The phony is going to unveil a maternity leave policy tonight that guarantees 6 weeks paid leave for new mothers . Trump’s plan would allow families to deduct child care expenses, up to the average cost of child-care in their states, from their income taxes. People making above $250,000 would be excluded under his plan ;and couples under a $ half million .

How will he pay for it ? On that he is not clear expect to use the old introduce efficiencies and elimination of fraud and abuse of the already financially strapped unemployment system. Fraud btw is a problem in the unemployment system that amounts to a cost of $3.3 Billion a year . But as usual ,Trump's plan is short on specifics .

The benefit would only apply to women who work at companies that do not provide paid leave. That of course would give incentives to companies to stop giving that benefit.

Reportedly ,his advisor on this plan is none other than his daughter Ivanka . She reportedly told him "daddy ,daddy ,we have to do this ".
If anyone had any delusions that Trump would run the country as a constitutional ,republican they can finally dispel that notion. He is another NY big government progressive hiding under the cloak of populist nationalism.

Would the law not merely require companies to pay their employee for the leave.

To be honest they should. Women who leave to have babies get no money, or have to collect on short term disability (if their companies provide that) My daughter in law got more money from AFLAC for her time off during pregnancy, than her company paid her.

Many nations provide or require the employer to pay the employee for maternity leave. I see no reason why the US could not require the companies to pay it for their workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Would the law not merely require companies to pay their employee for the leave.

To be honest they should. Women who leave to have babies get no money, or have to collect on short term disability (if their companies provide that) My daughter in law got more money from AFLAC for her time off during pregnancy, than her company paid her.

Many nations provide or require the employer to pay the employee for maternity leave. I see no reason why the US could not require the companies to pay it for their workers.

---

If an employer provides that as a benefit now it is their business . I don't see where the government has the power to force companies to add that benefit .More burdens on business More cradle to grave. More, more, more........

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attach...id=48486&stc=1

So much for his bs about a tax code so simple it can fit on a post card . What happens when a small business now balks at hiring a woman because they don't want to pay 6 weeks leave ? Don't answer ;I know already . The law suit will soon be served . Everything cannot be evaluated in what a major corporation can afford. Most Americans work for small businesses.

I don't see how a conservative can oppose Evita's proposed expansions of the welfare state when Trump proposes the same thing .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Many nations provide or require the employer to pay the employee for maternity leave. I see no reason why the US could not require the companies to pay it for their workers.

---

Many nations require the worship of Allah.

Many nations require women to deliver their babies even if it kills them.

Many nations' citizens do everything they can to get to the U.S. because of their own nations' policies.

Despite the Progressive's mantra, the U.S. is different

I'm a bleeding heart centrist. I didn't have children because I didn't feel like paying for them, for one reason. I see no reason why I should pay taxes to enable other women to have babies. I pay PLENTY for the education of the ones we have, and grumble, but just over how money is spent.

I don't care what other countries do. When you study their whole tax structures, you won't like it so much.

Maternity leave should not be other peoples burden. Maternity leave is a bonus if a company you are working for supplies it, but it is up to the organization supplying the benefits.

I wouldn't want to be taxes for this either. And that isn't going to happen where I come from.

It would probably fall under a "Social Program", like welfare. Does the states have the concept of "Employment Insurance"? In Canada we pay 4.5% of our gross income, to a max of 2500$ish, as employment insurance. If we become unemployed then we receive income for a year that is roughly equivalent, to a max of $50k/year this year I believe, to their previous wage. When a woman goes on Maternity leave, guaranteed year in Canada, the woman's employer has to pay six weeks I believe and then the rest is paid as if they were unemployed. That's their Mat Pay. Once that period is over they can either resign from their position, or go back to work. Their employer is obligated to have a position that is roughly equivalent to their previous position open for them to return to.

So in the United States of America, how do you handle job loss? Is it immediate welfare? Or is there a different pay out? Is there a pay out?

UI (unemployment insurance) in the states is for being laid off only, allowing for special review in cases of unfair firing. The employer gets to protest paying for firing.
You can collect immediately after filing, unless you were fired and are filing because you think it was unfair. 'Unfair' can include really being laid off but the employer is trying to fake it, to avoid higher premiums.
If you postpone, filing, it isn't retroactive.
The employer pays the premiums, and the rates go up each time someone collects. It isn't welfare.
During really bad times, if the feds add extra weeks across all states, that should come out of reserve UI, but it might come out of 'welfare' funds in a pinch.
How much the laid off employee collects is a % of their wages in the most recent quarter and the fifth most recent quarter. It doesn't matter who the past employers were, but if you weren't working during the older quarter, you're screwed.
How long you can collect for depends partly on federal law and partly state law, and it changes with the economy. Rules about having to show X jobs applied for per X time period go by state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

UI (unemployment insurance) in the states is for being laid off only, allowing for special review in cases of unfair firing. The employer gets to protest paying for firing.
You can collect immediately after filing, unless you were fired and are filing because you think it was unfair. 'Unfair' can include really being laid off but the employer is trying to fake it, to avoid higher premiums.
If you postpone, filing, it isn't retroactive.
The employer pays the premiums, and the rates go up each time someone collects. It isn't welfare.
During really bad times, if the feds add extra weeks across all states, that should come out of reserve UI, but it might come out of 'welfare' funds in a pinch.
How much the laid off employee collects is a % of their wages in the most recent quarter and the fifth most recent quarter. It doesn't matter who the past employers were, but if you weren't working during the older quarter, you're screwed.
How long you can collect for depends partly on federal law and partly state law, and it changes with the economy. Rules about having to show X jobs applied for per X time period go by state.

---

I would see the money for the Guaranteed Maternity leave coming from UI, or it being a new process.

Might be a slight increase in taxes but that is what you get for adding a social program. Goodness everyone is paying for something they're not using, as others are funding the programs you're using. Circle of life...

I'm all for unpaid maternity leave... I have an issue with having to pay for someone else having kids, often times kids they can't afford to support themselves as it is.

Yeah I also have an issue with getting bled dry on property taxes to support illegals in public schools... where I am in VA, the school system themselves say its 28% of the Students... that means 28% of my taxes are going to support people that shouldn't even be here at all. 28% that I no longer have for my own retirement.

I support a head tax that funds schools... a family of 8, pays 8 times as much as a single person... then how many people think twice about having them then...

Instead of someone who worked their butt off to buy a house paying most of it while that family of 8 lives in a 2 BR apartment paying nothing...( and while the landlord would pay something, its a fraction of what the the Homeowner pays.)

Everyone SHOULD do like the responsible people do...have what you can support yourself. If they want 12, as long as they can pay the full cost of raising and educating 12, I have no problems. The problem starts when I have to start support some or all of them, in any way shape or form.

"Responsible people" is a dying breed, you know. They are anathema to the victim culture.

Just to clarify Trump's proposal for so-called "paid leave" - it would NOT be a benefit that companies would be required to provide. The person on leave would NOT receive their regular salary, but rather would receive government unemployment benefits for the 6 weeks. For most the amount received would be significantly less than what they were earning at work.

I really don't support that... Unemployment doesn't pay benefits when the situation was your own responsibility (I.E. quitting or getting fired for cause) usually (usually meaning most cases, I have actually quit a job and won my appeal to collect but I was put in that situation by the government where I had no choice, don't know anyone else who has yet). Getting pregnant is.

Unstated is that it is companies that pay the unemployment insurance . Each state's unemployment insurance program is funded by the taxes paid by companies operating in that state. Companies cannot deduct these taxes from employees' paychecks like other taxes or entitlements like Social Security. So yes ,it is companies that would have to pay for this new entitlement .

also unstated is that mostly the unemployment system is already a financial basketcase with many state either borrowing to finance the system ,or expected to borrow to finance it soon.
https://www.propublica.org/special/i...-in-danger-603