On May 21, 9:12 pm, "John W." <worthj1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 20, 11:47 pm, Declan Murphy <declan_mur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Personally (other than as an anti-poverty measure for instance), I
> > don't see any point in tax payer funded parental leave. Especially if
> > its not adequately means tested. It doesn't appear to have any
> > statistically significant influence on the long term birth rate or
> > fertility levels. In most cases it seems be just a handout to parents
> > who were intending to have children anyway.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I think a parent has to make certain sacrifices when they have kids
> and there's no social obligation to make those sacrifices (which
> aren't that heinous) any more comfortable at the expense of everyone
> else;

This is a novel opinion John! Every time I speak to a parent,
anywhere, they almost insist that somehow their breeding is some kind
of service I should contribute more of my taxation towards. A smart
country/community would try to attract an influx of educated 20-25
year olds.

> I really don't like the notion of doing things just to make life
> easier when it comes to relatively minor problems; . I do think
> companies should allow their employees to take time off, and I
> personally like the way my company handles this (if nothing else we
> have good benefits). But there's no need for already-strapped-for-cash
> governments to chip in.

I think there is a fair argument for publicly (ie tax based) paid
parental leave. Provided it is means tested and limited to the
equivalent of either the basic or accepted social wage. Mandating that
companies provide paid parental leave is a different issue, and
probably a mistake, and definitely a disincentive to hire.