"A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." (usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler)

I think this quote went a little too far. People are no longer voting themselves money from the public treasury, they are voting themselves money from any place they can get it. Money from employers, baby daddies, ex-husbands, financial institutions, etc.

You name it, and someone will show up pandering with it.

Recently, I heard about a Minnesota company offering paid "fur-ternity" leave for people who adopt a new pet. It is their right as an employer to offer any such benefit to their employees, but I would not be surprised if some politician grabs it.

I should have included a link in my above post:

Company Is Offering ‘Fur-ternity Leave’ for New Pet Owners
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/furternity-leave-pet-owners.html

In trying to differentiate himself Rubio has shown exactly why he wasn't a good presidential pick.

As for him making SS even more insolvent, it had to end sometime. Why not now?

People are no longer voting themselves money from the public treasury, they are voting themselves money from any place they can get it. ~ Trust at August 30, 2018 3:44 AM

They're voting themselves other people's money and using government power to take it.

BTW, I'd always heard the attribution was to Alexis de Tocqueville. Wiki says its' often attributed, mistakenly so, to both men. It's actual origins are shrouded in mystery.

On the surface, Rubio's idea is actually not that bad. To have a child, you must delay retirement. However, it ignores what might happen in the intervening years, things that might force a hastened retirement.

Perhaps Rubio's idea should be changed from a chronological base to one based on one's total fund - i.e., for every month of parental leave for which you draw a benefit, you lose that amount from the total retirement fund you're building up (the amount that will be used to calculate your benefit at retirement).

That way, if you find yourself unemployed at an advanced age when it's damned difficult to get another job or medically unable to work, but not qualified for disability (e.g., epilepsy - for which employers can openly discriminate against you, but which often does not qualify for government disability), you can still draw your Social Security.

Companies are still free to offer parental leave (or furternity leave) as a way to attract and retain employees. Of course, there will be those who will claim that's unequal, some people getting company-paid leave and others having to sacrifice their retirement savings; and we'll have lawsuits and political grandstanding and whatnot.

First they call it "embarrassing and shameful that the U.S. remains the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee paid leave for new parents."

I am embarrassed, I feel other nations should follow our lead, and not guarantee/require this.

Well, for what it's worth, there ARE those childfree people who say (I don't) that, in the same vein, they should not have to pay taxes to support schools, in part because being childfree doesn't mean you aren't struggling to eat and pay rent.

They're voting themselves other people's money and using government power to take it.

The free shit army is gangsta government. Say, nice business ya got there. Be a terrible shame if you didn't pay your employees a $15 minimum wage.

No government has any money of its own. The only money it has is because of what it takes by taxes. And that's always backed up by the use of (potentially deadly) force.

there ARE those childfree people who say (I don't) that, in the same vein, they should not have to pay taxes to support schools

I would disagree with those who do say that. Conceptually[*], it is a public good that children are educated and permitted to socialize and grow up to be educated, reasonably well adjusted, and more importantly, gainfully employed individuals.

What, you think a bunch of poorly educated malcontent slackers with a spotty work record in minimum wage jobs are going to be able to pay for your Social Security pay out?

[*] The theory is sound, but the actual implementation is uneven and gives diverse outcomes from ok to awful. And now we have Democratic Socialists advocating more members going into to teaching to indoctrinate the young skulls full of mush into become good members of the free shit army.

Unless it is in your job description to have a child why the fuck should an employer pay you to do it?

Darth, I think the idea is that the parents should get taxed more, not less, than the childfree. That would solve the school funding problem - in theory.

About fur-turnity:

It gave workers a larger commuter stipend, as well as a reason to avoid the office altogether: “fur-ternity leave,” or the ability to work from home for a week to welcome new dogs or cats.

Do note they're simply tele-commuting from home. There are aspects of my job that could be done remotely from home. But some things need hands-on application, and being at home may also provide distractions.

There are *fundamental* *technical* *reasons* why you have to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain every now and then."

https://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/neuffer/scsi/fun.html

I guess the counter argument would be that vacations provide benefit only to the individual taking the vacation (and revenue to the businesses at the destination, often out of country). In that sense, it doesn't make sense for me (or taxpayers generally) to pay for that.

But having children does have a societal benefit. Countries with birth rates below replacement end up with an aging (retired) population, and insufficient tax payers to sustain their social infrastructure. So we need a sustainable population base to function, lest a country simply die out.

The alternative to having babies is to significantly increase immigration, of course. But there are costs associated with that too, both financial and social.

To me, it doesn't seem so out of whack to provide some modest economic support for new parents as there is sufficient overall benefit to society.

"Marco Rubio's parental leave plan would rob Peter to pay for Peter Jr."
It takes a dedicated Consumer Protection Advocate to classify borrowing for legitimate major life expenses as robbing yourself.

"it is dangerous idea [sic] to tap the the [sic again] buy-now, pay-later model that has trapped so many Americans in financial holes they can’t escape."
Is it petty to quote that just for the double sic on a major newspaper?

"Turning the Social Security Trust Fund into the Bank of Parental Leave won’t improve its fiscal health."
Undeniably true. We are all sold on the insolubility of SS, who wouldn't want to realize those payments now?

I think the idea is that the parents should get taxed more, not less, than the childfree.

They already - in theory - pay more. See the linkie. But if that's how some childless people feel, then they should be required to pay full freight for their old age benefits.

What? they were of the opinion that such benefits magically appeared from the aether?

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/a-school-fundraising-optout-note-in-the-us-has-gone-viral/news-story/7308713dfbc59b465e8c57c02ad8b5de

Fair enough, Darth.

I am so tired of the "someone has to pay - anyone but me" mentality that has taken hold. My daughter saved her vacation and took 4 months off with the baby - then my son in law - who also saved up his vacation time - took 3 months off to stay home with the baby. They have since decided that he would stay home with the baby, and live off her income. Thankfully, they are able to afford it, but dammit, it is not anyone else's responsibility to figure out a solution to your problems, whatever they may be.

Also, I'm sick and tired of hearing people say, "Well in Finland (or any other European country) they get X, Y, and Z, and it doesn't cost them anything!" Yeah that doesn't work in the US, because we have more unemployed, non-working adults then they have in their entire country! Stop comparing the US to countries with a fraction of the people we have!

Stop comparing the US to countries with a fraction of the people we have!

Or countries with comparatively zero minorities, or countries with comparatively no immigration, or countries that count live births as still born if they die within a certain time frame, or countries that rely on the US military to protect them so they dont have to pay for their own military,

Lenona,

You need to tell such people they are paying to keep the icky kids away. If schools were only paid for by parents you will find very quickly that most parents decide to homeschool as the cheaper choice. And then you will have tons of kids running around unsupervised.

You can run the numbers yourself. US median income is around $55k. US median school spending is around $12k. That 23%. 46% for those with two kids. How many families wouldn't immediately cut that from their budget if it was an option?

"Stop comparing the US to countries with a fraction of the people we have!"

OK but the Actual example here is comparing the US to California, a state with high immigration and minority populations. LAtimes is advocating for a nationwide rollout of current CA SDI program.

Currently, all us CA workers pay 1% of our gross into it. IIRC the previous rate was 0.08%. So 0.2% to add PFL. Just thought the group may benefit from knowing the actual costs.

FWLIW I am not pro-SDI but it is not a hill worth dying on.

Also, I'm sick and tired of hearing people say, "Well in Finland (or any other European country) they get X, Y, and Z, and it doesn't cost them anything!" ~ sara at August 30, 2018 10:17 AM

Actually, it does cost them something.

The taxes for such programs decrease economic activity, even if only incrementally, and per-worker productivity, again even if only incrementally. Higher taxes also tend to leave households with less discretionary income. Ain't nothin' free.

Now, in a homogenous culture, like Finland, that may be a price they're collectively willing to pay. In a heterogenous culture, like the US (e pluribus unum seems to be more pluribus than unum these days), finding consensus on such an issue will be more difficult.

Okay, probably the wrong plan for parental leave funding -- but what I do think is right is that parents, not the rest of us (or businesses people work for), assume the costs of their choice to have children.

I completely accede to parents' desire to raise their children as they see fit without governmental interference.

And that includes governmental money.

Currently, all us CA workers pay 1% of our gross into [State Disability Insurance]. IIRC the previous rate was 0.08%. So 0.2% to add PFL. Just thought the group may benefit from knowing the actual costs. ~ smurfy at August 30, 2018 11:43 AM

So, you think a 0.2% increase in payroll taxes will pay for universal paid family leave?

A person making $100,000 per year, paying an additional $200 a year will cover paid family leave for himself, his dependents, and a representative portion of PFL costs for the pool of uninsured or underinsured?

Not likely.

--------------------------------------------------

For those who think it will only be a small increase in premiums to implement Universal Health Care, consider this:

When HMOs were first rolled out, it was assumed that they would lower healthcare costs by catching serious conditions and illnesses early, before they became expensive; by promoting overall health awareness. However, what the analysts did not calculate was the change in behavior that the lower-cost copay would initiate (vs. the higher non-HMO cost per visit).

Before HMOs, colds and flus were treated with cough syrup and Vicks. Afterward, they were treated with a visit to the doctor, subsidized prescription medications, and follow-up care.

The lower cost to the insured person per visit had changed behavior, driving up the overall healthcare costs well beyond any savings from catching conditions and illnesses early.

Universal healthcare (the utopian ultimate HMO) will do the same thing - free care will mean more visits to the doctor and more treatments for even minor conditions. Costs will skyrocket. Things people were willing to live with or treat with OTC medicines (e.g., allergies, sinusitis, minor arthritis) will now be subject to doctor treatment. Unless cost estimates include changes in behavior, they're worthless.

We've had this conversation before, and I haven't really bothered reading the other comments.

I just think it's disgusting that a person expects their employer to pay them money for no work and further expect all the other employees to pick up the slack, and further still, insist their entitled to the same pay raises, promotions, bonuses, etc. as the employees who didn't take time off.

"So, you think"
I'm telling you what it costs, not what I think. I may be wrong on the numbers but California has had this in place for a long time, it is not a hypothetical.

Keep in mind the benefits are pretty paltry and it is a big hassle to even file. I suspect the system balances out because few claim it and those that do don't get much.

Now what I think:
-people on the margins can't live on 55% for even a few weeks. It probably will not help the poorest of new mothers.
-the middle class will come out of maternity leave* with a few hours of Vacation and Sick Leave on the books. They will reimburse the system over 30 years, a wash.
-iff it shuts people up about how we are the worst and cruelest of all the developed countries then it just may be worth the price.

*Fuuuuck paternity leave. And I say that as a dad who took paternity leave.

and further expect all the other employees to pick up the slack, and further still, insist their entitled to the same pay raises, promotions, bonuses, etc. as the employees who didn't take time off.

Patrick hits on something I had just remembered. The boss expects the work to be finished, one way or another. If that happens to slough off on the childless or the more seasoned person who has already raised their children, the boss doesn't care. Be a team player he says, get her done he says, even if that means staying late.

And that translates later on in the child rearing cycle. Dan (or Suzy) has to leave early to pick up the kids, can you cover for him? be a team player!

if it shuts people up about how we are the worst and cruelest of all the developed countries then it just may be worth the price

Nah. Remind those crybabies that there are millions of aliens who want to come here and live in a racist, misogynistic, transphobic, xenophobic shit hole of a country. Or are already here.

Now, if they're OK with paying 70% of their salary in taxes, like they do in Denmark (or did, at least 25 years ago), then we can talk turkey.

If you really want the Scandinavian welfare state, you really have to be willing to pay for it. Taxing the bat snot out of the 1% isn't going to cut it.

I suspect the system balances out because few claim it and those that do don't get much. ~ smurfy at August 30, 2018 2:15 PM

Make it universal and it won't be an obscure government program anymore. Political pressure to increase the benefits will ensue and create an expensive government program that will never die. And it will cost a great deal more than 0.2% of your salary.

Like abortion, it will roll up under "women's health" and be nigh untouchable.

Actually, in a world with Social Security, it makes sense to subsidize childbearing. The SS trust fund is a nonexistent myth, and SS is pay as you go, so when you, Amy, and other childless people start to collect Social Security, those funds will come from the earnings of the offspring of those whose life choices you disdain supporting.

Now, keep in mind, that's only true in the context of having Social Security, which is a whole other category of what the government has no business doing, but if you are childless and you ever collect social security, then your co-generationists' children will be subsidizing your life choices.

OK, but no complaining when birthrates are down and workers have to be found from foreign countries whose values may not align with our own.

Personally I'm in favor of tax incentives so one parent can stay at home or both work part-time... the 2-parent workforce has had some pretty bad unintended consequences.

If you want true tradition NicoleK then we just end social security. Then most grandmas and pas will have to move in with their kids. And they will raise the tykes. The single parent working while one stays home thing was only true for general US society for about 20 years after WW2. Both before and after that both parents worked for the vast majority. Admittedly women mostly worked for barter rather than cash. The one group who has consistently had a single worker dynamic is the wealthy. But even in that case there usually was a worker who took care of the kids, not momma.

Conan: on HMOs you noted the change in behavior. There is another cost. Currently I am smart enough to go to a specialist for anything serious. In an HMO you first go to a GP or Internist, who says you need to go to a specialist. 2 doctor visits and now you have wasted several weeks waiting while you have a serious condition. Sometimes the GP won't send you to the specialist. While delivering a baby under an HMO, they told us to go home, an hour and a half away (thought baby not coming) but we refused --hospital finally said well, there are "family" rooms you can get for $15 out of pocket. duh we did that and had the baby later that night. They could have caused us catastrophe.

"those whose life choices you disdain supporting"

Ah, the smell of fresh hyperbole!

Actually mixed generation living sounds good except how many of us raising kids have parents who are retired?

I don't have any statistics on it NicoleK, but it certainly isn't unusual. Mostly I was pointing out the one parent working thing was a historical anomaly and is mostly a myth. As for how great extended families are, people were pretty enthused about social security when it came out. And that is essentially kids giving money to their parents so they can go live somewhere else. They just use the government as a middle man so no one has to admit to what they are doing.

SS is a very funny program. It is one of the most effective welfare programs the US has ever come up with. It is also one of the most lied about and dishonest programs at the same time. People very desperately don't want to admit what is going on. They will get very mad at you if you talk honestly about it.