- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/15/19 at 2:40 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
More questions:
Does the organization have to hold the position that person is on leave open? If so, who compensates that organization for their lost productivity or other costs?
Does the organization have to hold the position that person is on leave open? If so, who compensates that organization for their lost productivity or other costs?
Posted on 5/15/19 at 7:43 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
Will the dollars handed out today, to be “repaid” (in the form of delayed benefits) with dollars in the future be invested?
No, but that's a separate problem with social security that we also need to fix. That doesn't mean this is a bad fiscal decision for the government.
This post was edited on 5/15/19 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 5/15/19 at 7:51 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Millions of Americans don’t pay into social security including state and local government employees thus they don’t recieve SS benefits.
Are they exempt from this proposal?
Are they exempt from this proposal?
Posted on 5/15/19 at 8:36 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
Does the organization have to hold the position that person is on leave open? If so, who compensates that organization for their lost productivity or other costs?
That's already the case due to FMLA.
This is more like SS disability or AFLAC. The latter can be used for pregnancy so why not the former?
Posted on 5/15/19 at 8:42 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I like that the gov finally comes up with an idea that isn't just a direct handout at the cost of taxpayers.
Of course it took a businessperson to come up with it.
The only downside I see is that employers will now have to hold someone's position open for a longer time, assuming people will start taking longer leaves now.
Good for the unemployment rate, but added employer costs.
Of course it took a businessperson to come up with it.
The only downside I see is that employers will now have to hold someone's position open for a longer time, assuming people will start taking longer leaves now.
Good for the unemployment rate, but added employer costs.
This post was edited on 5/15/19 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 5/15/19 at 8:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Plans like this will keep GOP in power. More conservative judges on the way. Yea for us.
Posted on 5/15/19 at 8:47 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
This is more like SS disability or AFLAC. The latter can be used for pregnancy so why not the former?
So why not just do that?
Posted on 5/15/19 at 9:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Someone skipped the first lecture in Finance 101 - the time value of money.
For the retards who say this is muh deficit spending/big govt, it doesn’t involve increased spending or new taxes. The money comes from delayed SS retirement
Posted on 5/15/19 at 9:18 pm to HempHead
quote:
Pro-natalist policies should only be offered to net contributors.
ETA: We have to incentivize the productive class to have children, not everyone. Call it eugenic or whatever, but we are better off with well-to-do families having large amounts of children as opposed to those who are already a resource burden before additions.
With proper social policies we won't have an unproductive class, so this is backwards thinking.
Posted on 5/15/19 at 9:20 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:If a new parent takes a benefit today valued at (for example) $10,000 and "repays" that benefit forty years from now, the present value of that repayment is about $1,500 dollars.quote:Huh? This is absolutely not how the time value of money works.
Is it one for one on the dollars? If so, how? Money today worth more than money tommorow...
Would you incur a $1,500 debt for a $10,000 benefit?
EDIT: I just saw that you "repay" with twice as many days of retirement as the number of days that you take off. Thus, you would be incurring a $3,000 debt for a $10,000 benefit.
To make it "even out," you must assume a rate of inflation of only 1% over a period of forty years.
This post was edited on 5/15/19 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 5/15/19 at 9:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Someone skipped the first lecture in Finance 101 - the time value of money.
Have you done the math? Serious question, because it appears close when considering time.
3 months at 70% in trade for 6 months less of SS
Posted on 5/15/19 at 9:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
EDIT: I just saw that you "repay" with twice as many days of retirement as the number of days that you take off. Thus, you would be incurring a $3,000 debt for a $10,000 benefit.
To make it "even out," you must assume a rate of inflation of only 1% over a period of forty years.
You realize SS is inflation adjusted, and also people taking this leave will be earlier in their careers with lower overall salaries...
Posted on 5/15/19 at 10:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:dumb argument. How much is the 3K worth in 40 years after interest accrued? at 3% its right at 10k
Thus, you would be incurring a $3,000 debt for a $10,000 benefit.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News