Its the MRA hyper-virgin online division. If they can't get any, they feel that anyone who does or did deserves to suffer.
Military tax leech complaining about people taking his prosperity, how amusing.
I'm sure those of you who are opposed to Maternity leave (because you think its a scam, sexism, st00pid, w/e) are also opposed to nursing rooms in the workplace. We have 2 of them, private rooms for mommy and baby.
Since I am sure, none of you can phyiscally give birth to a child...you don't understand the importance of having the mother be with the child for those first few months of life. Newborns are especially needy and if Dad is not available round the clock for that (obviously because he is doing a man's work, some of you would say) the Mother NEEDS to be there for that child.
And why should anyone be entitled to get in the way of my prosperity?
Military tax leech complaining about people taking his prosperity, how amusing.
Every single poster that says 'xxx has free universal healthcare' is either an idiot or a liar, take your pick.
Huh?
The military in its current form *enables* my prosperity be bringing stability to regions, controlling american resource interests, keeping me safe, ect.
Some woman deciding to take a job and then pop out a couple of kids because she can't keep her legs closed and then the state forcing me to keep her position open for her return definitely impacts my bottom line.
You have fabricated a BS position. Not a soul here has said any such thing is free.It's all well and good doing these comparisons to very socialist societies / governments, but you're completely failing to take note of something that is extremely relevant.
It isn't free. Not even for the common person.
One of the best ways to see what the gov't overall "TAKES" in order to provide "FREE" health care, is to look at what percentage of a countries GDP it sucks up currently.
..
A fact of life - NOTHING IS FREE
Every single poster that says 'xxx has free universal healthcare' is either an idiot or a liar, take your pick.
:thumbsdown: No werepossum, you are willfully ignorant the content in thread out of partisanship cheerleader for shady28's fully evident and easily disprovable lies.Well said...
Here, Here. Semantic misrepresentation is dishonesty is the crux for such dishonest disruption.It's 'free' as in 'free at the point of use'.
If you're trying to claim ignorance about that then you're either an idiot or a liar.
In Canada, that 2.632% per $100 of wages paid by the employer to Service Canada's Employment Insurance is a legislated component and costs of an employees wage.Service Canada
3. What is EI premium rate for me [employers]?
As of January 1st, 2013,employers will pay a premium rate of $2.632 per $100 of each employee's earnings, up to the annual maximum insurable earnings of $47,400 for each employee. The maximum contribution amount of each employee is $1,247.57.
For employees working in Quebec, employers will pay a premium rate of $2.128 per $100 of each employee's earnings, up to the annual maximum insurable earnings of $47,400 for each employee. The maximum contribution amount for each employeeis $1,008.67.
4. What is the EI premium rate for my employees?
As of January 1st, 2013, for each employee, youneed to deduct $1.88 for each $100 of your employee's salary, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $47,400. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $891.12. For your employeesworking in Quebec, you need to deduct $1.52 for each $100 of your employee'ssalary, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $47,400. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $720.48.
SOURCE
Costs are Truly Shared by Federal and State Government
Operating as a federal-state partnership, UC is based on federal law, but administered by the states. The UC program is unique among U.S. social insurance programs in that it is funded almost totally by either federal or state taxes paid by employers.
Currently, employers pay federal unemployment taxes of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 earned by each of their employees during a calendar year. These federal taxes are used to cover the costs of administering the UC programs in all states. In addition, the federal UC taxes pay one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provide for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits.
State UC tax rates vary from state-to-state. State UC taxes may be used only to pay benefits to unemployed workers. The state UC tax rate paid by employers is based on the state's current unemployment rate. As their unemployment rates go up, the states are required by federal law to raise the UC tax rate paid by employers.
The Globe and Mail
Maternity leave basics: Canada vs. the U.S.
Maternity and parental benefits provided for the birth or adoption of a baby varies wildly from country to country. The United States is part of a very exclusive group – but not for the reasons you might suspect. It shares the spotlight with Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho as one of the only countries in the world that doesn’t mandate some type of paid maternity leave for new mothers according to a study done by McGill University’s Institute for Health and Social Policy. In fact, when compared to its northern neighbour, the U.S. maternity leave policy is embarrassingly sparse.
Here are some of the big differences between the two countries.
Canada
The Canadian government mandates both a leave and a benefits component, the latter being administered by provincial employment insurance plans. Depending on the length of employment history and the hours worked, new mothers can take between 17 and 52 weeks of leave from their jobs. Their employers are required to accept the employees back into their jobs, or the equivalent, at the end of the mandated leave at the same rate of pay with the same employment benefits.
On top of mandating maternity leave, the government offers paid leave for
one or both parents through Canada’s employment insurance plan. A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Either the mother or father can take 35 weeks of parental leave after the baby is born or adopted. The parents can share the leave however they choose. If eligible for the program, the benefits equal 55 per cent of the parent’s average weekly insurable wage, up to a maximum of $485 per week. For low-income families, the rate of benefits can increase to up to 80 per cent, with the same maximum of $485 per week. Employment insurance benefits are taxable in the same way as wages.
United States
In the U.S., the picture for families-to-be is very different. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) signed into law in 1993 requires employers to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for several medical conditions, as well as the birth of a baby. If the mother has pre-birth complications, she may be able to take part of the leave under the medical component. Before the law was enacted, the U.S. had no laws requiring that employers provide any leave. There are still gaping holes in the FMLA, however. It exempts small employers, defined as those having fewer than 50 employees. Some states have their own version of the FMLA and have an even lower threshold for employer exemption.
..
The Bottom Line
The U.S. has one of the poorest support systems for pregnant women and new mothers in the world. The Canadian system, on the other hand, provides at least a partial ongoing income for almost a year to give families time to adjust to the new addition, as well as a guarantee of re-employment after a lengthy leave.
Another person angry at the average American, because he/she gets in the way of his personal prosperity.
Oh cool, so why don't we just cut the father's pay so he can still go to work and his wife can stay at home and raise their newborn.
Its the MRA hyper-virgin online division. If they can't get any, they feel that anyone who does or did deserves to suffer.
Military tax leech complaining about people taking his prosperity, how amusing.
Some woman deciding to take a job and then pop out a couple of kids because she can't keep her legs closed and then the state forcing me to keep her position open for her return definitely impacts my bottom line.
How is cutting the father's pay going to make it so his wife can stay home?
Upon the issue of maternity/paternity paid leave in Canada, the entitlement and source for funding is Employment Insurance. One works to receive it. Trade Apprentices may collect from their paid into fund while in school, a newborn infant also entitles one of the parents insured leave to care for their child. To not do see is viewed as a greater immediate and long term burden plus cost upon society.
This is not a route for a paid vacation by your employer. The rampant and fully on ignorant ideology expressed in this forum is quite repellent and a reflecting disgrace upon the socially retarded state that is the USA. As evident from the OP and the rare decently cited following posts, it is evident that the USA is detrimentally regressive and chooses to bear unnecessary social and health costs for its health. You in the USA choose to keep yourself left behind and in the relative developmental dark, down with states such as Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho... :
Really? So, if a woman decides to start a family while having a job, that is a negative thing? What is wrong with you people.....
Of course, no mention of males anywhere. Its always the woman's fault. She gets pregnant and takes maternity leave to be with her child while her man is totally free to return to work and chum it up with people like you around the water cooler.
You guys think its unfair for you to "pay" for a woman's maternity leave...so I say, if you idiots don't feel that father's have responsibility also when it comes to raising a newborn, we can cut his pay...give it to the mother so she can stay at home for 6 months and nurse their newborn.
You idiots always have something negative to say about a woman having children. The language used to describe a woman who becomes pregnant is particularly disgusting. No wonder some of you don't have families.
What kind of perverse world do you live in where spending time with your kids is a burden and working is "fun"?
You'll find out one day.
Though I suppose you won't if you only take jobs that you find burdensome and never have children.
You obviously missed my prior post
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35205232&postcount=303
Sorry bro, but reality agrees with me not you.
But I get it. You hate children. The question then is WTF would you have them? Children are optional, working really isn't.
Really? So, if a woman decides to start a family while having a job, that is a negative thing? What is wrong with you people.....
Of course, no mention of males anywhere. Its always the woman's fault. She gets pregnant and takes maternity leave to be with her child while her man is totally free to return to work and chum it up with people like you around the water cooler.
God, you people still don't get it.
It is YOUR CHOICE to have a kid.
If you are not financially able to have a kid then don't but don't bitch and moan to your politician to get a new entitlement that infringes someone elses rights.
Oh cool, so why don't we just cut the father's pay so he can still go to work and his wife can stay at home and raise their newborn.
So your theory is cut anyone's pay except the female who chose to get pregnant and stop working. Great example of feminist logic.
So your theory is cut anyone's pay except the female who chose to get pregnant and stop working. Great example of feminist logic.
You're right, because Men aren't equally responsible when a woman gets pregnant and reaches the end of her pregnancy which requires her to leave work to give birth and spend time nursing her child.
I didn't say "anyone's" pay. I said the FATHER'S pay. Great job at reading comprehension.
Men are in no way equally responsible for a woman reaching the end of her pregnancy.
That is laughably absurd.
The problem with the argument that government must force mandatory maternity leave for "the overall benefit of society" is the argument is based on a belief that it is always good to have more children.
What society needs is more children with solid backgrounds and the tools necessary to be economic successes in their adult life. By leaving maternity leave to be a benefit offered by an employer, that creates a system where those who have the most resources to provide for the needs of children (aka have good jobs) are incentivised to have children.
If it is mandated policy to give maternity leave, then that incentivises those who can't afford kids to have them.
You know what I meant, stop being such a child.
You're right, because Men aren't equally responsible when a woman gets pregnant and reaches the end of her pregnancy which requires her to leave work to give birth and spend time nursing her child.
I didn't say "anyone's" pay. I said the FATHER'S pay. Great job at reading comprehension.