Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackjackpershing
Raising a kid on a budget hardly takes millions. Please stop. It does take self discipline and not buying materialistic things and everything that you want. What funny times we live in, when one suggests paying for their own child is seen as unusual or heartless!
One person's spending is another person's income. Are you familiar with the Paradox of Thrift?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage98de
Why do we reward people for having children??
I just don’t get it.
If there's no reward for having children, they are then simply and 18 year liability, which will cause birth rates to plummet even further, cue the end of the human race within about 7 generations....
If there's no reward for having children, they are then simply and 18 year liability, which will cause birth rates to plummet even further, cue the end of the human race within about 7 generations....
So what’s the problem?
People who can afford them and want them will still have them.
The poor and ignorant who should not be having them would have fewer.
Don’t you libs believe that automation is going to make most humans obsolete anyways?? Something tells me you just want to keep the up the headcount of the welfare drone army so you can maintain political power.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage98de
So what’s the problem?
People who can afford them and want them will still have them.
The poor and ignorant who should not be having them would have fewer.
Don’t you libs believe that automation is going to make most humans obsolete anyways?? Something tells me you just want to keep the up the headcount of the welfare drone army so you can maintain political power.
Most people don't want to be the end of their bloodline, and most people have the right to vote....
That seems to be the more important part of the story. How do they define pay gaps while accounting for experience, job duties, performance, etc?
They won't. Because if those things are taken into account, they will collect no additional tax revenue to pay for the scheme. The scheme depends on the notion that the gender pay gap is real.
This is why as a single-male without children I won't be voting Democratic.
Up to $37,500 just for having a baby? About 3.7 million people have a baby a year, it's gotten to the point where these proposals are just bizzare.
Kamala Harris proposed a new plan of 6 months of paid parental leave for having a baby valued at $37,500 considering there are close to 4 million births a year that is quite a large proposal.
She also proposed $6,000 a year reserved for low and middle-income families for emergencies, additionally for families she wants a refundable tax credit for families paying more than 30% of their income in rent.
So is it not as important for those making over $75K/year?
I had two kids, I guess I still dont understand what emotional, lifestyle and relationship adjustments need to be made that requires 6 months of leave time from work. Throughout history parents didnt need a 6 month sabbatical with the birth of every child.
I am certainly not against family leave and do feel working parents should have sufficient leave time after the birth of a child but not 6 months 100% paid by additional payroll taxes on employers and employees.
How does this affect employers having multiple employees out for 6 months at a time. Aside from the expense its got to be difficult to find qualified replacements.
As I mentioned, I took 6 months of maternity leave. But both before and after my leave, I was in charge of hiring extra-hire people to fill in for other people on leave. I found it much easier to find someone wanting 6 months of work than finding someone to fill in for lesser amounts of time. You are right that it is sometimes hard to find qualified replacements, but what else can you do? You can't prohibit pregnancy. If the proposed law said 4 months, you would still have to find a replacement for that time. If women are in the work force, there will be maternity leaves. I considered it just the consequence of my profession that most of my staff were young women, and maternity leave fill-ins are just a fact of life.
And as to the $75/year limit. You are right, I think that all new moms should be afforded this amount of time, but I guess the proposal assumes that those making over $75K can afford to supplement the paid time with time-without-pay, as I did. I'm not sure I agree with that, but you have to start somewhere.
If Kamala wins the Democrat POTUS nomination (unlikely), this is just one more reason why Trump (or whoever the Republican nominee is) will win.
(And I strongly dislike Trump, but if it came to a choice between him and one of the "progressive" (LOL) leftists and the race in my state was very close, I would hold my nose and vote for him.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
