This really pisses me off...sigh....?

[Mand 1]

Can I be honest?

Please don't flame me.

I, and I suspect many people like myself, always have have this nagging feeling that people who want higher taxes so they can have things I already have.... really just want to rip me off and take away whats mine. That is why, no matter how strongly I feel women should have paid maternity leave and poor people should have some form of free health coverage (catastrophic, at least), I think about it some more and the thought that this might just be a boondoggle meant to take away whats mine and give it to those who (IMO) did not work for it... and that bothers me.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Being a newbie to this country I simply thought the Govt could provide this service as they do in Ireland, without hiking up taxes....stupid me I know! In Ireland the Govt are even giving children's allowance to people who's children don't even live in Ireland...and that is really p*ssing people off.

[KiKi 0]

That's the true capitolist ideal.

So basically you are hedging your bets that you will always be a healthy and productive member of society, but if, God forbid, the time ever comes that you have no choice but to utilize some sort of social assisstance, you might be happy that SOMEONE paid into it.

Again, it's a matter of priorites, and sadly, the U.S priority remains very self-centered IMO

That's the true capitolist ideal.

So basically you are hedging your bets that you will always be a healthy and productive member of society, but if, God forbid, the time ever comes that you have no choice but to utilize some sort of social assisstance, you might be happy that SOMEONE paid into it.

Again, it's a matter of priorites, and sadly, the U.S priority remains very self-centered IMO

Replying to Agent Smith B)

[ChristinaM 0]

The thing with maternity is that it will affect the majority of people in their lifetimes, whether you're the woman who loses pay for that time or the man who has to work overtime to cover that loss of wages.

I'm by no means a socialist - I believe firmly that people should work to deserve things. I get your nagging feeling, Agent Smith, that if I have to work to get my health insurance, then dammit, so should every other person who is able to. But I also think that motherhood - particularly in the US - is an overworked, underpaid and severely undervalued profession, and that common sense has given way to something else when we're not supporting working women who leave for 12 weeks to have a baby.

Welfare, now that's another thing altogether.....

[joej 0]

Maybe I was reading the article wrong, but I see it more as our right to time off with our infants than a right to get paid while being off. With the FMLA act only securing our jobs for 12 weeks of unpaid time off it really sucks. I do not expect my employer to pay me while I'm off, that would be a great bonus though. Yet I think it is rediculous that in the US our jobs (in large companies) are only secure for up to 12 weeks. I have been with my present employer 11 years. Had my first child in July and took 12 weeks off. Prior to my leave my boss had the odassity to ask me if I would be taking four weeks or five weeks off? I laughed and told her I would let her know prior to the 30 day deadline allowed by FMLA.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I believe firmly that people should work to deserve things. I get your nagging feeling, Agent Smith, that if I have to work to get my health insurance, then dammit, so should every other person who is able to. But I also think that motherhood - particularly in the US - is an overworked, underpaid and severely undervalued profession, and that common sense has given way to something else when we're not supporting working women who leave for 12 weeks to have a baby.

Yes, I realize now that my argument was geared more towards healthcare than maternity leave.

And the words "who is able to" are very important. I certainly would never begrudge my taxes paying for the healthcare of a paraplegic. It's when those taxes go to someone who says he has adult ADD that I'd start getting uneasy again

[ChristinaM 0]

I think you and I are probably on the same page, AS.

[SteveLaura 0]

Can I be honest?

Please don't flame me.

I, and I suspect many people like myself, always have have this nagging feeling that people who want higher taxes so they can have things I already have.... really just want to rip me off and take away whats mine. That is why, no matter how strongly I feel women should have paid maternity leave and poor people should have some form of free health coverage (catastrophic, at least), I think about it some more and the thought that this might just be a boondoggle meant to take away whats mine and give it to those who (IMO) did not work for it... and that bothers me.

I don't feel that, I'm afraid, AS. Altho there will be a section of every country that will be content to take the barest minimum (state benefits) and not contribute a penny nor strive for anything more, I refuse to believe that that is the norm. For most, it's a safety net to help you when you need it. I took unemployment benefit and Housing Benefit when I once lost my job suddenly (for no fault of my own, I might add). It meant my rent was paid and I had money for bills whilst I looked for another job. Once I got a job, I stopped claiming & started paying tax again. I got out much less - in purely monetary terms - than I put in. But it wasn't 'my money' or 'someone else's money' - it was from that metaphorical Big Pot that kept the whole country afloat. I rarely went to my Doctor's, but I knew that I could and that my taxes provided that service to me and the rest of the nation. If some people weren't paying for those services at that particular point in their lives, I figured they most probably would later in life, or had previously done so.

I worked in the homeless field in London. Did I have clients who were scamming? I did. I'm not sure how you can have a system that prevents that, without possibly withholding benefits from those that truly need it. But is the tax system fair & efficient? It is not. Many people pay too little or - if you are extremely wealthy - nothing at all thru loopholes or plain fraud. Should we abandon that system too or admit that there are gonna be some people who abuse it?

Can I flame you anyway, AS? Being flamed by a tree-hugging liberal really isn't that painful, you know...

[Welshcookie 17]

Can I be honest?

Please don't flame me.

I, and I suspect many people like myself, always have have this nagging feeling that people who want higher taxes so they can have things I already have.... really just want to rip me off and take away whats mine. That is why, no matter how strongly I feel women should have paid maternity leave and poor people should have some form of free health coverage (catastrophic, at least), I think about it some more and the thought that this might just be a boondoggle meant to take away whats mine and give it to those who (IMO) did not work for it... and that bothers me.

Being British I have grown up with socialised medicine....I don't believe it will ever be dismantled, we have had Liberal, Labour, Conservative Governments who always place NHS on high on their political agendas....just as I believe America will never tolerate it.....the 'people' pay a high price in taxes, the majority in this country have never known a time without socialised medicine, and i think it is just something we accept. My USC cannot even imagine a form of NHS in US....he truely does not want it.

As for Welfare...well I won't go into that....only to say I really object to universal childcare benefit.....always have (even at my poorest) it costs our country stupid amount of money....either means test it or scrap it...my fiance was concerned when he first saw my 'child benefit' payment on my bank statement...he was like 'why are you claiming welfare??' he couldn't believe it when I told him the government just gives every household 15 pounds per week for the first child and then 10 for subsequent children regardless of income....it amazes me always.....

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I suppose in a round-about way people in the US get child benefit in the form of a tax deduction.

[Jaylen Brit 0]

wow intersting thread and it really shows up the fundamental differences between UK and US culture (primarily cos UK has a much more nanny-state ideology than the US and neither one of us can seem to agree with the other cause of the polarity).

I agree with some of whats been said - I was GOING to have maternity leave (my company agreed tho hold my job as well) but in the end I decided NOT to go back even though it meant things would be tight.

My justification was: I had the baby - I didnt want to palm her off on someone else to look after her. This time in her life, and mine, would never come again and I didnt trust anyone else to look after her the way i could. Also breastfeeding a child bonds you to them like you wouldn't belive.

Saying that I have NO issue with ANY mother who wishes to return to work - that is their option and I wouldn't presume to judge them for it. Everyone's circumstances are different but having the OPTION to spend time with your child, getting to know them and learning to be a parent, is enormously helpful.

I paid for my maternity leave - in some indirect tax or another, whether it was my NI contributions or income taxes, I paid. I worked in some high paid jobs before my child and i paid some hefty taxes but I never begrudged a penny of NI contributions because it helps everyone - including ME when I need health care or my child does.

In the US its more of a DIRECT payment, which makes it, like healthcare, beyond the means of many.

US Employers may bleat 'how can we afford it?' but other countries (in fact ALL countries bar about 5 in the entire world) manage well enough to still see profits.

[daisy16 0]

It's a matter of priorites, and it's obvious where the U.S priorities lie, or don't as the case may be.

We pay lip service to caring about our kids, and the importance of parenting etc, but we don't put our TAX money where our mouths are.

My thoughts also kiki. When the US infant mortality rates are worse than Cuba's one has to wonder what the US is doing wrong in bringing up its kids. When at a young age, gangs replace parents, I have to wonder at the sanity of worrying about the up-front-costs of taking care of the weak in society - like through parental leave - instead of the staggering costs associated with the crime, incarceration, health care, medicaid, etc. later on.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm torn on this issue...

On one hand, I'd love to see motherhood encouraged. And what better way is there to do that then to provide women with paid maternity leave?

Some employers offer paid leave for 3 months and a gradual return-to-work arrangement as well as on-site daycare after that. I used to work for one of those a while back.

Some employers offer extended leave terms to employees to care for newborn or adopted children and also offer an employee paid voluntary insurance that will pay certain benefits during the leave.

Most employers do scrap, however, and only spend millions to put out propaganda galore about their support of the family, community and whatnot. Nothing but hollow words...

[kc456 0]

I think the logic is: you make good money while you work, you can afford to take time off / leave work force if you want to stay home with the baby.

On the plus side, the husband can take time off too.

It's not a perfect system, but it works for the US I guess.

The other explanation, is that the white middle aged males set the laws in this country, and they'd rather mothers stay home to take care of the children. That's why they force mother to make these hard choices -- either return to work in 6 wks, or leave your job.

Edited February 7, 2006 by kc456

[KevandKiki2 0]

He/she has a point...who IS going to pay for more time off??

well...hell..got me... Oh..they could curb billions and kajillions from the er...slightly askew "shock and awe" campaign...What alert level we on today BTW....orange?..red?..pink?...mauve?

Kev

Edited February 7, 2006 by KevandKiki2

[SteveLaura 0]

I think the logic is: you make good money while you work, you can afford to take time off / leave work force if you want to stay home with the baby.

Unfortunately this logic, of course, only applies to those who are making good money in the first place. If you work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, in this country earning only minimum wage, you are still nearly $11,000 dollars below the poverty line.