[tdb7893]

I've recently come the the conclusion that instead of the purpose of people being to create value for the economy, the point of the economy is to create value for people. Being able to spend time with your new kid should not be a privilege of people who have money. Overall resources in our society aren't that scarce so I don't think it's unreasonable to allocate some resources to ensuring that privilege for everyone.

[wyager]

> Being able to spend time with your new kid should not be a privilege of people who have money.

Ah, of course. Instead it should come at the expense of people who chose not to (or were unable to) spend time with a child at all.

"<Positively connoted activity> should not be a privilege of people who have money" is a very nice-sounding statement, but it ignores the fact that there's a reason only people who have money do certain things; because it's very expensive.

> Overall resources in our society aren't that scarce

Evidently resources in our society are scarce enough that parents can't stay home with their child 24/7 without someone else paying for it. (Either that or the parents in question are able but unwilling to decrease their expenses in exchange for time with their children.)

[tdb7893]

As a society we've decided that some things are worth it despite being an economic cost (notably giving senior citizens access to medical care through medicare is an example of a huge cost with little to not economic benefit) so as a society we've decided that some things are worth paying for other people despite cost to ourselves. You are arguing that people shouldn't pay at all for benefits that they choose not to partake in themselves and as a society we've already decided that we are willing to do so in certain situations. Really what it then becomes is an argument of "is it worth it?". It comes down to a value judgement of "is it okay for people to pay for things that they don't personally use?" and "is it worth it to pay for parental leave?". I personally think that the economic losses are outweighed by the societal good of parental leave so I think that answering "yes" to both of the questions leads to a better society.

[wyager]

> As a society we've decided that some things are worth it despite being an economic cost (notably giving senior citizens access to medical care...)

I'm painfully aware, given that this number is broken out on my W2 stubs.

What I'm obviously doing here is arguing that "society"'s (meaning those in charge of tax code, who nominally take some amount of inspiration from the rest of society) policies are wrong.

Your argument is just "This is how we do things right now, so that's how it should be." At the risk of pulling a Molyneux, that is, in fact, not an argument.