The Forum > Article Comments > Why Europe is the wrong model for paid parental leave > Comments
Why Europe is the wrong model for paid parental leave : Comments
By Jessica Brown, published 5/11/2010While there is always some group or other lobbying for increased spending on families, there are very few voices asking when it is appropriate to stop.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
-
- All
Posted by Riz, Friday, 5 November 2010 11:13:21 AM
| |
I realise that budgets are finite, but why is the commentary on parental leave lacking in the non-economic details: Parents (both father and mother) taking care of their newborn kids. Real family time.
If we want paid parental leave (whether maternal or paternal or both) then we should figure out how we are going to pay for it. And also, like any subsidy, it favours one group (new parents) over others (everyone else). Without a "real need" for it I would have to agree with Riz. Perhaps extra paid vacation leave for singles...? http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/ Posted by jorge, Friday, 5 November 2010 3:08:21 PM
| |
"Paid Parental Leave" = failed socialism = 'when you finish spending everyone else's money... there's non left to spend...on anything.'
Socialist Welfare states utterly depend on the success of capilitalist businesses to generate value added income. Without that 'added value' a national economy will die. If you tax entrepreneurs too highly..they do what I DO..... get their stuff from China. Just today I witnessed MASSIVE material arrival from China for a company I work with. One bloke is 'no longer needed'...others perhaps not far behind. The company is heading more and more towards only 'final assembly and testing' of product.. all the labor that can be outsourced to China IS....why? hmmmm well you could start with such idiotic brainless schemes such as 'PAID PARENTAL LEAVE'. Then you could go on to 'unsustainable wage/benefit' packages gouged out by socialist Unions who only care about crushing the econonomy so their 'master plan' can prevail (ie.. we are all equally broke..but HEY.. at least there will be 'equality' ) RIZ.. your post is easy to agree with. Why SHOULD you be a victim of socialist/progressive redistribution of income ? You can only 'redistribute' what's there..and what's there is due to capitalist enterprise, and that enterprise works because of incentive. Sadly, the real estate robber barrons have jacked up the price of homes which can only be purchased by either bank robbers or DINKS. In 1986 it was possible to get a home on ONE average income. (just) 1986 -3 b/r brick home $80,000 2010 Same suburb now... $400,000! ! ! Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 5 November 2010 6:51:37 PM
| |
JESSICA BROWN <let’s have a discussion about where the money should come from and what other spending we should cut to meet the cost, otherwise we risk ending up like Britian.>
The $12billion dollars in overseas aid sent to Indonesia every year might be one place to find extra money. How much more overseas aid do we send out of this country. If out mothers and children and carers of people with profound disabilities need that money here then that money should be used here. Look after your own people first. Our children are the life’s blood of the European nations. WE need a tribe around us for protection or we would soon be overrun and dispossessed and this is happening already in most European nations because we are becoming a dying race Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 6 November 2010 1:49:48 AM
| |
[Deleted for excessive use of capitals (yelling).]
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 6 November 2010 2:30:21 AM
| |
ALGOREisRICH <If you Tax Entrepreneurs too highly they do what I do get their stuff from China>
Ah! The rise and rise of China. Why? because of all the BREEDERS who gave China their people power. They had to cut that population back for a time by contraceptive restrictions but they still have tremendous people power which makes them a force to be reckoned with and a virtual land of available labour and unlimited human resources and capabilities. Just think of the wealth all those consumers could provide you with AL. All those lovely customers provided by breeders. As long as the breeders do it all for free using all their own labour and you don’t have to bear any of the cost of it AL, of course it’s a great deal, unlimited customers requiring no capital outlay. Also dirt cheap labour requiring not too much capital outlay, all the capital outlay has been put out by the breeders in providing you with the labour source, the fit capable human being. Which leads us to the thousands and thousands of years of exploitation of the female half of the breeders who received $00.00 to call their own for providing whole societies and populations for countries. Had to ask their husband if they were allowed to spend a penny to go to the toilet. Needless to say they voted with their feet and walked out of the kitchen Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 6 November 2010 3:11:06 AM
|
I'm all for welfare to help the most desperate in our society, those who really need it. But it royally pisses me off that low income earners like myself (I'm a working student) should be made poorer at the expense of wealthy breeders, and that it is the Labor government redistributing wealth in such as grossly inequitable manner.