DoggPickle posted:

We live in a reality where having a baby is A CHOICE.

Toplowtech posted:

Yes, because abortion is legal in all America states and without limits and no-one, especially some of the people against paid mother leaves, is trying to ban it even when rape is involved, right?

Xibanya posted:

I don't know if I would go so far as to say having a kid is a human right (I mean, how many kids? By whom and in what way?) but it seems pretty disgusting to say only rich people should have the great privilege of passing on their precious genes.

Burkion posted:

Well, if you are biologically capable of having a child, then yes, it technically is a human right. Rather, it's a living being's right.

Xibanya posted:

In legal terms it would really difficult to define as a right. After all, I'm biologically capable of murder but I don't consider murder a human right. And if someone has a right to have a child, do they have a right to have two kids? Ten kids? Biologically impossible for me, but a hundred kids?

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

Just because it's a right doesn't mean it can't be subject to regulation, it just means that you have to be very mindful about how it's regulated. I mean, everything in the Bill of Rights is subject to some stipulation (besides the Third Amendment, but obviously that's not going to come up often).

Xibanya posted:

Yeah but this in particular would be difficult to regulate, moreso than the fed gov't won't infringe on free speech or regulations on search and seizure; I'm sure I don't need to explain why.

JT Jag posted:

Gonna get knocked up 20 times so I can get that sweet paid maternity leave

I mean nevermind the actual expenses of raising a child, I wanna get pregnant just to go on paid vacation for a few weeks and I'll do it basically every year

Are you people loving kidding me

DoggPickle posted:

We live in a reality where having a baby is A CHOICE. There is absolutely no doubt that it is a CHOICE. I'm a girl as well, and I've been screwed over by other chicks taking absurd amounts of leave and making me do more work. I accept that as the price of doing business, but I do NOT accept them getting PAID for it while I do their job as well as mine, because they made a conscious choice.

I posted:

There are two main types of tax benefits - credits and deductions. I'll go over two of the most important ones for middle-class Americans.

TAX CREDITS
You have an account with the IRS. Even if the IRS doesn't know how much money you'll owe for the tax year yet, most people pay into their account either by having their employer send the IRS money withheld from their pay OR by sending the IRS some money ahead of time in the form of Estimated Payments. Eventually the IRS finds out how much you should owe. The credits to your account are matched against what you owe. If you paid more in than you owe for that year, you get a refund. If you owe more than you paid in, you have to send the IRS the difference.

Let's say you are claiming a ten-year-old child as your dependent and you are a single parent.
You earn $100k a year, you lucky dog. For the tax year you owe $15,200 in income taxes, and you've paid in $15k already.
You put your kid in day care so that you could work, so you can claim the Child Care Tax Credit. It works like this: if you claim 1 kid you can get a credit of up to $600* on child care expenses. You fill out the form when you do your taxes, so it's as though you paid in $15,600, so you'll get a refund of $400.

To further clarify, the credit is 20% of all spending on child care, capped at $3,000 for one child or $6,000 for 2+ kids. So that's up to $600 for one kid or $1,200 for 2+ kids.

*You get more than $600 per child if your combined household income is less than $45k

TAX DEDUCTIONS
The amount you owe in federal income taxes is calculated based on your income. For a single person with no dependents this is roughly 20% total, the exact number depends on a number of different factors. A deduction reduces your taxable income. That is to say, when you have a deduction, the IRS says "We know you made X, but for the purpose of calculating what you owe, we'll pretend you made (X - deduction)."

Let's say you are claiming a dependent child on your return and you are a single parent. As a benefit, your employer offers a dependent care account, a type of flexible spending account. You can put up to $5k into the account to spend on child care and however much you put in will be deducted from your taxable wages.
You earn $100k per year as in the previous example. Because your taxable wages are now $95k, you owe only $14,000 in income taxes.

The big difference? To take advantage of the credit, you first have to file. You essentially get the advantage of the deduction right away. By the way, you might have noticed that a $600 credit per child is kind of bullshit. The credit has not increased in like 20 years.

EDIT: to answer the above question, no there is not a separate tax credit. The child care tax credit can only be used by one person per child. It can only be used by single parents who work or study full time OR families in which both parents work full time or are full-time students. (In other words, you must pay for child care in order to work/study.)

Just to show you how hilarious IRSs documentation is, here's a flow chart that shows who can claim the credit.



It's simple! (Before you ask, I work for an accounting firm, it's not like I just carry this around for no reason.)

Also be aware that if you plan to use the full $5k of a dependent care account, the amount you can claim on the child care tax credit doesn't stack - so if you have 1 kid, you can only use one (you should use the FSA because it puts more money in your pocket.) If you have 2 kids, since the child care tax credit covers up to $6k of spending on child care, you can use both but the child care tax credit will only get you 20% on $1k, or $200.

I posted:

By the way, those sweet federal tax breaks parents get that all you responsible more deserving people don't get?

Child Tax Credit - A $1k tax credit per child.
Child Care Tax Credit - if all the child's guardians work full time or are full time students and you put your kid in day care (or hire a nanny), you can get a 20% credit of what you spent on day care capped at $3,000 of spending on 1 kid and $6,000 of spending on 2+ kids. So that's a maximum of $600 on one kid or $1,200 on 2+ kids. Bear in mind you will get no more than 20% back on what you already spent on child care and that in order to qualify for the credit, you paid for child care because you could not work otherwise.

So let's see how the money is rolling in!

1 kid and you put them in day care? Here, have $1,600 back.
2 kids and you put them in day care? Here, have $3,200 back.
3 kids in day care? $4,200.

Oh my god, the parents are rolling in the dough.

I live in Austin, TX, so I did some googling to check out child care costs. Per this report (http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=159542) by the "e3 Alliance" (cursory google checking seems to show they are not a terrible institution) the average cost of child care in 2010 was as follows:


Average cost to put your kid in a day care center was $589 per month or $7,068 per year per child.
Average cost to put your kid in a "listed family home" was $326 per month or $3,912 per year per child.
(If you pay someone under the table to care for your kid, naturally it will be cheaper but then you won't be eligible for the credit!)

According to the USDA, if your pre-tax income is less than $60k, the average per-year spending in a two-parent household on a child is about $9k. (Was not able to find this figure specific to Austin, unfortunately.)


Yeah, $1k per kid is pretty weak.

But what about the Earned Income Tax Credit (http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/EITC-Income-Limits,-Maximum-Credit--Amounts-and-Tax-Law-Updates) ?

Let's have a look at this awesome free cash!

The IRS posted:

Last year, the average credit was $2,300.

2014 Tax Year
Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:
$46,997 ($52,427 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$43,756 ($49,186 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$38,511 ($43,941 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$14,590 ($20,020 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children

Tax Year 2014 Maximum Credit:
$6,143 with three or more qualifying children
$5,460 with two qualifying children
$3,305 with one qualifying child
$496 with no qualifying children

So let's say you are married filing jointly and have one kid and your combined household income is a swanky high-rolling $45k. Whoops, no EITC for you!

DoggPickle posted:

Pyroxene Stigma posted:

I live on a coast and don't plan on having children, but I still support robust maternity leave. Actually, it's not that altruistic: I just don't want to work with new moms.

JohnSherman posted:

It's kind of funny to see someone who considers "gently caress you, got mine" to be a legitimate argument.

When I got injured playing footy, should I not have been allowed time off work in order to heal? I mean, I made the choice to participate with full knowledge of the risks.
A few years ago, my father had eye surgery that required him to be out of work for 3 weeks. He might have been able to continue doing his job without the surgery, so do you think it was unfair to his coworkers for him to take that time off?

Do you also oppose paid vacation? I mean, why does that fucker get a paycheck while he's skiing in Colorado?

hallebarrysoetoro posted:

No one should have to pay for anything they don't personally use or see immediate benefit from, because the only thing that matters is yourself.

JohnSherman posted:

It's kind of funny to see someone who considers "gently caress you, got mine" to be a legitimate argument.

When I got injured playing footy, should I not have been allowed time off work in order to heal? I mean, I made the choice to participate with full knowledge of the risks.
A few years ago, my father had eye surgery that required him to be out of work for 3 weeks. He might have been able to continue doing his job without the surgery, so do you think it was unfair to his coworkers for him to take that time off?

Do you also oppose paid vacation? I mean, why does that fucker get a paycheck while he's skiing in Colorado?

hallebarrysoetoro posted:

No one should have to pay for anything they don't personally use or see immediate benefit from, because the only thing that matters is yourself.

DoggPickle posted:

Why should I, personally, want people to get more leave for choosing to have babies when it only effects me negatively? I can't think of any argument that makes any sense to me.

Offler posted:

If you're worried that people will breed like rabbits because the government pays them to have children you can totally relax about that one. Over here in Europe we have downright ridiculous amount of paid leave by U.S. standards, and most of our populations would be shrinking if it wasn't for immigration. Hell, where I live, in Norway, you don't even have to have a job! Our government will literally give unemployed women a lump sum of about 5,000 $ just to poo poo out a kid! And even with all this, we still have tons of assholes who think that we need to close our borders NOW, or we'll be a sharia coutry in 50 years since "Norwegian" (i.e. white) people are barely having babies!

OhYeah posted:

This will probably open up a huge can of worms, but here we go... the problem is not reaching a critical level in other Scandinavian countries, but it sure as hell is in Sweden.

DoggPickle posted:

Someone made a false equivalency about old people. Well those old people payed into Social Security all their lives and would probably have had MORE money in the long-run if they'd just been able to keep it in the first place, but people are idiots- so the government takes a small percentage to make sure they don't all waste it on hookers and blow and end up penniless at 65. Probably a good plan. The fact that it's not funded and maintained correctly and requires a pyramid scheme of more and more babies is irrelevant to the original question.

DoggPickle posted:

Your anecdotes don't make any reasonable sense. If I got hurt playing sports, I'd have to take paid vacation or unpaid leave at the discretion of my boss, and that's how it SHOULD BE. Just because you type all day in someone's employ doesn't make them responsible for your entire freaking life. I'm sorry about your dad, but a grown man should have enough money saved to make it 0-3 weeks (depending on his leftover vacation) to go without pay.

Xoidanor posted:

Go post this in the Scandinavia Politics thread in D&D, I dare you.

DoggPickle posted:

This is so annoying." I'll just generally disagree without actually debating any points, while adding a bit of snarky that the "other guy" is an idiot/jerk". Make your point, or don't be rude just to be rude. I'm not Irish Joe and I was not trolling.

OhYeah posted:

It doesn't affect you negatively, or rather, it shouldn't. Here's how it's done in my country. Someone gets pregnant, they go on maternity leave for minimum of 1.5 years and the employer gets someone with a temporary contract in to fill that position. That's all there is to it. How does that situation affect you negatively? Because you have terrible worker protection laws in the States, it doesn't invalidate the argument for general paid parental leave.

Solice Kirsk posted:

Honestly, I think this is a silly conversation to be having with out universal healthcare. Should probably get that first then worry about the other health issues.

DoggPickle posted:

]I'm not even the bad guy here. I'm not taking it to some crazy extreme. I said, let them have 2-4 weeks off paid (even though it pisses me off), and up to 3 months with guaranteed job security. Don't make me into some straw man republican DUDE who wants to tell chicks what to do with their vaginas. I happen to have one.

quote:

Someone made a false equivalency about old people. Well those old people payed into Social Security all their lives and would probably have had MORE money in the long-run if they'd just been able to keep it in the first place, but people are idiots- so the government takes a small percentage to make sure they don't all waste it on hookers and blow and end up penniless at 65. Probably a good plan. The fact that it's not funded and maintained correctly and requires a pyramid scheme of more and more babies is irrelevant to the original question.

quote:

So tell me - honestly - how does supporting more paid maternity leave actually HELP ME or the planet?

quote:

Why is it "good"? Why would I want that? I think your answers have been mostly really trite and silly. Why would I vote for something that makes my working life harder?

quote:

I think your suggestions that NOT doing it is making women have to choose between being moms or working is ridiculous. You can be a mom AND work. Everyone I know does.

quote:

After the horrifying physical effects have worn off, why the hell should they get to stay home and get paid while the other people in the office (or whatever) cover for their lazy asses?

quote:

That is in effect, perpetuating the stereotype that women need to stay home with their babies. It's doing the exact opposite of what you're saying. It's keeping moms HOME instead of at work.

quote:

Frankly, kids need more time away from their stupid helicopter parents these days anyways. (sorry got a little Off-topic, but even my own friends piss me off now. Let the kid BE ALONE for two seconds, JESUS)

DoggPickle posted:

That sounds like a pretty decent system, but then you have a bunch of people who only get 18 months of a job at a time? Who are those people? Fresh out of College or younger people? What do they do when their 18 months is up? And how much of that time is spent teaching this new person how to do the job properly? I completely get what you're saying, and it sounds reasonable until I think about all theses random temporary hires flowing in and out of my office, and the much higher expenses for my employer, which would generally mean that I get paid less.

P.S. A year and half! Holey moley, that is a lot.

DoggPickle posted:

That sounds like a pretty decent system, but then you have a bunch of people who only get 18 months of a job at a time? Who are those people? Fresh out of College or younger people? What do they do when their 18 months is up? And how much of that time is spent teaching this new person how to do the job properly? I completely get what you're saying, and it sounds reasonable until I think about all theses random temporary hires flowing in and out of my office, and the much higher expenses for my employer, which would generally mean that I get paid less.

P.S. A year and half! Holey moley, that is a lot.

hallebarrysoetoro posted:

We're trying to get some help toward sensible policy toward work and parenthood and we can't even get the people who poo poo out several pounds of human to have any paid leave. While it'd sure be nice to include maternity and paternity leave you have to start somewhere. A ditch isn't going to get dug by handwringing.

DoggPickle posted:

Your anecdotes don't make any reasonable sense. If I got hurt playing sports, I'd have to take paid vacation or unpaid leave at the discretion of my boss, and that's how it SHOULD BE. Just because you type all day in someone's employ doesn't make them responsible for your entire freaking life. I'm sorry about your dad, but a grown man should have enough money saved to make it 0-3 weeks (depending on his leftover vacation) to go without pay. Beyond that, like a major illness - you can try for disability?

Paid vacation is part of your employment package. It's factored into your pay. I think you are missing something.

I'm not even the bad guy here. I'm not taking it to some crazy extreme. I said, let them have 2-4 weeks off paid (even though it pisses me off), and up to 3 months with guaranteed job security. Don't make me into some straw man republican DUDE who wants to tell chicks what to do with their vaginas. I happen to have one.

Someone made a false equivalency about old people. Well those old people payed into Social Security all their lives and would probably have had MORE money in the long-run if they'd just been able to keep it in the first place, but people are idiots- so the government takes a small percentage to make sure they don't all waste it on hookers and blow and end up penniless at 65. Probably a good plan. The fact that it's not funded and maintained correctly and requires a pyramid scheme of more and more babies is irrelevant to the original question.

My one mistake was forgetting about those few states where having a baby is NOT a choice. That's not my fault. That's those stupid rednecks' fault. Paying for contraception is a million times cheaper than paying for unwanted babies by the way, and I'm happy to do it, because I believe in a woman's right to choose, and being legally forced to carry a baby you don't want is basically a horrifying nightmare scenario. At some point though, you gotta think "Get the hell out of that idiot state and stop voting for those idiot men, or you deserve what you get". (does not apply to minors). There is an exception to every rule, but 99% of women can take birth control that is 99% effective. And in 9/10ths of the civilized world, you can still fix a mistake after that. That makes it a "choice".

So tell me - honestly - how does supporting more paid maternity leave actually HELP ME or the planet? Why is it "good"? Why would I want that? I think your answers have been mostly really trite and silly. Why would I vote for something that makes my working life harder? I think your suggestions that NOT doing it is making women have to choose between being moms or working is ridiculous. You can be a mom AND work. Everyone I know does. After the horrifying physical effects have worn off, why the hell should they get to stay home and get paid while the other people in the office (or whatever) cover for their lazy asses? That is in effect, perpetuating the stereotype that women need to stay home with their babies. It's doing the exact opposite of what you're saying. It's keeping moms HOME instead of at work.

Frankly, kids need more time away from their stupid helicopter parents these days anyways. (sorry got a little Off-topic, but even my own friends piss me off now. Let the kid BE ALONE for two seconds, JESUS)

OhYeah posted:

I'm wondering the same thing myself, but companies always seem to find competent people on temporary contracts. Some of them just want to change jobs, so they welcome a temporary position until they find something permanent or decide what they want to do. Sometimes mothers don't want to come back and the temporary employee just stays on longer.

DoggPickle posted:

Apparently there is a "norm" here now, and if you disagree, you are a troll, unless you cite your sources like some kind of wikipedia-bot. I'll stick to making fun of Japanese Mascots from now on.