Wow. I know I’m supposed to be annoyed at the additional tax, but I can’t help but think that this new federal parental leave proposal is a Good Thing. Six months paid maternity leave at full salary? Sweet. And four weeks paternity leave? Hey, it’s more than you get in America. (Right, Sis?) Actually, I wonder if it would be possible to switch it, like if the father intended to stay home and the mother go back to work. Could he have six months leave? (She ponders thoughtfully…)
Rachel
May 6, 2008 — 10:59 am
about bloody time. The US and Australia have the worst maternity leave in the whole “western world”. If it doesn’t pass I will cry.
tracey
May 6, 2008 — 11:40 am
I’m all for paid maternity leave but I think it’s a bad idea to impose a tax on everyone. I think a better idea is to have something like a superannuation fund and if you want to use it for maternity leave, you can. If you didn’t use it for maternity leave, it can go to your super. That, combined with the baby bonus, should cover expenses (one would hope!) or give you a bit more towards super.
tracey
May 6, 2008 — 11:42 am
and i think that the primary carer (mum, dad, grandma, grandparents etc..) should be entitled to the leave/funds. (i think that’s how it is now?)
Bex
May 6, 2008 — 3:31 pm
i agree with tracey. i might get flammed here, but as someone who cant breed (unless by divine intervention, or The Boi not telling me something) i dont feel i should be taxed so other people can do it.
not that I want to breed anyway… 😉
(and since when are you chatting with my sister?!?!)
Kris
May 6, 2008 — 5:49 pm
Hmm. I can see your point. I guess I feel strongly that it’s a very important feminist issue that we should care about whether we make that choice for ourselves or not. It’s like how I feel about public transport. I think everybody should pay for it, whether you use it or not. Because otherwise such programs are too expensive to run on a user-pays basis. Some things – cheap transport, health care, maternity leave, etc – should be available to everybody, regardless of their ability to pay. And if an extra $5 or $10 is what it takes to make that happen, then I’m all for it.
I realize that I’m pretty much a socialist.
Kris
May 6, 2008 — 5:49 pm
And Bex – I think that maternity leave should be available to those adopting as well. There’s no reason to restrict it to “breeders.”
SallyO
May 6, 2008 — 7:27 pm
Why don’t they just DO IT! At the moment I believe there are only FOUR other countries in the world that don’t pay maternity pay – Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and the USA. I’ve got no children and will not be having any children so I don’t have any personal axe to grind here.
And yes, Kris, in the UK maternity leave is paid for adoptions as well.
Frances
May 6, 2008 — 11:38 pm
We’re adopting and here in the US I will get maternity leave, but not paid. I will have to apply for disability after I have used all my sick days at work. I think it’s great that other nations give paid maternity leave to folks. I feel a little late on the uptake because I didn’t even know that other nations pay for maternity leave.
jp
May 7, 2008 — 7:13 am
A lot of companies (Including both that I have worked at recently) are introducing paid maternity leave as it is keeping staff.
I agree with Kris this is a something we need to do. A lot of the scandanavian companies offer it (paid by the government). It’s for the greater good of all society (not just those that have children).
Think through both concepts. Firstly, paid Maternity Leave – Yes this must happen. Should a tax be introduced specifically for it (NO) it should just be part of the existing tax system. All these specific leviesand charges piss me off. Of course no one wants to be charged tax for Special purpose A – I don’t/won’t use it…etc. It’s the governments responsibility to redirect tax to appropriate purposes.
Stefanie
May 7, 2008 — 7:07 pm
Hmm… I like the idea of paid maternity leave, and don’t even mind funding others even if I don’t have children – I can see the overall benefits to society of having well cared for children — but not sure I like the full wages part. Would that mean a management consultant, say, making 250k+/year who probably could’ve saved something up will get 125k from taxpayers for her 6 months, and the barely scraping by teacher is going to get £11k from the state during her leave? And I know the tax is a small % of wages, so those earning (and potentially getting) more are paying more, but still, something about that doesn’t seem quite right.
I’m not saying just because you’re earning more doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be eligible for *something*, just that it doesn’t seem fair the government funding such potential inequality. Or am I completely mis-interpreting something?
In the UK, there’s an equal minimum amount from the government, then it’s up to employers to be as enlightened – or not – and determine how long they might want to pay full, partial, etc., salary, depending on how much they value their employees & want them to return.
Kris
May 8, 2008 — 8:25 am
Ah, but I don’t trust employers. That would only work if there was a real dearth of qualified people who could replace the woman in question. That might be true in some very specialized industries, but for most of us, we’re probably not the integral cogs at our workplaces that we imagine ourselves to be. I’m sure that the majority of businesses would prefer *not* to pay maternity leave and take their chances at finding a guy to fill the position. I’m just not sure we can trust this one to the free market.
If it does go through, I wouldn’t be surprised if they means tested it. Currently in Australia there’s, like, a six grand “baby bonus” that’s meant to help with the immediate costs of having a kid, and the government is now looking at possibly removing that for people at the very top end of the salary spectrum. I think capping the maternity leave wage would be a good compromise.