Paternity Leave for Dads...

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Always_a_Civvy, May 15, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Apparently the Government have put out a discussion paper on a proposal to extend maternity leave to fathers on the basis that a mother could opt to only take six months paid leave and her male partner could take the remaining six months.

    As parenting is a lifestyle choice, should the taxpayer and small businesses be bankrolling it?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/15/ndads15.xml
     
  2. On the other hand considering the lamentably low birth rate amongstt the indigenous population perhaps we should be encouraging those who have the desire to get at it. Perhaps those who are not recruiting their replacements are the spongers.
     
  3. This was discussed about a year ago as part of the extension to parenting provision, a couple have a total of 12 months parenting leave between them and they can split that up as they see fit. At the time there was also a commitment on the part of the parents to retain a contact with their employers.

    As ever, swings and roundabouts. In principle increasing parental contact should set the scene for greater involvement during the childs upbringing and aiding in brainwashing the child to behave in the manner expected by the majority of the population. But at what cost?

    Personally I'm reluctant to endorse this level of government interference in the labour market. Recruitment is challenging and it should be up to employers to offer these opportunities as part of an offering into the marketplace. That way whose who choose not to procreate can opt for alternative reward mechanisms.
     
  4. Peter
    In my day (and yours) help with having a family consisted of eight shillings a week family allowance, paid only for the second and subsequent children. Being a parent meant working to support your family and most parents would go without to ensure that their children were fed and clothed. Children were taught discipline and any adult seeing children misbehaving in the street would administer a bollocking. In those days children were seen as precious.
    Today children are still seen as precious, they are little gems ad without them many shirkers would be without a house and surviving on £50 a week job seekers allowance.
     
  5. without them many shirkers would be without a house and surviving on £50 a week job seekers allowance

    Gods, here we go again.

    Given that the point of the link was leave from employment with an assured job at the end then how is this perrenial topic pertinent?
     
  6. Sorry perhaps I should have pointed out that raising a family entitled no one to any type of leave either Maternity or Paternity. In fact I remember one matelot asking for some leave to attend the birth of his son and he was told "You were are required for the keel laying, you are not needed for the launch.

    Edited
    As you mention it was for someone in employment with an assured job at the end of it. I have no problems with this as long as the employer is not compelled to pay the guys salary while on leave.
     
  7. That's where I have concerns about it, employers are going to be required to pay, but I think it's at a lower level.

    I tend towards AAS view, children are a choice and I'm not over the moon about having to support that choice any more than I do already.
     
  8. It's well past the time for the government to be taking more interest in the single working men and women who are taxed to the hilt to support the rest of the country. They get very little in return for their taxes. How about for starters local authorities building single bed roomed affordable apartments for sale as first homes to lower paid single WORKING people. I don't mean police officers and teachers (my daughter is a Escher on circa £32000 a year) I mean the shop assistants, cleaners and service personnel.
     
  9. Considering the excellent investigative abilities of Journos from the Wail, Scum etc isn't always surprising that they seem rarely to be able to find one or two examples of these sprog bearing scroungers. Isi it that they don't exist or perhaps they have higher standards than the Cornwall two and don't sell their stories to the press.
     
  10. Never mind single, many of my married friends choose to remain childfree.
     

  11. The alternative view could be seen as those choosing to have kids are investing in the future of the state, while those choosing not to, well.......
     
  12. So as the terror weapon is due to drop any minute, does all this mean I get a bigger hand out and more time off or not?
     
  13. Given the cost of raising kids then the cash freed up by not procreating can be used in a number of ways, and the state benefits.

    Frequently CF couples have a higher gross income, hence end up paying more in taxes anyway. Greater disposable income can lead to higher personal contribution to an occupational pension with the later benefit of a lower dependence on the state. etc, etc

    As Slim highlights above, equity raised through taxation does go into the collective pot which funds;tax breaks and cash contributions to those rearing children, education, the NHS etc.

    However the ongoing health of those pension arrangements etc does need a healthy economy to deliver the best returns, few CF advocate nobody having children. Although strangely more parents tend to be quite vocal about everyone having children.

    CF individuals and couples choose not to procreate for a variety of reasons, rarely economic. Equally people rarely choose to procreate for economic reasons. I find the argument somewhat specious tbh.

    As a nation we already consume significantly more resources than we generate, and our consumption levels aren't really sustainable on a global scale.

    Of course there is also the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, I don't really get their thinking either.
     
  14. Perhaps I should have said "Investing in the future of the state"?

    Todays Kid = Tomorrows Taxpayer
     
  15. And we need more of them.
     
  16. I take it you mean Taxpayers Peter? :)
     
  17. Of course, you should know how what passes for my mind functions, I did my bit producing 3 taxpayers as did my present wife, now let's see some commitment from the youger generation, I paid for their education, now it their turn to ensure my retirement is paid for.
     
  18. I like the cut of your Jib sir :)
     
  19. Fair point Maxi but it won't just be the indigenous. It will be anyone in work and entitled to benefit. Streaky, the way we currently run our economy, having children is investing in our economic future. A consumer society that's addicted to economic growth collapses if the population stagnates. Is that the way to run our planet though? We weep and wail over climate change, famine, disease and diminishing raw material sources but we seem too stupid or greedy to grasp the factor that makes the greatest impact; overpopulation! That's a whole new topic though.
     
  20. Ah but those of us who are infertile (or in my case, sterile) have no choice, but are obliged to contribute whilst my local council describes us as '...not contributing anything to society...' to quote our former Mayor (Bromley Council). 55% of my Council Tax, that is around £500 a year goes from my earned income into paying for the education of fertile people's children. At the same time straight couples who want fertility treatment must pay. I suggest that infertile couples denied free NHS fertility treatment, as well as sterile singles, should be able to opt out of paying to subsidize other people parental lifestyle choice. I would be better-off to the tune of a fortnight's pay, a year. That would pay for a nice holiday for a week. :evil:

    Tomorrow's Children = Today's Burden
    Tomorrow's Children = Tomorrow's Criminals.... :wink: :twisted:
     

Share This Page