PEAK GOP: Rubio/Ivanka Paid Leave bill that makes people draw from SS benefits & delay retirement

[kpete]

A Rubio/Ivanka Paid Leave bill that makes people draw from their Social Security benefits and then delay retirement in the future is like peak 2018 GOP.

Link to tweet

[dchill]

1. Rubio/Ivanka.

What can I say?

[sarcasmo]

2. I take care of my spouse who is older and don't get paid, would this apply?

[Ohiogal]

3. You have got to be kidding me.

What a bunch of shit! THIS is what they call help for working people?

[Historic NY]

4. Danger, danger.......

[withoutapaddle]

5. Nope. Just nope. Workers are being stripped of every liberty that can be taken.

That's an even worse idea than "investing" our social security in the stock market. The GOP is hellbent and determined to break the federal government, privatize it, then create a slave labor force and en mass control. Greedy, self-absorbed assholes.

[TeamPooka]

6. Next up from the GOP, you can use your SS benefits to buy lotto tickets as long as you work til you

die.

[Ohiogal]

9. Or

Or they'll let you buy "units" of nursing home care for the future with them

[CrispyQ]

7. How will they calculate the amount of the benefit you are currently going to get?

Will they assume you are going to make your current pay until retirement age & use that as a baseline? Once again, they don't understand the system & didn't think it through. These people are arrogant & incompetent.

[tritsofme]

13. One proposal I read would tie it to the amount you would get if you went on SS Disability today

Which I assume to be quite small for the younger workers who would be utilizing this. Would they even be eligible for SS Disability without having 40 quarters in?

[elehhhhna]

16. No. so work full-time for ten years then have a baby...? Wtf?

[Ohiogal]

8. Many other countries

actually pay a monthly stipend to stay-at-home moms and spousal caregivers, because they are performing a valuable service.

[SamKnause]

10. Fuck Rubio !!!!

Fuck Ivanka !!!!

Fuck every EVIL LYING REPUBLICAN !!!!!!!

[Cracklin Charlie]

11. Eff them both.

Resign

[RandomAccess]

12. What's next? Making sick pay a social security withdrawal too?

Un-freaking-believable.

[Ohiogal]

14. Shhhh, don't give them any ideas!

[RandomAccess]

17. For reals

to borrow a phrase

[Hortensis]

15. I'm seeing some over-reactions here. It's a transactional

view that isn't invalid. There's usually more than one way to do something well.

Right now, we only think employers should pay for employees to stay home and not work because the need is so desperate for SOMEONE to do it. Minus that need, it's a totally ridiculous, even unjust idea.

This instead would enable the typical worker to pay for himself, which is what most of us want. AND pay would not be lessened to cover the costs of someday maybe wanting family leave, etc. "Benefits" have always been paid for by us by those portions of our paychecks diverted to them. We wouldn't be giving up anything we didn't pay for.

I'm all in favor of anything that lessens employer power over workers, and this would shift us farther away from that please-take-care-of-me-because-I'm-a-good-worker mentality some people do have. Btw, conservatives are among those most prone to wanting daddy corporation to take care of them.

The trick, of course, would be a legislative deal that didn't screw over those who pay in. Also of course, Republicans would write it up as a mechanism to do just that. But WE could do it and make this alternative mechanism work well.

[lostnfound]

18. Just what we need, more old women wanting to retire but being forced to keep working longer

At those nice low wages.

[Hortensis]

19. But that would would be the "old women's" choice.

Last edited Mon Feb 5, 2018, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)

These days most of those "old women," and old men of course, consider themselves as finally leaving middle age, about to enter the last big active period of their lives and eagerly looking forward to enjoying it. THAT would be deferred a bit, but again, that'd be their choice.

And this choice would be: Paying for family leave the traditional way via deductions from everyone's paychecks. Or, only those who take family leave paying for it later on by deferring retirement for a period.

It's not a question of whether workers would pay for family leave, it's how. Spread the costs among everyone, so they're very low. Or those who take family leave paying for their own.

Personally, I prefer to spread the costs among many to lessen them dramatically for those who draw out. I don't mind having a dollar or two a week deducted from my paychecks so that others can stay home with a sick child or mother. But a lot of people really don't want that, including notably, of course, employers. This would be another way to handle it. There are other ways also, such as funding the traditional way through an entitlement like Social Security, cutting the employer and the benefits insurer out of the loop altogether.

[lostnfound]

20. The burden of child-rearing falls disproportionately on women. Just another burden.

Moms don’t “choose” to go on bed rest due to a high risk pregnancy condition and their choices are often few, for coping with a sick or disabled kid. They also can’t see into the future to know if their delayed retirement will occur at a time in their life when they are suffering from age-related health problemsor when they lose their jobs at 61 and no one wants to hire them. And when the GOP revises Social Security to bake in even more delays, you’ll have more people stuck working longer not because they choose it but because they’ve been left with no choices.

[Hortensis]

21. Yes, absolutely to this would hit women more and

that some people are more plagued with problems through their lives. But, it'd work fine for most. All choices have their tradeoffs, and for those hurt there have been/will be other places to turn, such as retiring on time without liability when needed.

I think we really need to lessen employer power--particularly influence over government itself--by unhooking all such benefits from work. The way it is now, government HAS to protect business to protect millions of workers, and that's used to promote corporate welfare corruption.

We need to legally require employers to shoulder the burden of maintaining employment through periods when employees cannot work, because they're the only ones who CAN hold those jobs and reintegrate the employee. But otherwise we should be managing the support itself through the systems we citizens set up to take care of ourselves, such as SS and Medicaid.