[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.