work. Let's be honest with ourselves... At the company where I worked STD didn't kick in until you were out 10 weeks, so yep no pay - and since that applied to everyone I was good with that. So you started back working two weeks after giving birth like I did? Shit, I was deep cleaning my house three days after giving birth to my third. You aren't the only one that's resumed normal activity after having kids rather quickly. But I don't go around saying There's got to be something wrong with all women because they don't poop out a kid, sling them on their backs and go back to work two hours later. And, frankly, I SHOULD have cut back on work after the last peanut. I wasn't sleeping hardly at all for a year. I wouldn't drive sometimes because I didn't trust my reaction. I was afraid I was going to harm someone else. That's how bad it was. But I didn't. Because you know, whole breadwinner and kids wanting to eat thing. That's kinda my point. OTOH most women I know are physically capable of returning to a desk job a few weeks after a non-surgical birth (and yes - a C-section is major surgery). Yet when you create a paid incentive to take 6 or more weeks off suddenly that becomes the benchmark and we throw out the whole "bleeding from the vagina" hysterics. Get over it, it's what our bodies were designed to do. Don't try making 6, 10, or even weeks maternity leave a medical necessity, it's really not in a majority of the cases. The Mom's want time to spend home with the baby, which is an entirely different thing. Now Dad's are clamoring for the same thing. If a segment of the population gets a benefit that is denied to another segment, that is discriminatory, and that is what I have an issue with. I wanted a few weeks (unpaid) home with DD so I took a little under 5 weeks under FMLA. DH took two weeks (also unpaid) after that so he could spend some time with her. We knew for months before she arrived it would be unpaid so we planned and saved to cover the income shortage. If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 29, 2015 10:22:02 GMT -5
Oh HELL YES! Better living through chemistry. I have nothing to prove (plus my doc didn't want to risk me having an asthma attack). and I won't deny there was a great deal of...discomfort for a few days. But like I said, desk job, DH exiled to the guest bedroom, everything was good.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 29, 2015 10:22:12 GMT -5
The country needs future taxpayers. The country does need future taxpayers. What the country doesn't need is more people. One of my beefs about illegal invaders is that they use and abuse resources better spent on citizens and their children.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Jan 29, 2015 10:23:18 GMT -5
Oh HELL YES! Better living through chemistry. I have nothing to prove (plus my doc didn't want to risk me having an asthma attack). and I won't deny there was a great deal of...discomfort for a few days. But like I said, desk job, DH exiled to the guest bedroom, everything was good. Cause let's get real, you can have a baby without one. I did it twice!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 12:33:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 10:24:13 GMT -5
If we think paid leave for family events is important I would propose a payroll tax that would support it on a federal level. You build up a "bank" that you can draw down from. Say one or two weeks for every 5 years worked. You can draw from your bank when you have enough accumulated for ANY reason (sabbatical, adopting a puppy, having a kid, caring for a relative). THAT would be fair to all in my book. I like it. Many European countries are doing all kinds of things to get women to reproduce- monthly benefits that increase with the number of kids, paid parental leave that can go on for a year or more, etc. I'm not in favor of long mandated parental leaves at employer expense. That will just discourage hiring of women of childbearing age and we'd be back to the 1960s. The above solution would also give fathers and people who have adopted kids paid time off. In Scandinavia they've found that if the father is there during the leave, he tends to be more involved after both parents go back to work.
|
|
NancysSummerSip
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 19:19:42 GMT -5
Posts: 36,673
Today's Mood: Full of piss and vinegar
Favorite Drink: Anything with ice
|
Post by NancysSummerSip on Jan 29, 2015 10:24:27 GMT -5
And you wonder why I have stayed single for the last 32 yrs - to avoid the marriage tax Pffft...it's really because no one can handle all your hawtness.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,891
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Jan 29, 2015 10:25:45 GMT -5
I guess our government jobs are better in some ways I am a parent but I would wholeheartedly disagree with any company that provides more benefits to those with children than those without. I really don't think that is the norm, though, at least not in this region. If you are an hourly or salaried employee and use up all your paid time off, you can take FMLA if you really need to care for a sick child/parent/etc., but you won't be getting a paycheck. Just for the sake of discussion let's explore that statement a little... Take out the word "company" and replace it with "tax system" and I think you have the gist of what some peeps are trying to say and I agree with them. Society should not be forced to subsidize my choice to have a child. Why people think the ability to breed should get them extra perks is completely beyond me (such as those who are whining for paternity leave now for gosh sakes - I mean really? - what would we give the childless people - puppy leave?) YES PLEASE!!!!!!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 29, 2015 10:25:43 GMT -5
I had an epi with my first but did too much, stairs and all, and was still having bleeding at my follow up. My dr threatened to have me hospitalized if I didn't take it easy. Contrast that with second delivery. No stairs and in two weeks I was fine and dandy. Went back to work end of month. Deliveries are different.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
I identify as a post-menopausal childless cat lady and I vote.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by cronewitch on Jan 29, 2015 10:25:43 GMT -5
I am all for giving parents tax breaks if they are anywhere near poor. Most people have some kids so it evens out over a career. It is like older family members helping the younger ones. When a young family has a couple of tots they usually are trying to get career going and buy a house and pay daycare so the toughest time in their life financially. When kids are older they have no or less daycare, houses are bought already and careers started then they can pay more taxes. If we didn't give breaks to the young families some would have poverty so couldn't get a house or decent transportation and food and daycare so many women would quit working. Then when the kids were older she wouldn't have job skills and they could be poor for life.
I watched my little brother be poor. He joined the navy and got married at 18 and at 20 and 22 had children. They were poor his wife took in babysitting or worked low paid jobs but they got a little house. Then he quit the navy after 9 years moved home and got a house. Wife was a housewife kids in elementary school and work was very slow only 10 weeks one year. Wife decided to go to college but almost had to drop out until my parents paid one semester tuition for her. Sometimes they didn't have very basic things like antifreeze for the truck after a radiator repair so had to drain it every night so it didn't freeze. They had to use a food bank. I did buy them a gallon of antifreeze once and some peanut butter, mom and dad gave them cases of TP and paper towels for Christmas. But they got over being poor, work picked up, she graduated and became a teacher, son left home, they got a new nice house, daughter left home. Now son is 45 daughter 43 and they have a huge home, newer vehicles, pensions and SS. They can afford cruises and all kinds of vacations and summer property. Much better to give them tax breaks to get started then charge more now when they are richer.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 29, 2015 10:25:56 GMT -5
Look, I'm not saying having a kid isn't a major physical event, it is. BUT for the majority it doesn't take weeks or months to be able to physically return to a desk job (now a physically demanding job is different - but most women don't do those). What I'm asking for is fairness to everyone, regardless if they choose to have kids or not. That and emotional honesty from those who want maternity leave as to what it's really for. I look at my friends and co workers who have had more than one kid. They go home with an infant to care for and 1-2 small children on top of that and somehow manage. Now tell me that's easier than working a cushy desk job and I'll call you a liar to your face .
|
|