Get with the Program US!

I am a firm believer/supporter that the United States should guarantee paid family leave (newborn, adoptions, ill family member, etc). I mean come on already! Can you believe we are listed as one of the worst countries when it comes to supporting working parents?! In fact we rank among Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea that have zero paid maternity leave. When I was pregnant I kept hearing about how this country or that country had great policies in place for pregnant women and/or families (some up to a year or more! Although, not certain that whole time was paid). Sure, we are "granted" 12 weeks but it's unpaid. I had to use my vacation for my time off - and depending on your employer's personal time policy may not be as much as you'd like. Sheesh. Having a newborn isn't a vacation but it is fun! :) Anyway, here's an article I'd like to pass along that shares this same view. What do you think?

Comments

cindy said…
I am gonna pass on the read!
it just tears me UP...

I had a nice Mat. leave but ONLY bc my hubs made up the difference!

my teenager and I only got 8 weeks together and 2 o that was vaca straight up.

I am still bitter!

It's good though that you bring awareness to it!
I just want to be a SAHM way too much these days!

xo
bitt said…
i am pro-paid leave. for moms AND dads. lots of other countries have this. unfair.

and i think everyone should be guaranteed 4 weeks off a year. that would help our national health a lot.
RisibleGirl said…
I think they should also allow leave when your kids are teenagers. I the boys are a testament to that. ;)
Anonymous said…
I agree with you. This is one of those American ideas which I really just don't understand ...
Sarah said…
I totally agree that America needs to step up to the plate and enact a mandatory paid maternity leaves for both parents. I've felt the same ever since I was pregnant with my children and learned that other countries granted this, but our wonderful "land of the free" didn't offer this essential time to parents. That was more than 8 years ago... Something should have been done long ago.
shannonmarie said…
I got lucky that I had paid leave when I had Jacob. Unfortunately, I had to go back to work after only 6 weeks.

This time I plan on taking off a full 3 months to bond with my little one. I'm not getting paid a dime this time, so we'll see if I can really stay home that long.
Anonymous said…
I’m for government taking less tax money from us not more so I don’t agree with maternity leave being paid by govt which really means by us tax payers.

Let’s run some numbers:

Jane makes $15 and hour. She works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year earning $31, 200.

She currently pays 35% of her income to local, state and federal taxes leaving her with $20, 280 a year.

Maternity leave without pay for 8 weeks would drop her down to 44 weeks for the year. After her 35% tax on her revised salary of $26,400, she’d be left with $17, 160. The 8 weeks off cost her $3120.

Now let’s let the government pay:

Since the govt. only receives it’s money from taxpayers, our taxes will increase. Let’s say the cost of this program raises taxes by 10%. Not an improbable number once you figure in the cost of the increased administration required to run the program and the number of babies born.

Jane’s $31,200 yearly income now goes to $17, 160 with the 45% tax. As you can already see, Jane is bringing home exactly the same amount as she would after her 8 weeks of maternity leave.

At 35%, Jane would have earned after 20 years of working $405,000. At 45%, Jane brings home $343,200.

That’s a difference of $62,400 over the 20 years or two full years worth of salary simply going to the govt. Jane would have to have 8 weeks of maternity leave for 13 children to get her money’s worth.

If Jane instead planned ahead for the time off putting away $120 for each of the average 40 weeks of pregnancy, she’d be set. Her maternity leave would be paid for and she’d have her extra salary to put into a college fund for her child.

But, the program is now in place so Jane must pay that tax every year for the additional 19 years of her working life.


And I’d like to add these two items:

First off, parents get a child credit for 18 years of the child’s life. That would more than balance the money spent out of the parent’s own pocket for maternity leaves.

Second, there is the fairness debate. Should Joe, who doesn’t want kids, have to fork over that $62,400 over his 20 years of work life? Think how much he could have earned had he invested that money instead.

While it might sound good to have someone else pay for things, it doesn’t always work out the way you think it will.
HiHoRosie said…
Thanks Anonymous for the well thought out opinion. Very good points. I agree I don't want to pay higher taxes either - if we had a smart govt who truly looked out for the good of their people we wouldn't have a lot of the useless taxes we do but that's a whole 'nother rant. I guess I still don't understand why our govt drags their feet so much when it comes to families. With high taxes, low income, and sparse jobs (basically a horrible economy thanks to our govt) many parents, single or as a couple, aren't able to save much, if at all, in preparation for a baby. But I suppose one might say those people shouldn't have babies then. There are just so many sides to this sort of issue that I can see so it's hard. It just amazes me that there are so many other countries which allow ample time off for families while the US, a very wealthy country, doesn't. Unfortunately, we all are saddled with taxes we don't agree with or don't apply to us (I can think of several). A reason it's important to vote. Thanks again for taking the time to comment - even if we don't agree on everything.
That's a very sad thing. Why can't they understand the ordeal of pregnant women? What if the lawmakers try being pregnant at the same time needs to work for their baby?
yardsnacker said…
Regarding the anonymous comment, it would be partially true if the Government got its money from the Taxpayers. The military industrial complex gets its money from tax payers, or so it is said since their spending matches what the IRS receives every year. The Fed is the one that distributes money, and that out of thin air to the States. So while in theory it should be a no brainer that people should pay their own way, the problem with that uber right view is that it is unrealistic to the needs of the society. For example Bob drives a Humvee to work. He pays his property tax and in turn the State he lives in gets that money for road improvement and maintenance. The Fed then matches those funds depending on the program and floats the State the remainder depending on whether they are carrying out the wishes of the Fed. Bob's neighbor Rainbeau is a raw vegan eco warrior. He can't stand big oil, much less his neighbor's Humvee and decides to sell his car and travel by foot. While Rainbeau enjoys the excercise, he most definitely does not use the roads and feels that he should not pay for the roads he walks along. Yet, Rainbeau lives in that society that is dependent upon roads, which deliver him his raw vegan foods and his precious Thai Coconuts. So realizing the folly of his ways, he decides that it is an investment to be a contributing member of society and pay his taxes. He sleeps well knowing that his cacao nibs travelled by plane and delivery truck and not on donkey back.
So to with maternity leave, the State should realize that the health of the nation, especially mothers warrants contributions from the people because it is an investment in the future irregardless of whether someone wants to participate in having their own children. They are by default participating in a society and need to support good health practices to make sure that the future of that society is just as strong in the future.

Popular posts from this blog

Guest Blog Post

WEGO Health: Superpower!

The "Glow"