Dan725

[QUOTE=christmasoompa;6384659][QUOTE=Tracym;6384500]I personally don't have kids, and won't. And I also wonder about paying for schools, etc. that I get no DIRECT benefit from. Christmasoompa is a lot more sensible than me, Tracy -and is actually highlighting how society at large will benefit.

Now, with your dogs, on the other, hand, the only thing they are doing is pooping on the path for my little girl to walk into....... Although, I admit I'm not paying for them!

Tracym

[QUOTE=christmasoompa;6384659][QUOTE=Tracym;6384500]I personally don't have kids, and won't. And I also wonder about paying for schools, etc. that I get no DIRECT benefit from. Well I did somewhat say that - the future of society.

I will not necessarily have the direct benefit from the kids now though - I might die young, I might have doctors older than me, etc. etc.

And not every child is a benefit - some are murders, permanent welfare recipients, etc. etc.

Schools are paid for by taxes - paid maternity leave comes from the company, at least here in the U.S. So presumably, those who choose to have children (if they received paid maternity leave) would be getting more benefits than the rest of the employees.

At one end of the spectrum - people would pay for everything for their own children - healthcare, schooling, clothing, food.

At the other end - society would raise the child - all of the above would come from taxes.

The argument here is where in this spectrum is "the best".

Personally, it's not just about the parents - it's about the children. I think society owes them a fair chance - so while I gave it as an example, I don't really mind paying taxes for the schools.

Paid maternity leave though - I'd believe that's up to the employer. If they WANT to offer it as a benefit, to entice employees, terrific. But I don't necessarily think it should be an entitlement - again, it's a choice to have a child basically.

Tracym

Well I'm trying to speak for someone else here, but...

If government money pays for maternity leave, then "the rest of us" are paying for it via taxes.

If an employer does, perhaps other employees are getting less benefits - as the benefit money is not being spread equally among employees - the expectant mothers are getting more.

As far as saving up money to take time off to have kids, well that starts getting into an argument of is having kids a basic right/entitlement, or a luxury.

Hard one there - myself, I didn't want kids. So I guess I do not have that basic drive, so to me it appears a choice, a luxury. Whatever I want - a house, a dog, a kid - I don't personally feel I should have that unless I can properly care for it. Which includes being able to afford it. But I'm a yank, I have a more individualistic view.

Now, sure, sometimes kids aren't planned. Then we get into the whole pro-choice, pro-life thing, and I really don't want to go there in this thread. Actually, in fairness to the OP, perhaps we should start a new thread, maybe in TIO to continue this... if you agree, and have more to say on the topic, why don't you start one up and I'll join you there.

christmasoompa

I do understand exactly what you're saying Tracy, and do agree with a large element of it (although I think the chances of you having doctors older than you will reduce dramatically with time - if your surgeon is older than when you're 70 then I'd be a bit concerned!).

We've chosen to have two kids but we can afford them and don't get any financial help with raising them. I'm not sure what I would have done if we couldn't have afforded to have children at all - I really wanted them and had a 'need' for them, so don't know if we'd have carried on and had them and expected society to pay for it via our benefits. I doubt it (I suspect we would have just had one and had to content ourselves with that to try and save money) but we're lucky enough to not have had to have made that choice. We also have a dog but don't get any financial assistance with her either!

But in the UK maternity leave is paid for by the government, not employers. So perhaps that's why so many of us have different opinions on it - it's obviously a completely different system for maternity pay in the UK from the US. It's also a legal requirement here so is actually compulsory for any company to provide it and therefore is very much an entitlement here.

P.S. Apologies to the OP for this going off topic!

slktck

overall, surely those without kids will benefit hugely as the young have to support an ever aging population and keep the economy going - in fact the birth rate in many developed countries is so low that it's seen as a real concern.
looking around the housing development we live on, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the size of house and the number of kids - the bigger the house the more likely it is to be occupied by a couple only. the taxation can't be that punitive for the childless!
if you don't have kids then you can look at it as paying in retrospect for your own education etc if that makes you feel better!
taxation is always going to be hit and miss whether you get an overall net benefit or loss depending on your luck etc but the benefit to society is the key thing and really what other method could work?
ps no problem it going off topic its interesting to see how it gets from a to b!

Tracym

Glad you don't mind

To Christa - yes, a completely ancient doddering surgeon would perhaps be mildly undesirable

Paying in retrospect for my own education - perhaps. But my father might say he paid for it.

And I totally agree with you about the taxation - of course some will benefit more than others, the only thing that can be done is to try to be as fair as possible.

Dunno about the birth rate - I would find some stats on that interesting. America's population sure seems to be increasing to me, things getting more crowded - but maybe I'm missing something.

Obviously we need to have some kids. But people are having them now, even without paid maternity leave, so that obviously isn't preventing it.

But... is it better to encourage people who don't even have the savings to take time off to have kids, to have more kids? Will they then be able to provide for them well? Again, we want to raise more good productive members of society, not more who will take more than they give...

That is intended as a philosophical question btw, before anyone thinks I believe only the rich should have kids.

However, I do think that the really poor should try to work themselves up into a better position before they have children, so they can care for the responsibly. I don't think that (ideally) kids should be brought into an environment where they can't receive adequate (not luxurious) care.

christmasoompa

Couldn't agree more!

And you might be interested to know that falling birth rates are certainly something happening in Europe - I have no idea about US though obviously.

You might find the following interesting..................

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4768644.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2570503.stm

Dan725

No, I don't think being American has anything to do with it. An individual western society view is what it is, one which is equally valid in Europe. Take Germany for instance - very low birthrate, and if I'm not mistaken, a lot of Europe has a lower birthrate than the US.
(OP is OK with this hijack..sorry!)

A counter argument to consider is that IF the mom continues to work, the family MAY be able to send the kids to college, or maybe a better college than would've been possible with one income......and therefore society gets the benefit.

I agree with you that not all kids turn out right. I also agree (to an extent and taking a narrow viewpoint without considering the future) they are a "luxury" and an economic burden to the parents, but not to society when considered in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not in US society where maternity benefits are paid by the employer not the government.

I was a classic fence sitter regarding having kids, but now our daughter is here, wouldn't change it for the world. As you might've guessed , my wife works; more of a safety net than a requirement for us; her employer is a Fortune 500 firm, and they are very supportive and generous in a maternity leave type of way (well......in an American sense anyway.....they'd be laughed out of the room in the UK.....)

BritishGuy36

Sweet. That's the answer that I was looking for, thanks. That's the kind of job I'm after. Lower pay, but more hols.

Tracym

Very interesting indeed.

It appears if that article is correct though, that the US population is increasing, contrary to their stats re. Europe.

If the US policies are so flawed compared to Europe (more generous benefits) - would we expect the opposite?

Again, unless I'm misinterpreting their statement, where they say the US population is expected to overcome the EU...

AdobePinon

" The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don't provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, though there are exceptions in some U.S. states.

Australian mothers have it better, however, with one year of job-protected leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it only covers those who work for larger companies.

To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ty-leave_x.htm

Tracym

As far as if the mom continues to work - I'm personally ok with either way. If they can afford to have mom stay home, and she wants to, fine. If she wants to work, fine.

I don't really see the relevance of any of that to paid maternity leave though - if it's unpaid, but she's guaranteed her job back - fine. If she can't even afford the unpaid time off, she's certainly not going to just quit working entirely. And unless she's a single mother, she's not going to get money from the govt here I don't believe. So if she needs to work - she'll have to go back to work one way or another.

Thinking back to the - I should pay for children, because I'll need them one day (doctors etc.).... once I was old, I could say - I made my contribution to society (by BEING the doctor, etc) so I already "paid my dues" so as to speak. (I'm not actually a doctor, that was just an illustration)

I do believe that once they're here though, children are people too (sort of ) and should not be "punished" for the mistakes, financial situation, whatever of their parents - they should get a fair chance. I believe in people standing on their own somewhat - but I do believe society should protect those who CANNOT take care of themselves, such as children.

Xebedee

Interesting that you associate those two together.

I would suggest that not every adult is a societal benefit either, as some turn out to be despotic leaders of middle-European countries like Germany and others are Conservative Republicans.

Tracym

I meant when they grew up, not as children. I thought that would be obvious, apparently not.

Do you think a permanent welfare recipient is a benefit to society?

And btw... here the term "welfare" does not include the disabled, or those temporarily between job. It is those who just do not work, often long term or ever. I was only referring to those.

And no, lol, I did not say they were the SAME as murders, just that both criminals and people who never worked nor contributed were not of benefit to society.

tamms_1965

I don't understand your post. If you reread my post I was referring to UNPAID leave. You're quote refers to PAID leave. I was incorrect with the 6 weeks though, it is 12 weeks if the employee so chooses. There are also certain conditions such as the employee must have been with co. for a year, etc.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs28.pdf