| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you like to be guaranteed more vacation time and materninty/paternity leave similar to that of the Scandinavian countries? |
| Yesu |
|
60% |
[ 14 ] |
| No |
|
26% |
[ 6 ] |
| Don't know |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
 Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:45 pm
Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rock, US is not as business friendly as you might think. The US business tax is one of the highest in the world. This is the reason why so many companies are leaving the US. I don't think most US businesses could implement this type of employee benefit and survive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| soccerdog |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:15 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I guess it's a matter of how you prioritize, businesses or people. The US is a more business friendly than Sweden is. But imo human beings are far more important than businesses. Businesses main purpose is for a few people at the top to make money. The welfare and happiness of children and their families is to me not comparable to a business' right to make money. Would you disagree with that, Soccerdog? |
In my opinion, your thinking is somewhat flawed because you're trying to differentiate between businesses and human beings as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not! A business is comprised of human beings! A lot of people forget that. A successful business provides a living for anywhere from one to tens of thousands of families! I use my wife's business as an example. It provides a living for about 50 families. So, no, the business does NOT exist for a few people at the top to make money. Yes, she is the highest paid employee (although not by much), but the business provides a means of support to all their employees and their families, not to mention that it helps provide a living for the families of all the other companies that they purchase goods and services from. The business exists to provide a service to the public. It exists to provide jobs for employees.
I just don't understand the implication that businesses are bad and people are good. Without businesses, how would those "human beings" support themselves? Where would they work? Who would provide them with income to support their families?
I am not knocking Sweden. As I said earlier, it would probably be my second choice about where to live if I wanted to move to another country. I am certainly not an expert on Sweden's tax laws or business climate. But, I am very confident in saying that the system you describe (mandatory 1 year time off for maternity/paternity, mandatory 5 weeks paid vacation, etc) has a down side. No doubt it's got some good points as well but I guarantee you there is an offsetting down side whether I can tell you what it is or not. It's as sure as physics! You can't generate heat (one form of energy) without expending another form of energy (electricity, for example). Heat is a good thing but there is a cost to generate it. In business, you can't mandate very expensive policies like that without somehow paying the cost to implement them. Giving employees a year off when they have a baby may be a good thing but it has to be paid for somehow.
But, I do not agree with the idea that, as a small business owner (or even a large business owner) that if one of my employees decides to have a baby that it's my responsibility to pay her to do a job for my business that she isn't going to do for a year.
Some questions come to mind.
Is having a baby the only situation in which an employee gets a mandatory year off with pay? Do single people, or married people who don't choose to have children, have any problems with co-workers getting, in essence, a one-year paid vacation that they aren't eligible for?
Is there a limit to the number of times a woman can take a year off for maternity leave? (I know you said it can be the father too but for typing simplicity I'm just saying the woman). What if a woman has four children in a four or five year time span? Does she get a year off for each one fully paid by her employer?
What if a woman has a baby, takes a year off with pay, and then decides not to come back to work? Does she have to reimburse the company for her salary for the year? I KNOW this is bound to happen because it happens here. I've known women who had babies and took the maximum time off allowed by the company for maternity leave knowing full well that they didn't intend to go back to work after their maternity benefit ran out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocktosh
Joined: 25 Jan 2008 Total posts: 2193 Location: Indianapolis Gender: Female |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:26 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't think most US businesses could implement this type of employee benefit and survive. |
They could do it and they would survive. But it would take a major change in the system as the benefits aren't really provided by employers but by the government.
| Quote: | | Rock, US is not as business friendly as you might think. The US business tax is one of the highest in the world. This is the reason why so many companies are leaving the US. |
Compared to Sweden the US is more business friendly. I don't think that the companies are only, or even mainly, leaving the US because of taxes. They are leaving for 3rd world countries where people are desperate and regulations are lax. It's great for them to be able to hire people for 50 cents an hour and a bowl of rise and to be able to polute as much as they want without the government getting involved. It's much cheaper that way and so they can make more profit so their shareholders can buy more boats and bigger houses. The tax issue is a very small part of it. Threatening the government with taking their production abroad if they don't lower their taxes is just a game they're playing to get out of paying taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:19 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
I guess if the government wanted to institute this type of benefit it would be a possibilty. I don't think most businesses could be subjected to this expense and survive.
You are right, high taxes are not the only reason businesses have left the US or outsourced work. There are many things to consider, another one might be unions. I think if you did some research you will find there are many reasons.
You have to understand the majority of CEO's don't make exorbitant amounts of money nor do most businesses in the US. The ones that do recieve a ton of exposure from the media. I bet a large percentage of businesses are surviving payroll to payroll or using loans to stay afloat.
Yes, I would love more time off to spend with my family. Yes, spending a year with my children after they were born would have been wonderful. I just don't think with all the other benefits offered in the US this would be feasible. There has to be something Sweden does not offer to offset this expense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocktosh
Joined: 25 Jan 2008 Total posts: 2193 Location: Indianapolis Gender: Female |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:32 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Soccerdog,
You must not have read my entire post. The company is NOT responsible for paying a woman for maternity leave. So it wouldn't be your company's responsibility to pay a woman for a job she isn't doing. The maternity leave money, which is 100% of pay for the first couple of months and 80% after that (I may be wrong on the amount of months), is paid by the government. An employer pays what they call employer fees for each employee. The money is put into a pool and is paid out for maternity leave and disability. Women who don't work also get paid from this fund although it's a lot less since they don't have an income. So it's not tied to your job and therefore no need to pay it back if you don't go back to work. I suspect that this is a lesses issue in Sweden though since moms are allowed to stay home for a year while American women many times have to go back after only a couple of months. I think women would be less inclined to quit working if they could stay home longer. In Sweden child care is also heavily subsidized and depends on one's income so women don't have to stay home to save money on child care like they do here.
| Quote: | | Is having a baby the only situation in which an employee gets a mandatory year off with pay? |
Yes.
| Quote: | | Do single people, or married people who don't choose to have children, have any problems with co-workers getting, in essence, a one-year paid vacation that they aren't eligible for? |
I've never heard of anyone having a probem with it. These people would also be eligible for this leave if they had a baby. I have never been a least bit jealous of someone on maternity leave. It's not a vacation. Caring for a baby is hard work. Besides, it's not mainly a benefit for the parents but for the child. Children are the future and the first year of life is extremely important. The longer a baby is breast fed the healthier they are. Babies that have the necessary one-on-one time with their mother are also mentally healthier. This is better for everyone.
| Quote: | | Is there a limit to the number of times a woman can take a year off for maternity leave? (I know you said it can be the father too but for typing simplicity I'm just saying the woman). What if a woman has four children in a four or five year time span? Does she get a year off for each one fully paid by her employer? |
She gets a year off for each one paid by the government.
| Quote: | | In my opinion, your thinking is somewhat flawed because you're trying to differentiate between businesses and human beings as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not! A business is comprised of human beings! A lot of people forget that. A successful business provides a living for anywhere from one to tens of thousands of families! I use my wife's business as an example. It provides a living for about 50 families. So, no, the business does NOT exist for a few people at the top to make money. Yes, she is the highest paid employee (although not by much), but the business provides a means of support to all their employees and their families, not to mention that it helps provide a living for the families of all the other companies that they purchase goods and services from. The business exists to provide a service to the public. It exists to provide jobs for employees |
.
This is true. Businesses do provide a service for the public and support their employees. However you can't deny that a company's primary goal is to make profit. It's not like they share their profit with their employees.
I made my comments in reference to taxes though. You said that the system Sweden has would be great for the employees perspective but not from the employer. I know that some people argue against this system because of the taxes employers have to pay for the employees that goes to maternity leave amonf other things. However, these taxes don't cause companies to go under, if anything it only cuts into their profit. They can still provide their services to the public and pay wages to their employees. Basically, my point is that I think human beings are more important than a company's profit but some people argue that it's a company's right to make as large profits as they possibly can and nobody has a right to disturb that in any way.
I firmly believe that a company exists within a society and very much because of that society and as such they have an inherent social responsibility. Their profits that provide luxuries and excesses for a certain few should be secondary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:39 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
If the employer is paying "employer fees" as you stated, the employer is paying for these benefits. Its paid out by the government, which would make it seem as though its government funded.
| Rocktosh wrote: | | The company is NOT responsible for paying a woman for maternity leave. So it wouldn't be your company's responsibility to pay a woman for a job she isn't doing. The maternity leave money, which is 100% of pay for the first couple of months and 80% after that (I may be wrong on the amount of months), is paid by the government. An employer pays what they call employer fees for each employee. The money is put into a pool and is paid out for maternity leave and disability.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Melinda
Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Total posts: 2892 Location: Texas Age: 33 Gender: Female |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:51 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There are plenty of small companies in Sweden, most companies are small, and they manage to survive and prosper under that system. However, the employer is not the one that pays the woman on maternity leave. It's paid by a central goverment agency that is largely funded by taxes the employer pays for their employees. |
So, it is employer funded through extremely high fees and taxes, then paid out by the government. No thank you.
| Quote: | | Women who don't work also get paid from this fund although it's a lot less since they don't have an income. |
In other words, welfare. Again, no thanks.
I am not a fan of socialism.
| Quote: | | However you can't deny that a company's primary goal is to make profit. It's not like they share their profit with their employees. |
Yes, many do.
Not all businesses make immense profits. Many are barely afloat. I think you have a skewed vision of most of corporate America.
Last edited by Melinda on Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:58 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| soccerdog |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:56 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | However you can't deny that a company's primary goal is to make profit. It's not like they share their profit with their employees. |
If you mean ALL companies, then I can absolutely deny that. Many companies have "profit sharing" plans through which they do exactly that -- they share the profits with all employees. My wife's company is an example. At the end of the year they put virtually all PROFIT into a profit sharing account that is divided among all employees. The percentage allocated to each employee depends on a couple of factors including their longevity and regular salary. And if you don't know what I mean by "profit", you may not understand that. Profit, to over-simplify it, is what is left over after all expenses such as salaries and benefits, taxes, rent, office supplies, vehicles, etc are paid. In other words, if they have $5M in revenue for the year, and their expenses are $4.8M, then they put $200K in profit sharing for all employees.
I realize not all companies operate that way. But, many do put at least some of their profits into profit sharing accounts.
| Quote: | | You must not have read my entire post. The company is NOT responsible for paying a woman for maternity leave. So it wouldn't be your company's responsibility to pay a woman for a job she isn't doing. |
I did. That's why I said it has to be paid "somehow". If I'm paying "fees" (ie, taxes) to the government so the government can pay her, then I AM paying for it indirectly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocktosh
Joined: 25 Jan 2008 Total posts: 2193 Location: Indianapolis Gender: Female |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:05 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If the employer is paying "employer fees" as you stated, the employer is paying for these benefits. Its paid out by the government, which would make it seem as though its government funded. |
I understand that it's not paid by the government. They aren't a business and don't have their own money. Like I said this is largely funded by employers by employer fees but these fees are paid for every employee no matter if he or she is going to ever use these benefits or not. So it's not like an employer has to pay an employee on maternity leave her full pay while she's gone and also pay her replacement. It's a tax. That's how taxes works. No one small company can afford to pay an employee that is not working but because bigger companies also pay into this system there are funds to pay for the employees of small companies too. It has some similarities to how the social security system works and god knows that system has made a huge difference in the lives of many Americans since it was founded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| soccerdog |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:10 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It has some similarities to how the social security system works and god knows that system has made a huge difference in the lives of many Americans since it was founded. |
If you're going to compare it to our Social Security system, you won't get a lot of support for it from me! I think that system is a prime example of why the government should NOT be responsible for things like that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:23 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| I pay into social security through my paycheck. If I am correct social security is paid by the individual not the employer. But, I could be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rocktosh
Joined: 25 Jan 2008 Total posts: 2193 Location: Indianapolis Gender: Female |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:23 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
I can agree that the SS system is maybe not the greatest but if one looks at how things were before it was implemented it's clear that a system like this is necessary, although maybe not this exact system.
Posted Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:25 pm:
| Quote: | | I pay into social security through my paycheck. If I am correct social security is paid by the individual not the employer. But, I could be wrong |
Your employer also pays into the SS system for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:42 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
I checked, you are correct on the social security issue. This is what I found.
If you work for an employer, 6.2% of your wages is withheld and your employer deposits the withholding, along with its 6.2% matching contribution, with the government for the social security programs. In 2008, the employee tax and matching contribution stop after the first $102,000 of wages.
Sweden facts from Wiki--Wow, 40% taxation.
The typical worker receives only 40% of his income after the tax wedge. The slowly declining overall taxation, 51.1% of GDP in 2007, is still nearly double of that in the United States or Ireland. State and municipal bureaucrats amount to a third of Swedish workforce, multiple times the proportion in many other countries. Overall, GDP growth has been fast since reforms in the early 1990s, especially in manufacturing.[11] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| soccerdog |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:02 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I pay into social security through my paycheck. If I am correct social security is paid by the individual not the employer. But, I could be wrong. |
Your employer matches it dollar for dollar.
The problem with the SS system is that, due to incredible government bureaucracy, waste and mismanagement, the system is nearly insolvent. So, even though you've paid a significant percentage of your earnings into the system for your entire life, there is a very real possibility that you will get exactly zero out of it. If you had invested what you paid into the SS system and got even a very modest, easy-to-achieve, rate of return, you would be set for life when you retire.
I do realize that most people won't voluntarily invest in their retirement. Part of me believes that if they don't, it's their problem to figure out what to do when they are too old to work. But, I realize we can't have a large percentage of our population destitute when they retire just because they were too stupid or undisciplined to save for their retirement. So, I can accept that most people have to be forced to save. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nonamia
Location: Northern California Gender: Female |
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:17 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Buter&Lola wrote: |
Sweden facts from Wiki--Wow, 40% taxation.
The typical worker receives only 40% of his income after the tax wedge. The slowly declining overall taxation, 51.1% of GDP in 2007, is still nearly double of that in the United States or Ireland. State and municipal bureaucrats amount to a third of Swedish workforce, multiple times the proportion in many other countries. Overall, GDP growth has been fast since reforms in the early 1990s, especially in manufacturing.[11] |
Wow is right. That would hurt!! That makes sense I figured it would be something like that.
My great grandparents were born in Sweden and immigrated before my grandmother was born. They couldn't make a very good living there. I don't know what has changed since then but that was their reason at the time.
_________________
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Profile
FAQ
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
Calendar
