Sanders - Hit Everybody

[SHOCKvalue]

Currently the leave is considered unpaid even though virtually all employers pay it due to their vacation/sick time/PTO policies.

I think perhaps you have worked for very generous private employers, or have had government employment, if you are of the opinion that a paid maternity leave can be effectively covered by a combo of vacation and PTO. Not attacking you or anything, just saying.

My example...

After graduating college, I've only had one period as someone else's employee, and that was right after graduation for a few years. This was a white collar, mostly office job, at a company for which you would certainly recognize their finished work in Wichita and the region. Not a position anyone could get; I felt really lucky to have the opportunity. Anyways, at this prominent Wichita employer the annual time off consisted of two weeks paid vacation (bump to three weeks at the 15 year mark, nothing further), five days sick leave (not PTO, or personal days, strictly you-damn-well-better-be-sick time), and six paid holidays (the only people who get less would be food service and retail workers). The paid vacation and sick leave expired annually, and could not be rolled over. I think this package is pretty close to the norm in the US job market, and it is a long ways from enabling a paid maternity leave IMO. It basically equated to being able to spend the holidays out-of-state with family, plus a couple of 3-4 day weekends here and there. It was literally depressing.

As an aside, I have zero problem with the concept of just getting more time off through unpaid leave, but most employers aren't cool with that idea.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I think perhaps you have worked for very generous private employers, or have had government employment, if you are of the opinion that a paid maternity leave can be effectively covered by a combo of vacation and PTO. Not attacking you or anything, just saying.

My example...

After graduating college, I've only had one period as someone else's employee, and that was right after graduation for a few years. This was a white collar, mostly office job, at a company for which you would certainly recognize their finished work in Wichita and the region. Not a position anyone could get; I felt really lucky to have the opportunity. Anyways, at this prominent Wichita employer the annual time off consisted of two weeks paid vacation (bump to three weeks at the 15 year mark, nothing further), five days sick leave (not PTO, or personal days, strictly you-damn-well-better-be-sick time), and six paid holidays (the only people who get less would be food service and retail workers). The paid vacation and sick leave expired annually, and could not be rolled over. I think this package is pretty close to the norm in the US job market, and it is a long ways from enabling a paid maternity leave IMO. It basically equated to being able to spend the holidays out-of-state with family, plus a couple of 3-4 day weekends here and there. It was literally depressing.

As an aside, I have zero problem with the concept of just getting more time off through unpaid leave, but most employers aren't cool with that idea.

Since I have been an employer in the area since 2006 it has been a policy of every company I have worked for to pay out Vacation/PTO earned to cover unpaid leave due to FMLA occurences. Whether that be for child birth or Chrons disease to cancer treatments. I cant speak on anything that in place prior. When my daughter was born in 2007 I took 1 week off and it was paid for via my PTO balance. I only took the week because A. I had it to use and B i didnt want to take anymore time as I was the only person who could really do what I did at the company.
Im not sure what you mean by "paid maternity leave can be effectively covered by a combo of vacation and PTO" because up to a point it is - until the employee runs out of vacation time.

With that said there is no law and really no reason for any company be it Spirit or Spangles to do this other than goodwill with their employees.

[SHOCKvalue]

Since I have been an employer in the area since 2006 it has been a policy of every company I have worked for to pay out Vacation/PTO earned to cover unpaid leave due to FMLA occurences. Whether that be for child birth or Chrons disease to cancer treatments. I cant speak on anything that in place prior. When my daughter was born in 2007 I took 1 week off and it was paid for via my PTO balance. I only took the week because A. I had it to use and B i didnt want to take anymore time as I was the only person who could really do what I did at the company.
Im not sure what you mean by "paid maternity leave can be effectively covered by a combo of vacation and PTO" because up to a point it is - until the employee runs out of vacation time.

With that said there is no law and really no reason for any company be it Spirit or Spangles to do this other than goodwill with their employees.

Our timelines in reference to defining maternity leave are different, which I didn't know when I responded. When you were referring to maternity leave I was assuming you were referring to an 8-12 week period, not a week or two. I could be wrong, but I think when most refer to the maternity leave issue they are referencing the former, not the latter.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Our timelines in reference to defining maternity leave are different, which I didn't know when I responded. When you were referring to maternity leave I was assuming you were referring to an 8-12 week period, not a week or two. I could be wrong, but I think when most refer to the maternity leave issue they are referencing the former, not the latter.

I can understand that. Unless someone has that much time saved up (and really nobody within having a child years should) they only have a portion of their leave taken care of.

[Play Angry]

This is sort of shifting gears but since a lot of this thread addresses entitlement more generally, why not.

What do you guys think about the mortgage interest deduction? Entitlement for rich folks and lenders, or still a useful tool for lower-middle class Americans to obtain homeownership?

[SHOCKvalue]

This is sort of shifting gears but since a lot of this thread addresses entitlement more generally, why not.

What do you guys think about the mortgage interest deduction? Entitlement for rich folks and lenders, or still a useful tool for lower-middle class Americans to obtain homeownership?

Almost every deduction is the government either enabling or encouraging human behavior through the tax code. They should ALL be done away with, because the government should not be in the business of human engineering.

Can anyone explain on a logical level why if...

-you have a mortgage
-you have children
-you adopt a child
-you have student loan debt
-etc.

...you should have a lower tax burden than the person who has elected to not make those choices in life?

You can't do it and make a rational argument. I say that as a person who benefits from some of them.

[Kung Wu]

Almost every deduction is the government either enabling or encouraging human behavior through the tax code. They should ALL be done away with, because the government should not be in the business of human engineering.

Can anyone explain on a logical level why if...

-you have a mortgage
-you have children
-you adopt a child
-you have student loan debt
-etc.

...you should have a lower tax burden than the person who has elected to not make those choices in life?

You can't do it and make a rational argument. I say that as a person who benefits from some of them.

I am so overtaxed it's ridiculous, so I will gratefully take any and every deduction I can possibly get my hands on.

[SHOCKvalue]

I am so overtaxed it's ridiculous, so I will gratefully take any and every deduction I can possibly get my hands on.

Sure.. me too. No one is going to decline a tax deduction. The point though is that if all of these silly deductions did not exist, the tax brackets would shift downward substantially. You might end up with the same overall tax burden, but through a greatly simplified tax code, rather than government incentives for your behavior.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Almost every deduction is the government either enabling or encouraging human behavior through the tax code. They should ALL be done away with, because the government should not be in the business of human engineering.

Can anyone explain on a logical level why if...

-you have a mortgage
-you have children
-you adopt a child
-you have student loan debt
-etc.

...you should have a lower tax burden than the person who has elected to not make those choices in life?

You can't do it and make a rational argument. I say that as a person who benefits from some of them.

You say the government should not encourage behavior one way or another. That is a reasonable opinion, although I fail to see how someone who thinks they should encourage behavior at some level is being illogical or unreasonable to think so.

I have no problem if you want ALL incentives taken out of government tax policy. However, I think it is also reasonable for someone to want SOME government incentives by taxes. I think both viewpoints are fair, logical, and reasonable. Reasonable people will disagree on many things, and yet both are still logical and rational. I think you are taking your opinion and declaring it to be the only possible logical conclusion. Some opinions may seem to be the only logical conclusion, but surely this issue is not one of them.

With that said, I think we both agree that there are way TOO MANY incentives currently. I just don’t necessarily agree that the only reasonable option is to reduce incentives to zero.

[SHOCKvalue]

You say the government should not encourage behavior one way or another. That is a reasonable opinion, although I fail to see how someone who thinks they should encourage behavior at some level is being illogical or unreasonable to think so.

I have no problem if you want ALL incentives taken out of government tax policy. However, I think it is also reasonable for someone to want SOME government incentives by taxes. I think both viewpoints are fair, logical, and reasonable. Reasonable people will disagree on many things, and yet both are still logical and rational. I think you are taking your opinion and declaring it to be the only possible logical conclusion. Some opinions may seem to be the only logical conclusion, but surely this issue is not one of them.

With that said, I think we both agree that there are way TOO MANY incentives currently. I just don’t necessarily agree that the only reasonable option is to reduce incentives to zero.

Why should the government be in the business of manipulating the behavior of its citizens?

[CBB_Fan]

This is sort of shifting gears but since a lot of this thread addresses entitlement more generally, why not.

What do you guys think about the mortgage interest deduction? Entitlement for rich folks and lenders, or still a useful tool for lower-middle class Americans to obtain homeownership?

I think the same thing I do about every tax complication. I think it costs too much. The IRS has 89,500 employees. Multiply that by an average salary of $40,000, and you'll see the problem. Every complication to the tax code makes it less efficient, and I need a very good reason to support anything other than a flat tax. This is something that could arguably cost taxpayers hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars a year.

[SHOCKvalue]

I think the same thing I do about every tax complication. I think it costs too much. The IRS has 89,500 employees. Multiply that by an average salary of $40,000, and you'll see the problem. Every complication to the tax code makes it less efficient, and I need a very good reason to support anything other than a flat tax. This is something that could arguably cost taxpayers hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars a year.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if the total benefit package for an IRS employee averaged twice that. The Federal Government compensates its employees handsomely. It is a system immune to checks and balances, or economic market forces. Guaranteed money in; guaranteed money out.

[ShockBand]

Why should the government be in the business of manipulating the behavior of its citizens?

Because that is how the wheels of politics get greased! :very_drunk:

If there weren't crony incentives to pitch, how many lobbyists would be out of work?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Why should the government be in the business of manipulating the behavior of its citizens?

Because that is how the wheels of politics get greased! :very_drunk:

If there weren't crony incentives to pitch, how many lobbyists would be out of work?

Let's leave crony "incentives" aside for the moment. I think we all agree it would be good to get rid of those.

Let's take something as noble as saving for retirement. We would all agree that it is good for society when people save for their future so they aren't a burden on society when they retire. SHOCKvalue, do you think the government allowing people to save a portion of their income pre-tax is unreasonable?

[SHOCKvalue]

Let's leave crony "incentives" aside for the moment. I think we all agree it would be good to get rid of those.

Let's take something as noble as saving for retirement. We would all agree that it is good for society when people save for their future so they aren't a burden on society when they retire. SHOCKvalue, do you think the government allowing people to save a portion of their income pre-tax is unreasonable?

Since it is taxed later, isn't the point you are trying to make kind of moot? The government is merely taxing the income at its point of use.