- 4 weeks paid holiday
- 4 months unpaid parental leave, 14 weeks paid for the mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_labour_law is the best overview I can find.
In IT 26-28 days are common.
Like, there are insurances and government assistance programs that businesses use to pay for things like parental leave.
US businesses get no such help. So what is often attributed to US business greed is actually political greed, while businesses are just casualties.
The reason, I believe, is that there are random checks by the health service to ensure people on sick leave are actually sick. But if you only take a day off due to a headache, by the time it gets registered and checked you could have already got better - so your claim is hard to verify.*
A dishonest employer could easily defraud the system by claiming a lot of individual, unverifiable "sick days" and getting the state to pay for a nice chunk of his payroll expenses.
By contrast, an employer gets alerted sooner of an absence and is in a much better position to guess whether an employee claiming fake sicknesses. In case of suspicion they're legally allowed (at a small fee) to have a physician check on their employee from day 1.
* now that I think about it, with everybody having a camera phone nowadays, this might eventually be solved - a video call might not be enough for a diagnosis, but it can probably tell "yep you're sick" with a reasonable degree of confidence?
>Like, there are insurances and government assistance programs that businesses use to pay for things like parental leave.
>US businesses get no such help. So what is often attributed to US business greed is actually political greed, while businesses are just casualties.
It really depends what are we talking about. In case of paid holiday leave (for example in Poland) everyone in normal employment gets at least 2 uninterrupted weeks by law. However even in my very first job many years ago I got 4 weeks total paid leave. All the pay gets paid by the employer.
However, there are things like maternity leave that can take a year. It is unreasonable to expect an employer (perhaps a small business) to pay an employee for a year of maternity leave. So during this time one is entitled to 80% of their pay, but it is paid not by the employer, but the national insurance. The actual amount taken by people varies. It can be split between parents, voluntary given up etc.
Then there is sick leave. If I remember correctly the usual thing was for the employer to pay for few initial days, the rest was paid for by the local equivalent of national insurance.
(so far, i have the impression that austria is similar to germany, and the netherlands has better termination protection (like you pretty much can't terminate someone at all without reason))
That is just crazy.... I would hate to be a chidless person in your country, I can not image the extra amount of work that get places on people that do not have children...
As someone that will never have a child I like the fact that the US does not force this kind of parental leave on employers, I know that will be very unpopular hot take
Companies are not charities created to employ people.
So sure if only 1 person is off on leave most likely another person could be hired
But 5 years of protected leave..... What percentage of the work force is going to be out on that? Also since it is very hard to terminate someone in the EU, what happens to the employees that are "filling" the positions of those people out on 5 years of leave? can they be terminate or do you have to keep them employed even after the original employee returns?
If you can be terminated would you take a job knowing the second the parent returns you will be terminated
Parental leave should be measured in weeks, not years. If you want to be a stay at home parent for years, leave the work force and then return...,.
The actual leave time is typically around a year. Which is roughly where you can give children over without them crying. But yeah the workload of that parent will have to be picked up by additional staff
Also in the system I work under, all employees pay a government tax that is used to pay for the parental leave. That is, the money isn't coming out of the companies pocket, but coming out of a national bucket designated for the purpose. The company pays nothing when the employee is taking this time.
And long parental leaves are just normal and common in some countries. A medium to large company has no issues dealing with them. It’s part of the management work to deal with that.
Moreover it’s better for a company that their employees don’t leave.
And employees aren't charities required to do things unpaid because there isn't the budget.
It works both ways
I have no kids, don't plan on having any but it's kind of crazy how 'hail corporate' some cultures are. We're humans after all. Let people spend some time with their newborns instead of forcing them to make more money for somebody 3 weeks after giving birth.
And employees are not charities for their employers! If you can't afford the staff needed for a given task, perhaps you should pivot to something else.
How is paying employees to sit at home not working anything other than charity/
I live a very frugle life, my expenses are low, I have no kids, I dont take expensive vacations, drive a fancy car, etc...
So should that mean I do not get time off, or high raises, etc simply because my "needs" are not the same as a co-worker?
Why should a co-workers personal life choices (i.e the choice to have 1 or more children) be a factor in the terms of their employment?
I think employment policies should be agnostic to the personal life choices and situations of employee's infact the employer should not even know if you have kids or not, let alone provide you with "extra" because you do
Sounds like you would support a policy of income based on your personal expenses. Should the programmer with 5 kids make more than the programmer with no kids simply because the programmer with kids has more expenses?
The programmer with 5 kids does make more than the one with no kids because he pays fewer income taxes. So the answer to your question is yes: it's how it already works.
First time in Europe? That's pretty much a given here, more kids = bigger tax break = more netto pay.
They are not sitting at home doing nothing, they are raising children. Helping them to do that is companies' share of investment into the workforce of tomorrow. Your utilitarian "fair" worldview doesn't account for the fact that having kids is insanely profitable to the economy.
Its the workforce who votes for those laws. The workforce in Europe are not propagandized fools to the extent that they vote against their interests.
slavery ended thousands years ago
And is for things like this that sociopaths shouldn't make laws
Rising tides and boats comes to mind.
I do not plain on retiring, and if I did I do not expect government social security (I am in the US) will be there to fund it so I do have a private retirement account that currently the US Monetary policy and government regulations/spending is doing its level best to destroy
Personal I am supporter of the Henry George Single Tax model to fund society instead of income based taxation
Progressive taxation is our most effective tool for ensuring that a few people don't end up owning everything. For those of us who end up wealthier than the rest it's the price you pay for society providing you with a healthy, educated workforce, currency, roads etc.
In fact history shows that government is generally pretty poor at providing any of those things
To me the obvious flaw in this type of society has always been that it provides no guard against the concentration of wealth and by proxy power. It works with a theoretical amorphous blob of people who have no ties to location and an infinite supply of land and resources. In reality the populace would quickly become slaves, with the only interest of the organisations in control of their food, shelter, and transport being the extraction of ever larger sums of money.
I'm honestly not sure how someone could look at the state of the corporate world and say "I wish these guys controlled more of my life". We've already seen this type of rent seeking become prominent in digital media and it hasn't improved anything for the populace.
The profit motive is functional enough for things that aren't necessities but we know exactly what happens when a profit driven entity has a near or local monopoly on something necessary for life. Look to the early railroads and company towns as an example.
> In fact history shows that government is generally pretty poor at providing any of those things
That's a bold claim without any proof. I'd argue the opposite. The vast majority of the population is now both numerate and literate and most countries have a usable road and rail network that's accessible to everyone. Beyond that government programs have been responsible for the eradication of multiple diseases.
And who does history shows as being better at it?
Don't invent stuff to make an argument. Wage slavery is what happens in the 'free market'. The very invention of wage slavery was to make conditions of slavery happen after slavery was abolished so that former slaveowners wouldnt go bankrupt. It was implemented in post civil war US, then it was copied by Brazilian slaveowners when slavery was abolished in Brazil.
How could income based taxation be theft unless we're considering all profit theft? Either it's immoral for someone with power over you to demand part of the value you produce or it isn't.
These are choices I make in a free(ish) market. Companies offer their goods, I choose to buy or not
Similar with labor, I go to the market offer my knowledge and labor for a Wage, if I set my price to high companies will refuse to hire me, if I set my price to low I am missing out on profit.
Income Taxation is in no way voluntary exchange like that, the government with the full authority to initiate violence injects itself with a demand that for every hour of labor I sell I must provide the government with a 10-40% cut of not only my profit from the sell but the gross transaction price. They do so under the threat of violence (aka imprisonment) if I refuse their order.
The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life...The government does not, indeed, waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
Take a weekend off and calculate how much 'fees' you would have to pay for 'private defense services', infrastructure, judiciary, police and all the other things if they were made private.
> The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life
What religious delirium.
> But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The dastarty act of providing military, police, firefighting, law, justice, social services - all the things that make you live in a modern society instead of living in the former late feudal society where you wouldn't even have the social rank in order to be able to talk against your feudal lord in public like this.
There is no magical, divine, extraterrestrial or supernatural force that provides this modern society that you live in, and all the rights and freedoms that you have in that society. We, the people, have managed to make that happen through the mechanisms we invented. And one of those mechanisms is the state that is owned by its people.
This assumes alot of things, like that I reject all forms of taxation which I dont just income based. You know this because you already replied to a comment where I layout my preferred public finance model which you also ignored in that comment in favor of a semantic logical fallacy debate. so i question if you actually want to have an honest conversation
Also it assumes that the cost to private those services would be the exact same under a more private / direct model then our current system (for which my point of view would the the US model). I find that highly suspect and the few times were we have direct attempts at it has proven the current US model has inherent fraud, corruption, and waste that often raises the cost of providing these services by 2x or more.
>What religious delirium.
That is a bit of projection there. Like an adherent to a theocratic religion proclaiming Atheism is a religion. If anything Statism is more akin to a religion than being anti-state or libertarian.
Individualism is about the rejection of a "higher power", in your case this higher power is "the state" having replaced a god or gods
>ll the things that make you live in a modern society instead of living in the former late feudal society
False dilemma fallacy, as if the only option is a extreme over bearing high taxation state or feudalism...
> force that provides this modern society that you live in
Modern society was build by voluntary exchange of free individuals, not government.
> all the rights and freedoms that you have
neither rights nor freedom is provided by government, the entire US model of government is build on the fact that freedoms and rights need to be protected FROM government, the US Constitution is document to ensure government does not infringe upon the people as our founder knew that a government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.
Government is to be subservient to the people, not a master of them. At all times the people need to be suspect of government power, and keep very tight control upon it.
If non-income based taxation worked, societies would be using it. Every single form of taxation was tried throughout history. This is the one that works.
> That is a bit of projection there.
No. The ones who BELIEVE that things will 'just' be 'okay' if they just leave things to 'the market' are repeating the Christianity's format of faith. That there is a 'good god' that will just make everything 'okay'. That's why it is faith.
> Individualism is about the rejection of a "higher power", in your case this higher power is "the state" having replaced a god or gods
Organized, well equipped and trained authoritarian forces do not give zit about the rejection of their authority by the individual people. The moment you lose the guarantor of your freedom and rights - the democratically owned and controlled society - is the moment you are a subject of the strongest armed bunch nearby.
> Modern society was build by voluntary exchange of free individuals, not government.
The modern society was built by literally the organized French Revolutionaries deposing the aristocracy, making everyone equal and creating a social and legal system that ensured that. There hasn't been any 'voluntary exchange' of power on the side of armed, organized minority tyrants.
Neither the society was formed in American Wild West, where if you were upset with your local environment, you could just kill some more Indians and steal their land and prop yourself up on the stolen land in the most libertarian fashion.
Such philosophy is great while there is free land to take. The moment the free land runs out, things change. Just like how it happened at the end of 19th century in the US.
> the entire US model of government is build on the fact that freedoms and rights need to be protected FROM government
Yes. And that's why the US is in knee-deep sh*t. Becaue large slaveowners who had gigantic amount of land, wanted to protect their land from redistribution just like how it was done to the deposed English nobility. Hence you got 'checks and balances' to prevent the democratic majority from asserting their will, with an openly declared intention by the architect of your constitution, John Adams, that the 'opulent' (rich) must be protected from the 'tyranny of the majority' (the people).
And as a result, you are killing your people when they cant pay for healthcare, 42 million working families are suffering hunger, you are still paying the $4 trillion Iraqi war debt that you accrued for the privilege of murdering 1 million Iraqis, and your infrastructure is failing.
But hey - the rich are far richer. So that is 'okay'.
They do, very successfully and most of the government services you and others have aurgued with me about income tax providing are not infact provided for by income taxes in the US. Roads, Schools, Police, Fire, etc almost none of that is funded by Income Taxes, it is funded by Property Taxes, Sales Taxes,and excise taxes.
In the US income Taxation is used for 4 main things. Social programs, National Defense, Science (Nasa, etc) and Administration / regulation
>the democratically owned and controlled society
Ahh the religion of democracy. also known as 2 wolves and a lamb voting for what they will have for dinner. This idea that democracy "provides" rights is laughable for anyone that understands anything about history which clearly you do not
>you are still paying the $4 trillion Iraqi war debt that you accrued for the privilege of murdering 1 million Iraqis, and your infrastructure is failing.
It si very ironic that you defend income based taxation, most likely because your socialist mind believes that is the way to "eat the rich" never realizing that income based taxation is the fuel for the engine of the war machine, and absent income based taxation the government would not have the ability to use the war machine in that manner. You are defending the very tool they use to murder people but you are soo blinded by your jealousy of the rich you believe would get ahead under a non-income based system you fail to understand that the rich WANT an income based system of taxation, that income based taxation is regressive (not progressive like proponents of the so called progressive income tax claim), and that a single tax system could be used to create universal income, and would actually help reduce income inequality
Smash the State, Eat the Rich[1]. The freed market, without all the distortions and giveaways by the state such as price and wage controls, licensing and safety requirements, limited liability, costly regulation, capitalization requirements, quantitative easing, financial regulation, zoning requirements, protectionist trade policy, intellectual property laws, and various other barriers to entry all promote centralization and cartelization, is truly an equalizing force
US police is not an example of anything. They are literally fining people to fill their quotas to support the budget, leave aside their murderous practices. American schools neither are - the quality of American education has gone downhill since state-subsidized education was done for. Your roads are literally disintegrating, brigdges are falling down as people drive on it.
No. Those schemes just do not work. They never worked in history for any society, and they don't seem like working in the US.
> Ahh the religion of democracy. also known as 2 wolves and a lamb voting for what they will have for dinner.
That's your endemic American problem thanks to your two party system due to FPTP and your anti-government indoctrination. Government and democracy pretty much work well anywhere else in the world.
> the rich WANT an income based system of taxation
The rich don't want any taxation. The rich want the late 19th century environment in which they could just buy and own anything. The only way that they were reined in was after T. Roosevelt brought all those pesky antitrust regulations and FDR piled up the taxes and social programs. Otherwise it was a Dickensian world.
> is truly an equalizing force
The free market handed over ENTIRE US to ~12 robber barons to own when it was as free as possible in the late 1800s.
Randian 'free cities' and environments ended up in hellholes.
https://www.gawker.com/ayn-rands-capitalist-paradise-is-now-...
The decline of central state allowed local feudal lords to rise and own everything and everyone toward the end of Roman empire.
Chinese history is full of examples repeating the same, the 'free' market giving way to warlords who stomped down people like you when they had the chance.
We have been there, done that. And yet here you are, still PREACHING the same thing from a country that KILLS its people if they cant pay for healthcare.
That's why it is called a belief, a religion. For there isn't anything other than your faith backing it.
If I don't support these things, or wish to take away their funding due to my displeasure with the service received I could do that if they were private. I cannot do that when every year the government puts a gun to my head and tells me to pay them 30% of my gross.
You've fallen into the classic socialist false dichotomy. Either you support taxes or you will be a serf.
The truth is taxes are the payment you're giving your lord (the government). You don't even own your own property. Try not paying your property tax (maybe it's too expensive?) and they take it away. Try not paying your taxes and they will start to take everything you own. This is the definition of theft. Coercing someone to part with their property through threats of violence.
All taxes are evil. A good compromise is the ability to take 5 extra minutes on my 1040 to put percentages where I want my money to go. I dont care if this overcomplicates the situation. We take in trillions in taxes a year and yet the only people who seem to benefit are the Nancy Pelosis. Somehow despite being a public servant is worth more than many top-tier entertainers. If I could put most of my money into school, hospitals, firefighters, and EMTs I would. Why would I fund police who drive around in veritable APCs treating every honest hard working American as a potential "insurgent" in their own land? Why are my tax dollars being shipped overseas to Ukraine when there's uncountable suffering here? Because we don't control it, our money is stolen, and the ill gotten gains are used to do whatever the kings and queens in congress decide. We are serfs, they've just managed to hide it.
Ask yourself do you feel good about where your taxes go?
>What religious delirium.
Like all socialists, you are the delirious one. It's just socialist indoctrination has better tasting koolaid with less assumption of responsibility.
Yeah, you could just 'take away its funding' and just do away with the military in a private environment. Which brings us to...
> Like all socialists, you are the delirious one
...the delirium of thinking that you would be able to keep your freedom and agency at the moment which you lose that socially-funded, democratically controlled military after you take its funding away in a private market environment. Which will make you immediately a subject of the richest man who did not take away the funding of the military outfit he supports.
> All taxes are evil.
The people from the country that kills its people when they cant pay for healthcare is telling us that all taxes are evil, even as their very infrastructure collapses.
THAT is delirium. Nothing else.
Only in the ultra far right US. Where everything works so perfectly because of that belief.
https://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-infrastructure...
Most of the other replies to this point are not really that helpful. The actual economic point is that since income taxes apply to /everyone/, they do not make you in particular less rich, because your relative amount of money is maintained. In fact, they're one of the main things making the currency valuable by providing demand for it, so you could say they're what make you rich.
VATs are more effective taxes at collecting revenue though, which is why most European countries use them, but only land value taxes avoid deadweight loss. Thanks Henry George.
Housing has increased so much in cost that I wouldn't be surprised that just having housing back to 1980s price levels would give most families enough breathing room with just unpaid leave.
but how about universal basic income instead?
BUT as society gets more and more wealthy, I'll bet that living on the fringes of it will be more and more viable
We're already at a point where you can work minimum wage for an hour (take home ~$7) and buy a few days' worth of subsistence-quality food if you have access to a kitchen. You can pare down your other living expenses too, and suddenly you have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle that only costs a few hundred bucks a month.
Right now we stigmatize "van dwellers" and couch surfers, but maybe that'll change in the future
But this video explains it well, people would still work, just not for a living.
It'd be far more desirable to return to situations where most of the budget is spent on luxury and only a little is spent on any kind of milestone, but that's a campaign most politicians aren't winning votes with.
Ironically politicians "stepping in" is the biggest reason cost of living is going up. Regulations preventing new housing, limiting new housing, etc. Monetary policies and massive debt fueled spending spree's causing massive inflation, draconian lock downs disrupting supply chains, irresponsible "climate" policies preventing farmers from growing food affordably, the 100's of other ways "politicians stepping in " to "solve" a problem in the process making everyone worse off
Neither bad regulations nor the free market are going to solve a lack of foresight. Worse, those regulations are largely devised by politicians in power voted by a majority of homeowners and a few ultra rich lobbyists. You might as well make a "always has been" meme out of it.
Same goes for every other of your points. If free market capitalism would solve it, it already would have.
For example you decry the " inefficient space usage " of modern housing, and suburbs, however many people clearly prefer to have single family structures on plots of land over living in densely populated area's
I am one of those people, I would never choose to voluntary live in a dense city like NYC or even LA
I can think of nothing more nightmarish then living in a multistory apartment building. I lived in a 3 story building once, and got out of there as fast as I possibly could. Today I live in a typical suburban neighborhood, with homes on 1/2 to 3/4 acre lots and about 40-100 foot separation between home even that is far too tightly packed for me, and would prefer even greater separation.
Governments attempt to control sprawl and force more density is in part what is driving the massive increase in cost for Single Family homes.
So it is not a correct statement to proclaim the free market is not solving problems, it is that people that guide the market reject your proposed problems and the solutions you desire for the problems, in that rejection the only way to do it is to impose government regulations by force.
The closest I can think of is Tokyo, where the zoning laws are basically set by the national government. In the USA, the local landed gentry can easily block any new development/increase in density, which is a big part of the reason we have so much sprawl*. In Japan, all you can do is shake your fist and write an angry letter to your congressman while developers throw up a 4 story apartment complex next door.
The result is that you can get a job as a janitor in the heart of downtown, and comfortably afford an apartment nearby. A tiny apartment within 10 minutes, or a larger and more spacious one 20-30 minutes away, or a house if you're willing to put up with a 90 minute commute.
* Yes, I know that a lot of the sprawl comes from people wanting houses, but a lot of people just want a place to live close to their job, where they can change out their sink or repaint their walls without asking some rich prick for permission
but look at any city with a growing population.
vienna for example is growing rapidly in the last two decades, after a slow decline of its population for almost a century, and it's interesting how the city addresses that growth with sufficiently dense housing. a whole new suburb is being built on a green field (literally) for 25,000 people and 20,000 jobs (not a bedroom community where everyone is commuting into the city), and that addresses only a fraction of the growth so elsewhere the city must be growing in density too.
why is that? bad neighbors?
maybe the problem is our culture of selfishness and lack of tolerance and respect? (and by that i mean your neighbors that are causing you trouble, not asking you to tolerate that trouble)
i have lived in multi story buildings all my life in different countries. and never had issues with neighbors. i hardly ever see them. really, the only difference between an apartment and a single family house to me was access to a garden. and in a single family house i have to deal with neighbors too. so i really don't understand what your problem is there.
people have preferences. sure. my preference is to live close to shopping and culture, and my friends, and access to public transport without needing a car to go anywhere.
if i wanted to get away from neighbors i would move to the countryside where the next neighbor is a mile away. but that is no longer a city. suburban life to me is the worst of both worlds. (and i have lived that too, so i speak from experience on both)
the reason the free market does not solve problems is that the free market is not fair. in a free market the strong have an advantage at the expense of the weak.
slums are caused by a free market. to eliminate poverty, intervention is necessary. if an intervention fails then that's because maybe it is the wrong kind of intervention. and with that we are at the problem of figuring out how to make life better for everyone, which is a question of education, the will to make things better for others, and again respect and tolerance and giving everyone a voice, aka democracy.
Of course, the kinds of apartment buildings allowed in the US aren't that good either, since few cities allow single-stair buildings like Europe does.
Sprawl is a government invention, as is suburbia. Residential zoning isn't a natural concept and didn't exist before post-WW2.
There are better solutions (teaching individuals to be more financially responsible and kicking overly rich capitalists to the curb, for one) but that's preaching to the choir.
It's called society.
as for schools, to the extent I support their funding (which is more limited than I suspect you do) it is generally ethically justified because I too attended schools paid for by taxation, so in that manner I paying off a debt vs paying for others. Granted it is a debt I did not consent to, and had no option to opt out of but still there is that ethical foundation
None of that exist for what we are talking about here
and I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
As is quite common in the US, my fire services (as well as part of education costs--the state also contributes) are paid for out of my quarterly property taxes and my town budget is right up on the website to look at. So it's not really obfuscated. And I don't really want to get 20 different bills from my town rather than a quarterly property tax (and water) bill.
That would have to be mandatory service though (remember, fireman can perform inspections, fine people etc. - they're not there just for fighting fires), at which point it's just simpler to pay for that through taxes.
The problem is that then some people opt out. If enough people do that, it's no longer financially viable to have a fire service.
> I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"
Which is fine, but then don't live in the society. As a society, we have decided what is important for the benefit of the society; fire departments, law enforcement, schools, roads, etc. We then attempt to gather money from everyone in that society to pay for those things, because that's the only way it's realistic. Not everyone in the society agrees to all the details, but (in theory) the majority of people agree to them.
It's not all that different than living in an apartment with a few other people. If most of the people agree that everyone has to split the electricity bill, but one person says they don't want to... then it's reasonable to have that person leave, and replace them with someone that is ok with the rules set by the group.
Aside from the fact that since most homes are covered by a mortgage and mortgage companies would require that as a condition of a loan, no where did I really say to make it optional. I simply said I wanted an itmized bill for the service
I am required to have water service turned on as part of occupancy, I can not turn off the water service to home even if I wanted to live completely on bottled water, it would be against local ordinances. I am required to pay that bill monthly, if I turn it off I would get fined by the city, and at some point they would take my home
I am also required to mow my grass, and other such things, I fail to see why fire services would be any different.
>It's not all that different than living in an apartment with a few other people.
You are correct on that front, I despise apartment living and I also despise HOA which is why I took great care to avoid both in my life.
If star link or a competitor proves to be very successful and gets to be cost effective then Rural living may even be in the cards for me, one the only reasons I moved to where I did was because of the availability of high speed fiber optic service.
The very definition of a sociopath.
Which the vast majority of America doesn’t do either.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people paying taxes for school have actually enjoyed the benefit of free schooling. It can be helpful to think of things that way... (another example: people complaining about kids being loud in planes, restaurants, etc - remember that you were that kid once too).
A company (an employer) rents the time and skills of employees for a particular task. It's not a pool of work that employees must struggle to achieve regardless of circumstances - it's the employer's responsibility to hire enough staff.
For example, my paternity leave (20 days or 40 half days) would not impact my colleagues. Some of them can opt into overtime, but the same labor laws also define how overtime works - as an employer, you can't order someone to work extra hours unless described in their contract (and limited to the maximum specified by law, with mandatory regular breaks). Overtime is also paid at 150% or 200% of your regular pay, depending on the day of the week and hour of the day (e.g., weekends and nights obviously cost more than daytime rates). Very few jobs are even allowed to work on Sundays.
Its like renting yourself out. You don't feel owned, and nobody feels they own you. Its great.
As a person without kids I do sometimes wish childfree people got benefits in ways that have more _immediate_ applications for us as well. But that doesn't mean parents shouldn't keep getting generous leave allowances to care for their children.
There are countless things the State spends money on that I resent having to pay taxes for, but childhood and parenting benefits _definitely_ isn't among them. Go nuts.
maybe I should have added that the parental leave only applies to the mother. Fathers can just take a month off.
And since women can choose to go back to work after 1 year or even 2 years (at reduced pay until then) the kids can already go to the nursery although it's not free until they're 2.5 years old. Then kindergarten is free
That's unfortunate. Where I live parental leave is split between both parents (I think it is 480 days total), I think that works better.
> I can not image the extra amount of work that get places on people that do not have children...
What you're forgetting is the amount of work required to raise children. That's an externality that is only covered through a social contract, where everyone contributes to a next generation. Why should parents put in the extra work to raise children that, god forbid, would ever do something you benefit from?
What you want is someone else doing the work so that you can just reap the benefits. You're a freeloader, plain and simple (other, less favorable words come to mind).
Unless, of course, you will never in your life use the services or inventions of anyone younger than you. But, somehow, I doubt that - am I right? You just expect those cohorts to just appear out od thin air to your benefit.
- have high income so pay a large % into taxes
- not a citizen so don’t enjoy some of the benefits of military protection
- wasn’t raised here so didn’t use any of the earlier year services
- likely won’t retire here so won’t use those either
Most of my tax dollars goes to fund others in the country. But as a society there is no good way to account for all that. To try to do so the tax calculation will be crazy. So I’ll grumble about the taxes I pay, but end of the day I also don’t really have a better solution.
Instead, it's African countries and then ones with more practicing religious people who do.
Plus, as noted elsewhere, you are getting benefits from the taxes you're paying now, only just on some of it.
Eg if I make a million a year, I might pay 500k in taxes. Someone making 50k a year might pay 10k. I don’t get an extra 450k a year worth of benefit from my taxes. This is intended and is ok. But I think we should also acknowledge that this happens.
Can you explain what you mean by this part?
I don't know which country you're living in, but surely the money you paid into a pension scheme - be it public or private - doesn't just disappear because you moved to another country?
Spain is famously full of UK pensioners receiving and spending their pounds there. Heck, my father worked for a few years in Belgium in his youth, without even being a citizen, and that still entitled him to a (minuscule) Belgian pension later on, in addition to his more substantial one from his subsequent decades of work in a different country.
A good standard of living was possible with a single income 50 years ago (just). It's barely possible today with two average incomes in much of the US.
You'd only want to not work if your job couldn't effectively contribute to the household (you're already rich or your spouse is a super high earner) or else you can't pay for the childcare work you're no longer doing (you're poor). Both of you working is a sign of being middle class.
Why do you assume I would think it is someone else's duty to provide anything to me? This seems to be a bit of projection.
- 3 Weeks paid vacation (we get 5 by law)
- Health insurance (you know the drill)
- 3 weeks parental leave (we get 1 year for 80% pay, first 6 months full pay, then 5 years protection against dismissal)
- 5 days paid care leave for when your kid is sick (we get 12)
So their benefits which makes them think make them attactive are all below basic EU law that even store clerks get