> why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby?
Because if that's the way human beings behaved, our ancestors would have died out as a species hundred of thousands of years ago and you wouldn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you must recognize why the vast majority of voters are not okay with jeopardizing our species to save a few tax dollars?
you have to be kidding. you do know our species did just fine for 200,000 years, before maternity leave, which is a recent thing. you think humanity will die out if a policy that's maybe 50 years old is cancelled? please tell me you're not serious.
a vast majority of voters are of course going to vote for what benefit them, not the company that employs them -that is not proof of what is right or ethical.
the company doesn't magically pick up the bill. they simply pay all people a little less, while spending more on just the ones with babies. this means people without babies pay for the babies. in no way is that fair. biology is unfair. that doesn't mean you can just pass on the cost to innocent bystanders.
being short is unfair. should i pay for short people?
our species behaves just fine. parents have an extra burden and need to be financially secure to handle a baby. without forcing random others to help with that. because it's unethical, and the term for that is tyranny of the majority. two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
but cool. let's go with your voter idea. let's let the whites vote on whether blacks should be slaves.
> you have to be kidding. you do know our species did just fine for 200,000 years, before maternity leave, which is a recent thing. you think humanity will die out if a policy that's maybe 50 years old is cancelled? please tell me you're not serious.
You mean when we were in tribal, nomadic societies? When all people did was hunt, gather, and take care of their young? Yeah, of course we didn't have maternity leave from maternity because the entire tribe participated in raising their young or they died out.
I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your post because it's teenage angst levels of faux-libertarian nonsense. You're comparing the propagation of our species to slavery. Get a grip.
so you are delusional. no, 50 years ago, before maternity leave, we were not a 'tribal society.' you also literally think no maternity leave would wipe humans off the planet. this is not sane.
and as far as teenage angst... i'm 40 years old and married. and when i see resumes of women who i think might have kids within 5 years, i throw them in the trash. nit because of maternity leave, but because i don't want entitled people working with me. enjoy your grip.
I’m a father with a handful of children, and I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable that in a fair society non-parents would make more than parents due to the extra time they would put towards their job.
Tax rebates for children could help both parties think they are getting ahead to balance society’s needs.
tax rebates -aka a tax deduction for each child already exists. this passes the tax burden to people without kids, and is also unfair. rebates would also be unfair. a child is not a rebate. what i don't get is why a child is treated as a child for taxes.
a tax return should be for the family -a joint return. you take wife+husband+kids. you add up all the salary. and you divide by number of tax payers. exactly how a joint return is now, but count kids.
this puts you in a much, much lower tax bracket, and saves you more than a rebate or dependent. it is actually unfair in my opinion to do it another way, and has nothing to do with babies. your family household just pays taxes on its income. and without various programs designed to steal from people without kids. and that's what maternity leave is -stealing.
Agreed, I was just noting that if non-parents end up making a lot more than parents (who are working raising the next generation of citizens), the amount of tax deduction is a way to share the burden. Fairness is subjective.
