Women Liberation

In my country less women have a job than men. Many of them work part time. Most of the women work for civil service or health care. Average income of women is lower. Retirement pay is lower too.

There are only few women in leading positions.

There is a lot of support for mothers: they get financial support, they can stay at home upto three years and then return to their old work. Instead of the mother the father can stay at home and return to his job after three years. However, only few men stay at home to care about the children.

There is little children care, especially for very young children.


What do you think? How should the society be organized? Is the goal that the mothers work asap, or that at least one of the parents stays at home? Should the government interfere?

Quote:

---

What do you think? How should the society be organized? Is the goal that the mothers work asap, or that at least one of the parents stays at home? Should the government interfere?

---

IMHO the goal is that people should be able to choose. But, two rules:

1) You accept the consequences of your actions. Five years off looking after kids is great, but don't complain that you lost five years seniority.

2) Men and women are equal, but they are not the same. Don't make anyone feel bad about this.

And a special assassin rule:

3) We need more kids. Therefore childless people should be charged a non-breeder tax, to subsidise people like me whose children will be supporting us all when we are pensioners. As we would never get this one through, the devilish assassin proposal is to make registered childcare fully tax deductible, thereby cunningly achieving the same end. Also a non working spouse should be able to transfer their tax alowances to the working spouse.

Meh, I don't know. See if you put yourself in the position of the manager of a company, you cannot allow someone to leave for 3 years and come back unscathed. They've partially lost their skills, they haven't been in touch with the evolutions of the company and all the rest of it, they are no longer as productive as they should be in their position. So unless the government pays their wages during the retraining period, IMHO the company should be able to fire who they please as long as they honour the initial contract which the other person signed. I mean, it was their choice to have kids, what does the company's productivity have to do with it?

I do think the kids need someone at home permanently for the first 3 years or so and I am talking from experience, but what if they have 3 kids? can any company afford a worker being absent for 9 years? I don't think so, and I'm not sure any reasonable government would try to force that on businesses in the country.

You wanted capitalism, don't chick-en out now! (ok, ok bad pun. I'll leave :sweatdrop: )

Well, we have a social contract here, which means kids pay their parents when they retire(the parents). This means if a couple decides to work and make careers instead of Children, they don´t contribute anything to ensure they can be paid when they retire, this results in more old and less young people and thus no money to pay for all the old people. The problem should be known.

Now, instead of shortening the pensions for everybody, I´d say people who willingly don´t have children should get only have or less of the normal pension because they decided to make lots of money, could go on holidays when it´s cheaper(they´re not bound to school holidays) and should make enough money to do a lot aside for when they´re older. Maybe cut people with only one child down to 75% of the normal pensions, but people with two or more children should receive the normal amount.

Now how people manage to have children is, up to the point where the children are harmed, their decision. In my family, my dad already retired and stays at home, while my mom works. My dad has no problem with that.

I think that couples should be allowed to decide how they want to do this, but as I said above, there should be consequences for career-only couples.

Concerning the lower payment of women and their lower chances to get jobs I simply don´t understand that. It could be an old generation of bosses and change with younger men in charge. Except if they see a chance to make more money by going on to pay women less.

On the other hand I think a young baby needs it´s mother and her milk is the best it can get, but setting a mothers free makes companies less likely to hire young women. I´d suggest that the company should get the right to hire a replacement for three years, but then the mother would have to decide whether she wants her job back or whether the replacement worker can keep it.

That´s all I can think of now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

IMHO the goal is that people should be able to choose. But, two rules:

3) We need more kids. Therefore childless people should be charged a non-breeder tax, to subsidise people like me whose children will be supporting us all when we are pensioners. As we would never get this one through, the devilish assassin proposal is to make registered childcare fully tax deductible, thereby cunningly achieving the same end. Also a non working spouse should be able to transfer their tax alowances to the working spouse.

---

I had to laugh at this. However, there are plenty of people breeding out there and most of them sponging benefits (more kids, more benefits) from childless taxpayers like myself. So, you know where you can stuff your cheeky little tax ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

3) We need more kids. Therefore childless people should be charged a non-breeder tax, to subsidise people like me whose children will be supporting us all when we are pensioners. As we would never get this one through, the devilish assassin proposal is to make registered childcare fully tax deductible, thereby cunningly achieving the same end. Also a non working spouse should be able to transfer their tax alowances to the working spouse.

---

Good one! It reminds me of an article I read yesterday. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=3376&page=0

A relevant quote:

Quote:

---

Roman aristocrats, for example, eventually became so reluctant to accept the burdens of heading a family that Caesar Augustus felt compelled to enact steep “bachelor taxes” and otherwise punish those who remained unwed and childless.

---

It also states that conservatives are taking over the world because left wingers are killing off their children at a phenomenal rate. Ok, that's me taking a bit of "creative license". The point of the article is that affluent nations quickly turn into dying nations because no one wants to have kids. A more conservative, patriarchal family is more likely to reproduce..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Therefore childless people should be charged a non-breeder tax, to subsidise people like me whose children will be supporting us all when we are pensioners.

---

We sort of already have that in the U.S. -- it's called property tax, and almost all of it goes to public education. I love hearing people kvetch about their property taxes. It's usually old, childless folks. I nod in sympathy, and think, That's right, you're paying for my kids' educations whether you like it or not, biznatches!

One injustice with regards to women and childbirth in Finland is that the woman's employer gets to pay most of the social costs (90%) when a new mother stays at home with her child. This makes employers less willing to have young childless women as full-time employees. If the costs were split 50-50 the situation would be a bit better.

You get tax cuts if you have children in Belgium, a family with four children usually doesn't even have to pay taces anymore.

And they get child support that amounts to almost a months pay (a month...). This isn't counting unemployment benefits if the mother doesn't work...

And uni is about 500€ a year (not counting housing or books or such things).

And kids get (virtually) free dental care.

And medical costs are almost fully repaid, either by social security or by additional health insurance from a parent's employer.

And you get to decide where your kid goes to school.


Suddenly I love our little socialist paradise ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

3) We need more kids. Therefore childless people should be charged a non-breeder tax, to subsidise people like me whose children will be supporting us all when we are pensioners. As we would never get this one through, the devilish assassin proposal is to make registered childcare fully tax deductible, thereby cunningly achieving the same end. Also a non working spouse should be able to transfer their tax alowances to the working spouse.

---

With all due respect, the day childless have to pay extra taxes I'll start killing people, seriously. People who get children should be lucky, many people nowadays don't ever get to experience something like that, and would you want to add another burden on their shoulders except the mental suffering of seeing their lives ending in nothing, seeing themselves be the end of a road that has lasted through centuries? No, those who get more than 2 children should pay money to the childless so they can buy sex and/or a wife abroad and get a nice life too :idea2: :hide:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

disclaimer: this post is probably not serious. The opinions expressed in this post aren't necessarily the views held by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix, the .org or any other corporation. LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix and subsidiaries takes no responsibility for damaged property caused directly or indirectly by this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

We sort of already have that in the U.S. -- it's called property tax, and almost all of it goes to public education. I love hearing people kvetch about their property taxes. It's usually old, childless folks. I nod in sympathy, and think, That's right, you're paying for my kids' educations whether you like it or not, biznatches!

---

Uh, old childless folks and people who know better and live in areas where public education standards are in the toilet. Lemur, considering that you live in NYC your declaration of smug satisfaction is particularly humorous. Unless you can get your kid into one of the more select public schools NYC is an awful example of property taxes being utilized to their fullest, for the betterment of the community and all that other feelgood, 'building a better tomorrow' crap.

The good news is your kid is pretty young so you won't notice the real inadequacies of the NYC public school system until he progresses past the 4th grade. Even the underqualified morons that constitute the bulk of NYC's 'board certified' teachers have a hard time screwing up the basics with the kiddies. Beyond that look out! If you have any sense you'll move to Connecticut, NJ or Long Island and put up with the extended commute by the time his 8th or 9th birthday rolls around. Either that or consider one of NYC's private or parochial schools. Generally speaking the parochial schools around here don't foist the religious nonsense on kids who are of a different denomination. NYC parochial schools are also much safer, sport higher academic standards and the kids are much better behaved. On the other hand you might get lucky with your kid and he'll be clever and capable enough to gain entry into the incredibly select public schools here in NYC. Bronx Science, Stuyvesant and Hunter High School all cater to top of the Bell Curve, overachieving types (Hunter High being part of, of all things, Hunter College which is now a pathetic open enrollment shadow of its former self from the 50s & 60s).

I have lived in NYC my entire life and throughout that entire time the public education system here has and continues to be garbage. It doesn't help matters that NYC property taxes qualify as highway robbery. Talk about maximum investment with minimal returns!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

3) We need more kids. Therefore childless people should be charged a non-breeder tax, to subsidise people like me whose children will be supporting us all when we are pensioners. As we would never get this one through, the devilish assassin proposal is to make registered childcare fully tax deductible, thereby cunningly achieving the same end. Also a non working spouse should be able to transfer their tax alowances to the working spouse.

---

No, we need less kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, we have a social contract here, which means kids pay their parents when they retire(the parents). This means if a couple decides to work and make careers instead of Children, they don´t contribute anything to ensure they can be paid when they retire, this results in more old and less young people and thus no money to pay for all the old people. The problem should be known.

---

Yes, the problem is known. However, it's not that people have not enough children. The problem is the whole system. Because apart from being theft, it is also instable since it depends on demographic factors.
Sorry, I don't understand why we need a redistribution tax that can never be fair just to save a system that is dying and immoral.

Spino, you must have been asleep during the part when I moved out of NYC five months ago. The public schools were the #1 reason the lemur clan left. I'm not up for backroom brawling over who gets into the right preschool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

No, we need less kids.

---

Well Europe is getting quite full but we there's still the problem that there are alot of old people compared to young (de vergrijzing) . And Europeans are getting already a "collectors item".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Yes, the problem is known. However, it's not that people have not enough children. The problem is the whole system. Because apart from being theft, it is also instable since it depends on demographic factors.
Sorry, I don't understand why we need a redistribution tax that can never be fair just to save a system that is dying and immoral.

---

Hmm, so what system would you introduce? We have no money, no oil, no children, no place to work for 5 million people and by the way, some immigrants(no, I don´t hate them) receive a whole lot of money and have never payed a cent, not their fault, but it drains money. Maybe we should stop extending our life expectance? Then let people die out until noone is unemployed anymore and we´ll all be happy.:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Spino, you must have been asleep during the part when I moved out of NYC five months ago. The public schools were the #1 reason the lemur clan left. I'm not up for backroom brawling over who gets into the right preschool.

---

Asleep or possible absent from the Backroom altogether. Don't feel too bad, I didn't realize MRD was absent until he announced his return! Anyway glad to hear you made it out of the zoo.

Australia:
$3500 for having a Child
A rebate on their tax of 30 per cent on any out of pocket child care expenses
Family Tax Benefit... which is highly variable... dependent on number of children, number of children in one lot (triplets), income, age of dependents... about $4k per annum for someone on my income with a single child under 5 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Hmm, so what system would you introduce? We have no money, no oil, no children, no place to work for 5 million people and by the way, some immigrants(no, I don´t hate them) receive a whole lot of money and have never payed a cent, not their fault, but it drains money. Maybe we should stop extending our life expectance? Then let people die out until noone is unemployed anymore and we´ll all be happy.:idea2:

---

Let me answer this with a counter-example: my equivalent in an alternative universe wants to go on vacation this summer. Obviously this will cost money. To pay for it, he gives money to the state now and when the day comes the state will pay the bills.
Does this sound silly to you? Because that's what we have now. Why not let everyone take care of his or her own needs? Granted some will not be able to spare enough money, but the same people don't contribute now either. Getting money from the state is a social support, it should not be provided to people who don't need it.

Ok, the problem is, switching from the system we have now to a better system won't be easy. One generation will have to pay twice: for the last generation and for themselves. It looks now as if that generation is our generation. But that's the thing with theft: someone has to pay for it.