Happy Friday! Thought I'd let someone else take the reins today and share with you an interesting topic. How Raw Diets Can Make a Difference Transitioning to a raw food diet is often thought of as only a personal choice, as a journey that one individually decides to embark on for whatever reason, whether it be ethical or health-related or some other reason entirely. But the Examiner in Sacramento suggests an interesting idea involving raw food diets that could potentially make a difference in the greater community. The social problem that the Examiner discusses is the city's increased problems with homelessness among seniors. The article reports that Sacramento has seen a sharp rise in the elderly being displaced, resulting from what many speculate the aging of the Baby Boomer generation. The article goes on to posit a refreshing new idea that would offer homeless seniors both a source of sustaining and sustainable nutrition and that would also give them something rewarding ...
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
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
and i think everyone should be guaranteed 4 weeks off a year. that would help our national health a lot.
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.
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.
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.