- 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
re: Legislation introduced that would let parents borrow from their SS fund for parental leave
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:00 pm to Epic Cajun
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:00 pm to Epic Cajun
Me either. I view it as a tax that I'll never get to see. I might be able to draw against that for parental leave? frickkkkkk yes sign me the frick up. I'll never see it otherwise.
This post was edited on 3/12/19 at 2:02 pm
0
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:06 pm to brian_wilson
I haven't looked into it much because why would I... but my wife got 6 weeks paid in full that didn't go toward her leave time. Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:12 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
What about governmental workers that don't pay into SS?
Many government workers pay into social security. The only federal employees not paying into SS were hired on or before 12/31/1983.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:28 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
Could also see this as a catalyst for private companies to do away with maternity/paternity leave. Just let SS take care of it instead.
Meh. I, nor my spouse, nor anyone I have ever been close to, have worked for a company that offers any sort of these types of benefits.
Some large companies do, but my guess is the vast majority of individuals don't have access to these benefits. If they did, this legislation wouldn't be needed.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:28 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
I haven't looked into it much because why would I... but my wife got 6 weeks paid in full that didn't go toward her leave time.
that is a nice perk, I know one job I had they gave two weeks but that doens't cover the 27 weeks you can get through FMLA.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:32 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
It's not a bad idea - at all - and I can support. But...
This is not true.
1) It's an additional payment, today, out of current funds. Yes, that "benefit" may be repaid by shortening the retirement period down the road, but paying benefits today and not paying benefits tomorrow are always more expensive than just paying benefits tomorrow.
2) In some cases, people who were to receive benefits under this plan, would never receive SS benefits at retirement, because they will die before then.
I'm ok with both of those issues, but to say they are not issues is false.
Also...
3) What about teachers, etc, who don't pay into social security?
But... this is moving the conversation forward, which is good.
quote:
It doesn’t cost the government anything, it isn’t a new entitlement
This is not true.
1) It's an additional payment, today, out of current funds. Yes, that "benefit" may be repaid by shortening the retirement period down the road, but paying benefits today and not paying benefits tomorrow are always more expensive than just paying benefits tomorrow.
2) In some cases, people who were to receive benefits under this plan, would never receive SS benefits at retirement, because they will die before then.
I'm ok with both of those issues, but to say they are not issues is false.
Also...
3) What about teachers, etc, who don't pay into social security?
But... this is moving the conversation forward, which is good.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:32 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
What could go wrong
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:39 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Another form of a loan and in twenty years it will become another loan crisis, and the politicians will want to forgive the loans.
You know that's going to happen.
You know that's going to happen.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:39 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Makes sense for the parents.
Let them choose. 90% will just plan on it from the day they talk about marriage.
Let them choose. 90% will just plan on it from the day they talk about marriage.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:40 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I would do this to try and keep the government from lapping the SS dollars I am paying now into a boomer’s bank account
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:49 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
This should definitely help the long term viability of social security.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:52 pm to 9Fiddy
quote:
That's my question. Not in the way you think though. My wife is a teacher in Bienville Parish. She does not pay into the SS system nor does she get paid parental leave. She is pregnant and was told when her sick days run out she will still be covered by FMLA for her job, but she will not be paid.
So what's the question?
Posted on 3/12/19 at 2:54 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
i'm sure this has been asked but due to the ponzi scheme nature of SS (along with SSI and other disability payments draining the coffers of SS), how would this...work?
Posted on 3/12/19 at 3:11 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
1) It's an additional payment, today, out of current funds. Yes, that "benefit" may be repaid by shortening the retirement period down the road, but paying benefits today and not paying benefits tomorrow are always more expensive than just paying benefits tomorrow.
2) In some cases, people who were to receive benefits under this plan, would never receive SS benefits at retirement, because they will die before then.
3) The size of the federal government will increase just because they'll have to hire more deadhead useless employees that couldn't survive in the private sector to administer the program.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 3:11 pm to notbilly
quote:
quote:
What about governmental workers that don't pay into SS?
Many government workers pay into social security. The only federal employees not paying into SS were hired on or before 12/31/1983.
Those are the ones on the old retirement system where they get something like 85% of pay forever. I would much rather have that than the new system which is a percentage for every year worked, at a higher cost. Plus now add in paying SS taxes. There's talk of jacking up the cost of the newer retirement system even higher and basing it on average high 5 years instead of high 3 years. Boomers get gravy and leave shite for the rest of us.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 3:14 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Meh. I, nor my spouse, nor anyone I have ever been close to, have worked for a company that offers any sort of these types of benefits.
I was talking to a co-worker the other day who mentioned he was taking 8 weeks off after their child is born. I asked why. He said it's full pay, so why not.
The woman would get 12 weeks of full paid time off.
Really wish I would have been working here when my kids were born.
I wouldn't have been greedy with it, but a month off with full pay would have been nice. Posted on 3/12/19 at 4:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Jokes on them. The current ratio for SS is 2 payers for every 1 receiving benefits. The money they are paying in is already being spent to support the retired.
Posted on 3/12/19 at 4:52 pm to brian_wilson
What about people who don't want kids or can't have kids? Or the people who adopt?
Posted on 3/12/19 at 4:53 pm to dawgsjlw
quote:then it doesn't apply to them
What about people who don't want kids or can't have kids?
quote:id imagine it would also apply
people who adopt?
Posted on 3/12/19 at 4:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
So let’s crater the ss ponzi scheme even faster.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News