[ad_1]
DEBATT | WELLNESS. Parental insurance in its current form is one of the worst sources in Sweden for women. It is excessively long, leaving women out of the labor market, and the unequal commitment between mothers and fathers confirms inequality. Moreover, it is an unreasonable animal. It is high time that parental insurance is both short and individualized.
Women earn on average three million less than men in their lifetime and generally receive much worse pensions. These differences depend on many things. However, for many women, development starts when they have children, since most of them start working less and spend more time at home. Today, ten months of paid parental leave out of 16 can be freely transferred from one parent to the other, which most parents choose to do. Today, mothers take an average of 15.3 months of full-time and part-time maternity leave, while fathers take an average of 3.8 months. When setting up parental insurance in 1974, the ambition was to help women integrate into the job market. The uneven output causes the opposite effect.
The state must not penalize the already existing inequality.
A survival of the past
Certainly, some women themselves may wish. But the fact that almost all parents choose this arrangement is a vestige of a time when women had full responsibility for children. Obviously, people get what they want to give them to finance themselves. But the state will not penalize the inequality we already know. Paid parental leave should therefore be linked to the individual and not to the family.
READ MORE by Joar Forssell from Luf:
• You should be ashamed, Margot Wallström
• Abolish the luxury children's pension entirely
An individualized parental insurance is often criticized that it would be a matter of family life. But we must not forget that parental benefits are only state compensation for loss of income, which, like all other contributions, is already accompanied by indicators. Everyone is free to be orphaned alone for 18 years, whichever they wish. But if you are waiting for state-paid childhood leave, it is not unreasonable for the state to expect all caretakers to assume the same responsibility for the child.
Women work part-time with state aid
Another problem with parental insurance is that it is excessively generous: 16 months per child, which can be withdrawn up to eight years. It's a long time during which women can work part-time with state compensation. It will also be very expensive since it will be increasingly difficult to keep the welfare state alive. Therefore, parental insurance should be reduced from 16 to 12 months, with 80% of the parental benefit being used until the child reaches two years of age. According to estimates by the Riksdag Investigation Department, this would boost public finances by $ 11.8 billion. Municipal costs for child care could be estimated to increase by $ 4.5 billion, which would significantly reduce tax evasion for our portfolios.
The best for the well-being of the child
Some claim that a short parental insurance would hurt the child. However, there is little evidence that the well-being of children rests on exactly 16 months of childbirth. More research suggests that children feel bad that one of the parents spends much less time with him than the other. If we want to protect the well-being of the child, it is best to promote a balanced outflow.
Of course, the state should help parents reconcile work and family life. But when a contribution so unequivocally cements inequities and counterbalances rather than achieving the ambition to increase women's employment, it's time to change.
By Joar Forssell
Federal President of the Liberal Youth Union
Source link
