# Are they freaking insane???



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Just read an article where Hillary wants 12 weeks paid leave for both father and mother.....and, of course, paid for by taxing the wealthy!

To me, this is the time where the dad works a little OT or get a part time job to take care of the mom and his child. It's not the time to be leaching off of someone who has worked their butt off to become wealthy!

What has warped their thinking? They are freaking insane!

(Maybe I should've put this in the 'General Chat')


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Um, did pioneer men take time off?
Nope.
Did cave men quit hunting?
Nope.
Do men serving in the Military get time off?
Nope.

I am a server / bartender.
How's that work? If I stay at home for 3 months, and my income is 2.13 an hour plus tips; how do they pay me??

What if they are not married?
Isn't that discrimination to same sex couples?
Is this only for American's or is it for anyone who can get into the country?
Is there a DNA test preformed to make sure the man getting 12 weeks off is really the dad?
What if you are artificially inseminated? Does the donor dad get 12 weeks?


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um, did pioneer men take time off?
> Nope. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I was up taking a shower after my 2nd and 3rd, before the epidural wore off.

It's priming people to get used to a hand out......IMHO.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

As to warfare, in the Bible it tells where, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, men who had married but hadn't had kids yet were exempted from service.
AND
During Viet Nam, Men who could get married fast enough were put into another regestration that wouldn't be drafted till later than if they had remained unmarried.
There was a anti war preacher that married so many men they got to calling him Marrying Sam, after a preacher in Lil Abner comics.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ok Bill.........


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

FarmboyBill said:


> As to warfare, in the Bible it tells where, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, men who had married but hadn't had kids yet were exempted from service.
> AND
> During Viet Nam, Men who could get married fast enough were put into another regestration that wouldn't be drafted till later than if they had remained unmarried.
> There was a anti war preacher that married so many men they got to calling him Marrying Sam, after a preacher in Lil Abner comics.



Without researching it I'd say they didn't get paid leave, they still had to provide for their wife and children while away from the army.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Another attempt to buy votes by promising freebies like welfare, SS disability, Medicaid, and food stamps.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Actually, what this would do is prevent women of childbearing years from being hired...nobody wants to hire a potential liability. However, likely to go over VERY well with women over 50, resulting in more job openings for the upper age ranges and higher wages.

Mon


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

@ Frogmammy, something along the lines of







with an added qualifier of "If under 50" ? LOL

Actually you may be onto something.... Over 50's remember what Customer Service is, how to help people find what they are looking for, don't have their iDummy attachment stuck to the sides of their face and can have a reasonable discussion using language and not grunts & movements with the odd syllable falling out.

I agree with Nimrod, this is part & parcel of the "Sales Pitch for votes". Seriously consider a business, large or small, having to deal with the staffing issues... It's a LOT of bother and costly for a business, especially more technically oriented or time sensitive/pressured businesses. This would be considered another push on businesses who are already withdrawing to other places around the world... And this isn't even a Union Pushed point either - maybe because they know Joe Corporate won't like it one bit and is already at the max threshold of fed-up.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Is anyone really not aware of what the dark rooms are, or what politics means? Really? Or, do some people just think they're so special that the rule don't apply to them?


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

Well. while the thread is here I am enjoying it. Again I see differences between life in Scandinavia and your side of the pond. I gave birth to my daughter in Denmark 26 years ago and had 6 months paid maternity leave. I would never have dreamed of anyone else looking after her in those most important months of her life. Should I be dependent on a man or husband to be able to stay at home?
Now in Sweden maternity leave is up to two years which can be shared by both parents as they wish. 
We also have 6 weeks paid holiday a year. 
Of course we do not earn as much, and also pay more taxes - but that is just what I am used to.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HappySevenFarm said:


> What has warped their thinking? They are freaking insane!


What has warped their thinking? I think it is probably the fact that USA ranks in 2nd place of the top 5 countries in the world who have the very worst maternity leave policies. I suspect that Hillary wants USA to catch up to all the other more advanced countries that have the best maternity leave policies, much better quality of life and less infant mortality rates because of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/22/maternity-leaves-around-the-world_n_1536120.html

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/best-and-worst-maternity-leave-policies-around-the-world-1.2854349



> More than 160 countries around the world provide some sort of maternity leave for women. This can range anywhere from four weeks to more than 52 weeks and can have women receiving 100 per cent of their wages or not being compensated at all.
> 
> According to the International Labour Organization, maternity leave should be a minimum of 14 weeks and women should be compensated at least 66.7 per cent of their previous earnings. This standard is met by countries all over the world. The majority of them are in Eastern Europe, with an average of 27 weeks leave.
> 
> ...


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Obviously many here are not familiar with FMLA (the Family and Medical Leave of Absence Act), that already permits an employee to take up to 12 weeks of *unpaid* leave per year. This Act is for any employee, whether male or female, to take time off in order to care for a newborn or an immediate family member in need. The Act applies to any employer with more than 50 employees within a 75-mile radius, and it was passed in 1993 *with bipartisan support*. 

A number of states have since passed their own state-level FMLA benefits Acts that lower the threshold for the number of employees an employer has before the benefit kicks in. Vermont, for example, has a state-level FMLA policy that applies to any employer with more than 10 employees for parental leave and 15 employees for family and medical leave.

The only thing Hillary Clinton&#8217;s plan seeks to change is to make the leave *paid instead of unpaid*, up to two-thirds of the employee&#8217;s salary while on that leave. Her plan is to tax the wealthy more to pay for such leaves.

At the time FMLA was enacted in 1993 as now, higher income wage earners were taxed at the average of 39.6%. However, in 1993, the threshold for higher income wage earners was $250,000 (married filing jointly) adjusted gross income. Today, the threshold is $464,850. Obviously, tax rates have gone down for many higher income wage earners.

But those aren&#8217;t &#8220;the wealthy&#8221; Hillary Clinton is talking about taxing. I know it&#8217;s fashionable to moan about taxing the poor wealthy who &#8220;worked their butt off&#8221; to become wealthy, but that&#8217;s not grounded in reality. Most very wealthy people did not work for their wealth. They inherited it, and they continue to &#8220;earn&#8221; it from passive investments. *Those investments are not taxed on a basis anywhere close to what the average working person pays in taxes*. Capital gains taxes in 1993? 28%. Today? The rate is 15%. http://www.cch.com/wbot2012/029CapitalGains.asp 

The inheritance tax rate in 1993 was 55% for an estate with a net value of more than $600,000, meaning only $600,000 could be exempted from estate tax. In 2014 (most recent figures I found), the tax rate was 40% -- and the exempted value of an estate is $5,340,000. http://taxfoundation.org/article/fe...tax-rates-exemptions-and-exclusions-1916-2014. So the tax rate went down by 15%, and the amount that could be exempted entirely from tax has gone up significantly.

All this ignores the structuring of trust instruments that allow very wealthy people to avoid paying tax on inheritance and capital gains *altogether*.

To summarize, &#8220;the wealthy&#8221; pay a whole lot less tax today than they did in 1993, when FMLA was enacted. In my opinion, &#8220;the wealthy&#8221; should be subject to at least the same tax rates as the average working wage earner. They sure aren&#8217;t today. The money available from those increased tax rates would more than offset the cost of allowing people time to care for their newborns and other loved ones in need.

Donald Trump, by contrast, has finally rolled out a plan for women only that would allow just 6 weeks of paid leave to care for a newborn. How very&#8230; Mad Men of him. I guess all those single dads are just out of luck. He plans to offset the cost by &#8220;eliminating unemployment insurance fraud.&#8221; Of course, he offers no specifics on how that is to be done &#8211; not the cost of manning an oversight department, not what constitutes &#8220;unemployment insurance fraud&#8230;&#8221; but we should be used to his lack of specifics about anything by now, I guess.

We don&#8217;t live in &#8220;pioneer days.&#8221; Gone are the days, thankfully, when a woman had to attach a nursing baby to her breast as she worked the fields with her free arm. We are currently the only western civilized wealthy nation in the world that doesn&#8217;t allow parents paid leave time to bond with a newborn or take care of their sick, elderly parents in their time of need. Time to catch up. Hardly &#8220;insane.&#8221;


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Why is it the governments job to tax others to pay me for 12 weeks because I had a child? It is insane when people quit taking care of them selves and depend on the government. What is wrong with dad working by day and mom working by night so that one or the other was with the baby at all times? I had 5 kids and not one of them ever saw a daycare. Very rarely did a grandparent even watch them. I never had what you might say was a high paying job but we made ends meet and never took any welfare of any kind. Even when it came to the birth, having a midwife was cheaper than the insurance deductible so the last 4 she had at home. 

Where has the idea come from that says, 'because I had a baby it's my right to stay at home with it for 12 weeks and others have to pay me to do it?' I'd say if others have to pay for it they should also have a say in wether you jump in the sack or not too!


----------



## reneedarley (Jun 11, 2014)

I chipped in because we have a very different system here. I have never been to the doctors for about 35 years - but I do not worry about my taxes going to pay someone else s medical bills.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Why is it the governments job to tax others to pay me for 12 weeks because I had a child? It is insane when people quit taking care of them selves and depend on the government. What is wrong with dad working by day and mom working by night so that one or the other was with the baby at all times? I had 5 kids and not one of them ever saw a daycare. Very rarely did a grandparent even watch them. I never had what you might say was a high paying job but we made ends meet and never took any welfare of any kind. Even when it came to the birth, having a midwife was cheaper than the insurance deductible so the last 4 she had at home.
> 
> Where has the idea come from that says, 'because I had a baby it's my right to stay at home with it for 12 weeks and others have to pay me to do it?' I'd say if others have to pay for it they should also have a say in wether you jump in the sack or not too!


 Yes, obviously the government exists to ensure that each citizen is treated as poorly as every other, none ever having it better than their parents, just so ultra-wealthy people donât have to pay as much in taxes as the peasantryâ¦ errrâ¦ wage earners do. Further, they should be able to tell us how many kids to have based on our ability to pay and their largesse. I see your reasoning.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I have paid my automobile insurance for 49 years and not had a wreck. Should I have some sort of hissy fit about some poor family that lost their lives in an auto accident? After all, my money went into a fund to pay for something.

Those poor wealthy people, being faced with having to pay taxes. I feel so sorry for them! I'm going right now to start a gofundme page for those poor billionaires to help them pay their taxes. Never mind my needs. I'm just an average Joe, nothing special. Heck, I didn't even cheat my help out of their pay, that's how pitiful I am.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Why is it the governments job to tax others to pay me for 12 weeks because I had a child? It is insane when people quit taking care of them selves and depend on the government. What is wrong with dad working by day and mom working by night so that one or the other was with the baby at all times? I had 5 kids and not one of them ever saw a daycare. Very rarely did a grandparent even watch them. I never had what you might say was a high paying job but we made ends meet and never took any welfare of any kind. Even when it came to the birth, having a midwife was cheaper than the insurance deductible so the last 4 she had at home.
> 
> Where has the idea come from that says, 'because I had a baby it's my right to stay at home with it for 12 weeks and others have to pay me to do it?' I'd say if others have to pay for it they should also have a say in wether you jump in the sack or not too!


I had 3 kids in 4 years.
Ex worked days, I worked nights.
My kids, by the Grace of God NEVER had a babysitter or darkened the daycare door.
After the 3rd child was born, the ex moaned about how broke we were.
So I said "you're the smart one, go to school".
So for 18months, he went to school by day, and I worked at night.
I paid for his college, all the bills (minus 200.00 of the mortgage his GF paid).
I cocktailed in a nightclub, so 2.13 + tips.
I just didn't make enough. I had babies to feed.
I applied for, received and used government ASSISTANCE.
WIC and 250.00 a month in food stamps.

When I applied, my ex had been layed off and refused to get unemployment (cause that's what losers do and he was not going to lower himself to that level). 
He started going to college after I started receiving food stamps. 

I PAID into that system, so I had no problem using it, because I knew it was not going to be a way of life.

He graduated with an Associates degree, got a job paying double what he was making before; they provided health care insurance AND tuition reimbursement. 

I went to the food stamp office and told them the good news, and stop receiving ASSISTANCE.
That was 22 years ago.
I had paid into that system for 8 years prior to receiving assistance and have paid into that system 22 years since. 
So 30 years of paying into the system, receiving 18 months of assistance. Ok......that's not bad.

I went to work 6 weeks after each child.
I nursed, I was home all day, etc.
I didn't miss their first steps, first words, etc.
I didn't live a lavish lifestyle that required me to work 60+ hours to keep up with the jones'.

Why not have a 'savings fund' much like a 401 K but for a "I want to take 6 months off work to have a baby" fund?
You put in a percentage of your pay, and if the employer chooses they can contribute too?

We have enough people sucking us dry.......
So, let's cut off anyone who is not in our country legally; get them off the dole. 
THEN you can have your 6 months paid leave.

Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Omg people!!! Where do I send the bill for the shoes I just bought so I can work? And where do I send the bill for the silverware I just bought so I can eat more easily? Surely the rich ought to be taxed for that too! Those rich people who worked there butt off to become rich should surely have to pay because my 1 1/2 old grandson kindly misplaced them....who knows where?!! Definitely insane! Lol


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

What did you think? You gonna come in ST where we try really hard to get along and avoid conflict and start a post in clear violation of the rules, and just like macdonalds, have it your way? Never mind the OMG'ing, take the politics to the politics board. All you're doing here is trying to stir up crap. It's pretty sad that management set rules and don't enforce them, but you're just in the wrong subforum to do political whining. More than half the ST'ers have seen their own hard times and sympathize with others in the same boat. 

All you've done with this thread is alienate a lot of people who possibly could have viewed you as a pretty good guy.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I think he's a good guy.
Didn't realize you were a mod Clem?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ok, so he was venting it out....it's ok; we're all friends in here.
GC / Politics are full of sharks.....
This is a much friendlier place to have this discussion....
Shesssh.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Clem said:


> I have paid my automobile insurance for 49 years and not had a wreck. Should I have some sort of hissy fit about some poor family that lost their lives in an auto accident? After all, my money went into a fund to pay for something.
> 
> Those poor wealthy people, being faced with having to pay taxes. I feel so sorry for them! I'm going right now to start a gofundme page for those poor billionaires to help them pay their taxes. Never mind my needs. I'm just an average Joe, nothing special. Heck, I didn't even cheat my help out of their pay, that's how pitiful I am.



I don't know how you can compare auto insurance with what we are talking about because everyone would not be paying into the system....just the wealthy would be taxed. What Laura did with getting assistance is the way it should work. She had an exit strategy whereas most will just continually milk the system dry.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Everybody that either makes a dollar(within the system) or spends a dollar is being taxed. Just as everybody that drives a car legally is being insured. You pay taxes. Rich people have had their tax rate lowered continually since the 60's. But, their auto insurance hasn't been lowered. 

Other than rich people not having been coddled by insurance companies, you have everybody paying into both tax and insurance, and only a small percentage reaping the benefits. If you don't see the correlation, that's not my fault. Look inside.

No matter what, political threads are supposed to be in the dark rooms. So, the actual relevant question here is why did you intentionally start a thread in a forum knowing that you were violating the rules? 

More importantly, why has administration allowed political threads in forums where they don't belong, in spite of saying something to the effect of "I want this forum to be about homesteading, not about arguing about politics"


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Clem said:


> What did you think? You gonna come in ST where we try really hard to get along and avoid conflict and start a post in clear violation of the rules, and just like macdonalds, have it your way? Never mind the OMG'ing, take the politics to the politics board. All you're doing here is trying to stir up crap. It's pretty sad that management set rules and don't enforce them, but you're just in the wrong subforum to do political whining. More than half the ST'ers have seen their own hard times and sympathize with others in the same boat.
> 
> All you've done with this thread is alienate a lot of people who possibly could have viewed you as a pretty good guy.



My apologies to everyone here on ST. Wasn't meaning to stir up anything other than some discussion on the topic. As I said, I wasn't sure where to put it but now know this wasn't the right place. Just so happened that this is where I was when I read the article. Again, my apologies. 

And to clear the slate, the OMG's was that I was just having fun...isn't that what we singles need?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

LOLs work better. TRUST ME, I know lol.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Hmmmm.
I guess it's not that big of a deal; Mod's have not shut it down / deleted it.......no matter how many times it's reported.
When ST people talk about things single people do, wonder, see, etc......some people jump all over them with their negativity and unhelpful what not.
When ST people talk about what's going on in the world today that effect single people........some people jump all oer them with their negativity and unhelpful what not.
When ST people.......wait, you get the idea.

No apology needed. I totally got where you were coming from......
Not some red faced lunatic screaming and spitting on the keyboard with gnashing teeth!!


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

What I think it all boils down to is, if you have a child, be responsible for it, don't *expect* others to support you, don't *expect* the "village" to raise it.

Too many "loving" parents who let their 12 year old sleep in a city park "because he wants to". The the public gets to pay for the kid's funeral when he dies in that park.

Mon


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Clem said:


> Everybody that either makes a dollar(within the system) or spends a dollar is being taxed. Just as everybody that drives a car legally is being insured. You pay taxes. Rich people have had their tax rate lowered continually since the 60's. But, their auto insurance hasn't been lowered.
> 
> Other than rich people not having been coddled by insurance companies, you have everybody paying into both tax and insurance, and only a small percentage reaping the benefits. If you don't see the correlation, that's not my fault. Look inside.
> 
> ...



Yes, everyone that owns a car is supposed to have it legally insured therefore everyone is covered. Everyone puts in and the amount they put in varies according to their coverages, age, gender, driving record and state they live in. But this program, to give 12 weeks paid leave to both mom and dad, was to be payed for by taxing the rich alone. So my tax rate should not be affected to pay for it. But the question still persists.... Why should the rich pay more tax(whether they worked to become rich or inherited it makes no difference) to give new parents a 12 week paid vacation? Makes no difference what the tax rate for the rich was last week or 30 yrs ago. We're talking about the here and now of it going up to pay for this. 

As far as the rules go....I never said that I knew the rules. I did say that maybe it should've been in 'general chat'. So now I know, it should've been in the dark rooms.....maybe! Lol

So, maybe the relevant question is: Where did you come up with that that I knew I was violating the rules?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I'm in a dark room right now........is that ok?


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I'm in a dark room right now........is that ok?



Are you searching for the switch or pull string to turn the light on? Lol


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

No way.....


----------



## FarmerJoe (Nov 14, 2009)

> Yes, everyone that owns a car is supposed to have it legally insured therefore everyone is covered. Everyone puts in and the amount they put in varies according to their coverages, age, gender, driving record and state they live in. But this program, to give 12 weeks paid leave to both mom and dad, was to be payed for by taxing the rich alone. So my tax rate should not be affected to pay for it. But the question still persists.... *Why should the rich pay more tax*(whether they worked to become rich or inherited it makes no difference) to give new parents a 12 week paid vacation? Makes no difference what the tax rate for the rich was last week or 30 yrs ago. We're talking about the here and now of it going up to pay for this.


I think the idea is that they pay their fair share, and this is what some of the money will be used for. Yes they will be paying more than they are now. But their rate is lower than poor people. I'm not wealthy. But I have run a business. And with my cheap accountant I see how little you can pay in taxes. If I had billions and a team of accountants... well that is why some wealthy pay no taxes at all.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

FarmerJoe said:


> I think the idea is that they pay their fair share, and this is what some of the money will be used for. Yes they will be paying more than they are now. But their rate is lower than poor people. I'm not wealthy. But I have run a business. And with my cheap accountant I see how little you can pay in taxes. If I had billions and a team of accountants... well that is why some wealthy pay no taxes at all.



I'm all for the rich to pay their fair share. Maybe even a flat tax so tax rates wouldn't rise or fall according to income levels. But I think that would be another topic for the dark rooms....in which I found nothing! Lol
All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right that rich people's taxes go up 1% or 2% or whatever it would be to pay for 12 week paid vacations for new moms and dads. People need to take care of themselves. Frankly, I don't see the rich politicians ever passing that upon themselves unless, of course, it's in the same bill that gives them a raise to cover that additional tax.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Let me know when the Culling of the Old and Sick gets underway. I have plans to put my parents out on the ice floes, because I won't be able to take paid time off to care for them. 

Remember, paid leave is to help folks take care of their families that unexpectedly get ill, too.

Flat taxes unfairly punish the poor, because they have little to no discretionary income. That means they are taxed on every dime they earn, whereas wealthy people can continue to shelter their income in corporations, trusts and investments. But it's complicated, so you probably don't have any interest in learning about how that works.

FMLA leave isn't welfare. It's an acceptance of the world we actually live in, which pretty much requires two people to be away from home working to support their families. FMLA leave enables people to have and care for a family *and then go back to work*. How is this a bad thing?

Consider that I have no children at all, yet I have always paid taxes for schools, to subsidize daycare, SCHIPS, food stamps, actual welfare and no end of other benefits that inure to people with children. I benefit from a well cared for citizenry as much as anyone else, so I don't mind at all. It's about looking after one another as best we can.

If the rich actually paid their fair share, these discussions would be unnecessary.


----------



## FarmerJoe (Nov 14, 2009)

People used to be able to take care of themselves. Used to be that one parent worked and one stayed home and raised the kids... full time. Now with what expenses and wages are, two full time workers can barely pay the bills.
Let's get the salary/cost of living back to where one person can support the family. That would mean that wages would have to go waaayyyy UP!


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Let me know when the Culling of the Old and Sick gets underway. I have plans to put my parents out on the ice floes, because I won't be able to take paid time off to care for them.
> 
> Remember, paid leave is to help folks take care of their families that unexpectedly get ill, too.
> 
> ...



We aren't talking about the old and ill. We are talking about paid leave for both parents of a newborn. If they want to take an unpaid leave, fine with me. Just be prepared for it and don't expect others to pay for it. And good for them for saving up to do just that!

No doubt there need to be changes to the tax laws to insure everyone, rich and poor, pay their fair share. Will it happen in our lifetime or ever? I doubt it considering those who are making the laws. And really, the poor hide income as well. How many people working tip paying jobs report all their cash tips? How many here on HT sell things from their farm like eggs, chickens, pigs, goats, cows or produce and don't report it? No, it won't make a dent in our national debt but that doesn't make it right. But, just as wrong according to the IRS. 

We homeschooled all 5 of our kids and continued to pay all the taxes you did. We never asked or expected anything from the public schools or county. And I don't mind paying either for a lot of the programs you mentioned. What I do mind are those that abuse the programs continually over their lifetime because they know how to work the system. Again, good for Laura who had an exit strategy. She used it the right way. To many are like an old coworker of mine. She told me one day that she was receiving $900 a month in food stamps. She had 4 kids and a husband that was physically able to work but didn't. She went on to tell me that she was going to have to cut back her hours or she'd lose her stamps! Believe me, I expressed my opinion on that one! Lol

Maybe many of the people working where both work outside the home are working to sustain a certain type of lifestyle more so than having to do so to sustain life. I know that when my first 4 kids were younger (8, 6, 4, & 2) and living in Idaho, I was the only one working. We made ends meet but didn't have some things we might've liked to have. Ramen noodles, beans and rice, potatoes and venison goes a long way! Lol I wouldn't trade those days for anything....it was a happy time in my life!


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

If I had been able to get paid time off and not back to work at a month because that's all the PTO I had and they couldn't hold my job I might not have ended up with major surgery for adhesions. Child birth isn't a party for many of us and worry and anxiety plays a part in post partum depression as well. But what does it matter it's only our nation's future.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Raeven said:


> If the rich actually paid their fair share, these discussions would be unnecessary.


Who decides what their fair share is? What is it based on? Ability to pay? Services used? Everyone pays same rate? Income redistribution?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I make 2.13 an hour and get raped in taxes by those who don't even belong in my country.
I pay taxes to schools I not only do not use, but do not believe in.

Let me choose.

Instead of my tax dollars supporting illegal aliens in my country, I want my tax dollars to give the woman who had the baby, 12 weeks off. 
Just the woman who had the baby.
Hopefully in that 12 weeks, if she so chooses, she and her spouse will find a way where she can be a stay at home mom (or at the worst, work part time opposite of his schedule). 
The time you spend with your children is so little and so quick......
You only have a small window of oppotunity to get it right.

I'd pay for that.
That's (hopefully) investing in America's future.

Lord knows no one would ever abuse that system.


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

My Great granddaughter got a month off, unpaid leave when she had her baby--here you are lucky if they hold your job opening for you. her bf works days, she works nights so they can care for their baby--and save to get married and her own place--They are 17--


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Ceresone, that sounds like a couple of kids with good heads on their shoulders!

I don't know, folks. I kinda thought the US was going downhill when I started seeing handicapped reserved parking for the pregnant. 

For those that don't remember, or weren't around at the time, there was a time not that long ago that women being hired would face multiple questions about their plans to have a family, their babysitting arrangements,and the assurance that as soon as they told their employer they were pg, that they'd be fired.

Mon


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*People used to be able to take care of themselves. Used to be that one parent worked and one stayed home and raised the kids... full time. Now with what expenses and wages are, two full time workers can barely pay the bills.*

Some truth to this, but the average person also wants and expects a lot more out of life than they used to. When I grew up in 60's average factory workers, firemen, public employees, teachers, etc. on average incomes were content to live in a small home on a small lot in town, mom stayed home and took care of the house, garden, laundry & kids while dad worked. Many families had just one car, kids played in the back yard and swam in the river, a vacation might have been a few days of camping or staying with relatives at a lake cottage, you had one TV on an antenna, etc.

These young folks I work around buy quarter million dollar homes in the suburbs, mom works and they pay child care and pre-school, half or more meals are bought out, they have two nice cars, kids are in oodles of expensive sports and programs, they have a pool in the back yard, take several expensive vacations every year to a resort, every room has a TV, all family members have i-phones and computers, they pay huge cable, cell phone and internet bills, etc. 

Plenty of room to reign in spending and get back to a more simple life if they wanted to.


*If the rich actually paid their fair share, these discussions would be unnecessary.*

Comments like this rub me wrong. Define rich? Are we talking Warren Buffet, or just anyone that happens to be doing better than you or me?

It's also pretty common knowledge that roughly 45% of Americans pay no income tax, and the upper 20% earners pay approx. 80% of all taxes. The deadbeats that contribute nothing are the problem, not the wealthy.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Fishindude said:


> *People used to be able to take care of themselves. Used to be that one parent worked and one stayed home and raised the kids... full time. Now with what expenses and wages are, two full time workers can barely pay the bills.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You hit the nail on the head. We live in a very materialistic society today. People put their wants before their needs. 

The threshold for the rich according to Raevens earlier post was $464,850 for married filing jointly.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Who decides what their fair share is? What is it based on? Ability to pay? Services used? Everyone pays same rate? Income redistribution?


I think I've been clear that I think the wealthy should pay *at least the same rate as wage earners*. 

For those who are so nostalgic to go back to a simpler time, remember that in the 50s and 60s, the wealthiest citizens in our country paid a top tax rate of 91%. Those are the days you are pining away for. I am not proposing that. But I don't see what is wrong with paying at least the same rate as wage earners. Do you?

http://www.americansfortaxfairness....-booklet/fact-sheet-taxing-wealthy-americans/



Fishindude said:


> *If the rich actually paid their fair share, these discussions would be unnecessary.*
> 
> Comments like this rub me wrong. Define rich? Are we talking Warren Buffet, or just anyone that happens to be doing better than you or me?


I defined what I meant by wealthy in my initial post. It was not as *HappySevenFarm* is representing. I am talking about the top 1% of people in this country. I've shared this before, and I'll share it again, because I don't think people really appreciate how much redistribution of wealth has already occurred in this country:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/ame]



HappySevenFarm said:


> The threshold for the rich according to Raevens earlier post was $464,850 for married filing jointly.


No, it wasn't. I clearly said in my post that I'm not talking about those folks. Please see youtube video above.

Nor do I view taxing the wealthy as a panacea that would solve every problem in our country, but that's another discussion -- none of which belong in Singletree, in my opinion. There is merit to the idea that some younger folks need to adjust their expectations. There is merit to a discussion about endless welfare for those who abuse the welfare system. But FMLA leave is not welfare, and it should not be conflated with welfare, as you and others keep trying to do here.

I absolutely will not grudge a lousy 3-month paid period for parents to stay home and adjust to, care for and make accommodations to a newborn in their household, before returning to work to support their families. Those are my values, and you are entitled to yours, obviously.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Why yes. Yes they are.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Raeven is right that she said the top 1% so I stand corrected.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Im having a problem with Manning getting a sex change with in military jail on tax payers time!


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

In any of my jobs if I was gone 12 weeks I would come back to no job.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Forcast said:


> In any of my jobs if I was gone 12 weeks I would come back to no job.


Which is why the Family Medical Leave Act was put in place in 1993.

"The Act allows eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period to attend to the serious health condition of the employee, parent, spouse or child, or for pregnancy or care of a newborn child, or for adoption or foster care of a child. In order to be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have been at the business at least 12 months, and worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles. The FMLA covers both public- and private-sector employees, but certain categories of employees are excluded, including elected officials and their personal staff members."


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Forcast said:


> In any of my jobs if I was gone 12 weeks I would come back to no job.


At which point you might have gone on welfare and/or unemployment.

The government does not WANT to support everybody who has a child or a sick relative, and so this family leave law was passed. It is better for the worker and better for the government. Because the government would rather you pay taxes to them instead of them supporting you.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

So the FLA allows the UNPAID 12 weeks off.
THAT is a burden enough on the employer, asking him to PAY for those 12 weeks is what is outrageous.

The small business owner has to find someone else to take your place.
Training, uniforms, etc.
Or
The owner has to ask the staff to pick up the work load of the missing employee, or pick it up him/herself causing strain on the staff.

I am ALL FOR the FLA, I think a mother bonding with her child is THE most important thing in the world!! 
BUT there are 2 sides to every coin.

Employees / employers should have a fund that the employee can contribute too and if the employer chooses, they too can contribute funds so that when the employee chooses to use the FLA, they can tap into that account to cover their time off.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So the FLA allows the UNPAID 12 weeks off.
> THAT is a burden enough on the employer, asking him to PAY for those 12 weeks is what is outrageous.


It is called FMLA, Family Medical Leave Act, and they are not asking employers to pay for 12 weeks now, all the OP did was start speculation. Which is why the OP should have put this in politics and not on here.

But, in that same vein if your spouse or child were dying of cancer or any number other things that can kill you would you not want the security of taking the time off to be with them and also know that your job is still going to be there after they have passed on?

Rich


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

RichNC said:


> It is called FMLA, Family Medical Leave Act, and they are not asking employers to pay for 12 weeks now, all the OP did was start speculation. Which is why the OP should have put this in politics and not on here.


The FMLA (sorry fat fingered the the M) does not pay the person taking the leave. It protects them from begin fired for taking a leave.
THE OP read an article saying that Hillary wants to make the employer PAY for the 12 weeks off.

The Mods clearly have no problem with this discussion, if it offends a couple of people they can pass on the topic, not reply to it?



> But, in that same vein if your spouse or child were dying of cancer or any number other things that can kill you would you not want the security of taking the time off to be with them and also know that your job is still going to be there after they have passed on?
> 
> Rich


Yes, hence the rest of my post that you forgot to quote:



> Employees / employers should have a fund that the employee can contribute too and if the employer chooses, they too can contribute funds so that when the employee chooses to use the FLA, they can tap into that account to cover their time off.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

oh so its unpaid? well I would never have been able to put food on the table. Would I have been able to apply and get government help for the 12 weeks cause my employer would never have paid for one week much less 12.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

That's why everyone has to have an Emergency Fund. Most say it should be 2 to 3 months expenses.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

RichNC said:


> It is called FMLA, Family Medical Leave Act, and they are not asking employers to pay for 12 weeks now, all the OP did was start speculation. Which is why the OP should have put this in politics and not on here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I stated in the OP that the paid leave was to be paid for by taxing the wealthy. I didn't say anything about the employers paying anything.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Whelp, I guess we&#8217;d best get busy getting rid of all these maternity leave benefits offered in 18 states, granting parents who are giving birth to or adopting a child *paid* leave from their jobs for periods of usually 3-4 months, depending on the state. These leaves are modeled on Federal FMLA leave, the only difference being they are paid leaves and most are just for women -- although some states do include men, too.

Of course, these benefits have been in place for many years, and they weren&#8217;t a problem until evil Hillary Clinton opted to work toward making them available to everyone in the country.

http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-life/maternity-paternity-leave/maternity-leave-by-state/

Can&#8217;t have anyone getting more benefits than someone who never got them. That would be awful. Not even for &#8220;THE most important job in the world.&#8221;


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> That's why everyone has to have an Emergency Fund. Most say it should be 2 to 3 months expenses.


That's a great idea and everyone should, indeed. I wasn't comfortable until I had a 2-year emergency fund. But yes, 2-3 months is a great start.

Know many people that actually do? Wages have been stagnant in this country since the 70s. People haven't effectively gotten a raise until *just this month* for nearly 40 years. Kind of hard to put by when you can never get ahead.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

But gosh, let's not increase taxes for the ultra-rich so the wage earners can get a little sliver of the pie. That would be "insane."


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Terri said:


> At which point you might have gone on welfare and/or unemployment.
> 
> The government does not WANT to support everybody who has a child or a sick relative, and so this family leave law was passed. It is better for the worker and better for the government. Because the government would rather you pay taxes to them instead of them supporting you.


It might be better for the government and the worker, but it isn't better for the person footing the bill - the business owner. Who is going to do the job of the mother while she is on maternity leave? Hiring a temp is typically more expensive than what the employee makes, plus the temp will likely need training to perform the job. In my past business, I would also have to pay travel expenses as there was no one local that had the certifications necessary to perform the job.

As a small business owner, I would have worked with female employees to give them 2 weeks paid leave IF they performed extra duties prior to taking the time off. More than 2 weeks would really have put me in a bind. Possibly they could come back on a part-time basis for a couple of weeks. 

If this goes into effect, many smaller business will find a way to legally not hire woman between 18 and 40. Or they will find a way to determine if the woman is done having kids. 

This could put a small business out of business. Take a business with 5 people and 2 are women. If just 1 of the woman takes 6 weeks maternity leave, it could easily cost the business $1K - $5K. For many small businesses, they don't have the money. If this passes and applies to all businesses of any size, you will see thousands of businesses shut down rather than go through the hassle.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> It might be better for the government and the worker, but it isn't better for the person footing the bill - the business owner. Who is going to do the job of the mother while she is on maternity leave? Hiring a temp is typically more expensive than what the employee makes, plus the temp will likely need training to perform the job. In my past business, I would also have to pay travel expenses as there was no one local that had the certifications necessary to perform the job.
> 
> As a small business owner, I would have worked with female employees to give them 2 weeks paid leave IF they performed extra duties prior to taking the time off. More than 2 weeks would really have put me in a bind. Possibly they could come back on a part-time basis for a couple of weeks.
> 
> ...


Except you are overlooking the fact that FMLA applies only to employers who employ more than 50 persons within a 75 mile radius. FMLA does not apply to small employers such as you describe. I stated this in my first post, early in my first post, which you apparently didn't read.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I haven't had a raise in 22 years.
In 1994, I went from 1.85 and hour to 2.13 an hour.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Raeven said:


> Except you are overlooking the fact that FMLA applies only to employers who employ more than 50 persons within a 75 mile radius. FMLA does not apply to small employers such as you describe. I stated this in my first post, early in my first post, which you apparently didn't read.


While that is true, I was referring to Trump's new proposal which is what the thread is about.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> While that is true, I was referring to Trump's new proposal which is what the thread is about.



Actually it's about Hillary's proposal although Trumps has been mentioned along the way


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HappySevenFarm said:


> Actually it's about Hillary's proposal although Trumps has been mentioned along the way


Sorry, you are exactly right. Other than that, my post still stands for either Hillary's or Trump's proposals.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

Raeven said:


> That's a great idea and everyone should, indeed. I wasn't comfortable until I had a 2-year emergency fund. But yes, 2-3 months is a great start.
> 
> Know many people that actually do? Wages have been stagnant in this country since the 70s. People haven't effectively gotten a raise until *just this month* for nearly 40 years. Kind of hard to put by when you can never get ahead.."



Stagnant wages, I believe, are just a small part of the problem. It's the lifestyle that people want to lead that causes them to not have an emergency fund and keep themselves mired in debt. Most would just continue to spend any increase they received to further the lifestyle that they believe they are entitled to. If they truly believe they should have an emergency fund they would do what it takes to have one.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

OH OH OH I know this one, I know this one........

Personal Responsibility.


----------



## HappySevenFarm (Jan 21, 2013)

I just had a bad flash back of 'welcome back kotter' lol


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um, did pioneer men take time off?
> Nope.
> Did cave men quit hunting?
> Nope.
> ...


what about the woman, she should do DNA test also to make sure she is the mother. eep:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I think an employer will know if she's the mother or not......the human body kind of gives it away!!


----------

