I second the flats option. I got some sassy cute shoes for my wedding and my feet were ruined by the end of the night, probably because tipsy bewildered thought it was a great idea to pick up a couple of 60lb kids and jam with them on the dance floor. Whatever. I feet were so tender the next day that I could barely walk, and that coupled with the 15 hour plane ride I took 4 days after the reception left my feet so swollen that I could barely fit my feet into my roomy sneakers. Save yourself the footache and get some comfy alternate footwear!
You can always have one of them made into a pendant like my dad did for me with a quarter. Everyone asks me about it. It's a great piece. Also. i am squealing. He made it happen from over two thousand miles away.
I'm a magpie so yeah it's been fun this afternoon seeing it dazzle at me. Squee jumpy clapness all around.
Thank you. Ideally - we will do this under the radar at the ballpark. But he has to get leave for it. No "thing" at all. And my brother will perform it. His mom is wanting it to be more than we do...but we are managing I think...to avoid any fuss.
Absolutely stunning! Glad you're getting the wedding you want as well! When I first got mine, I used to get distracted when it caught the sunlight whilst driving!
The melt ban on silver coins was lifted in 1969. As a matter of fact, it was only in 2006 that the Mint specifically banned melting of copper and nickels, because of the significant copper content. Spoilered for length: Spoiler (emphasis mine) Also, from the US mint website (via search, their direct links from search don't work): (again, emphasis mine) I believe the difference between the law you cited and the melting of coins is that, technically, coins are not "evidence of debt." In theory, coins have inherent value whereas a bill is simply evidence that the government owes you that much. Also, while I'm here, cluttering up the ladies' thread... congrats, shimmered!
Thank you all. I'm reeling a bit still. And feeling quite girly. In other news, the choice of attire by the general public for a special event leaves me baffled. At The Guys graduation - they're standing in their ASUs looking all sharp and what not, the cadre are also dressed in their ASUs, and the family members are showing up in tank tops, flip flops, messy buns, sleeveless t shirts, etc. I understand South Carolina is humid but - NO RESPECT for the occasion was shown by most of the people there. Shame.
Congratulations, shimmered! The ring is beautiful (I like sparklies, too). It has come to my attention (on Facebook) that several other countries' governments subsidize their citizens' maternity leave for anywhere from 12 to 50 weeks (with Canada taking the lead at 50), whereas the US subsidizes nothing. Now, I'm in an e-fight over the idea that the government should subsidize my choice to have a child or children. I feel that, without regulation (i.e., the government will subsidize leave only for the first child or the first two children), this leave system will fall into severe abuse much like our welfare system - women will have children simply to reap further economic benefits. What are y'all's opinions on this? I'm curious if I'm in the minority. I would include the graphic showing the weeks of leave per country, but I cannot do so from my phone, so that will need to come later.
I don't know that I like the idea of government subsidization, but the shitty thing about maternity leave is that it's often unpaid, so not only do you deal with the stress of a newborn, recovering from delivery (much easier from a natural delivery than a surgical), and figuring out how to deal with the new tiny human in your life, you're also dealing with less income. Obviously that isn't the government's problem, and it's something one should consider prior to having a child, but fact is...often people DON'T consider it. Thank you! I'm pretty happy. I never thought I'd do this again...so...being happy about it is a huge surprise.
This is the graphic that sparked the discussion: I can certainly understand a capped subsidy, i.e., the government will provide 'x' number of weeks of paid leave for the first 'x' number of children, and guarantee that one's job will still be intact if one returns within 'x' number of weeks. But I feel like, without some sort of regulation, we are just further encouraging individuals that are wholly unprepared to have a family to do just that. I can only speak from anecdote, but I had three godchildren before I was 21. None of the mothers were in any way prepared to bring a child into the world, least of all from a financial standpoint. Maybe my opinion is extreme (and my view is certainly limited because I've had no children yet), but I fear that it would evolve into another system that supports people like the Teen Moms.
Wow, creepy coincidence PG...I was just looking up the benefits cap this morning. In Canada, you are guaranteed (regardless of being the birth mother or the adopted parent) 17 weeks paid maternity leave. Either parent may then apply for paternity leave, up to a maximum of 34 weeks (military families have a cap of 104 weeks). The payment is 55% of your pre-baby income, up to a cap of about $46,000. Meaning the absolute maximum you could ever collect is around $465/week, and that money is taxable (plus you pay EI and WCB on it). So you'd be looking at a yearly income of just under $26,000 - and that's if you were making in excess of $46k before. Beyond the money, you are guaranteed employment throughout your leave. Meaning your employer can't fire you or lay you off while you're on it. My thoughts are that it is absolutely necessary, and a good thing for society. For all our complaints about the baby boomers sucking up resources, a big part of the problem is that our generation is not having babies. Cutting programs that help young families doesn't benefit society as a whole. And yes, there are welfare junkies who are leaches on the system, but I think those people will always find a way to corrupt things. On the whole, it's needed money for a family that's just had a little bundle of expenses arrive. The reason I was looking it up is that, should I hit 35 with no prospect of finding The Guy, I'd have kids on my own. The irony is that the system is very hard for single mothers. Even if you were making a very decent wage beforehand, how well would you survive if you had to support kids on under $25k/year? The answer is that fathers are necessary, and the system doesn't have as much support for young families as would be nice. Having said all that, I could never justify increasing taxes on the population and giving single mothers greater public assisted income. Maternity leave is meant to be a stipend to tied you over until you get back to work; not a crutch that allows you to breed little income generators.
What % of the women in those countries do you think are full-time employees? I am going to guess 1/10th the amount as in the US, so companies can afford to offer that to the small number to which it applies. And what are the tax rates in the rest of those countries? It's all relative. Sad, but relative.
My thing is this: there are ways to calculate the cost of raising a child prior to having a child. True, from what I'm told and can see, one can never be fully prepared for the rigors of raising a child, BUT I think society on the whole could be more prepared. My sister had to complete a project in high school on the cost of raising a child for its first year of life. No "shortcuts" (i.e., saying she would breastfeed for the duration instead of using formula) were allowed, and the cost is staggering, but it's a cost that I think few consider before having children. I'm not totally against government subsidy, I just feel that it should be (as Dcc said) a stipend to tide a family or individual over until they can return to work and thus would require severe regulation. I like Dcc's point about making the choice to be a single parent, but I want to make the point that she (you) will likely be in a financial position to only need a stipend during recovery (or acclimation, in the case of an adoption). I also think women who choose to be single mothers later in life are in a minority, and the fact remains that those who would most visibly benefit from government subsidy would be those that never took the time to educate themselves on what it takes to raise a child in the first place, or that know what it takes and don't care because the government will take care of them from the moment they conceive onward via various programs. The tax rates in most of the European nations listed are much higher than in the US - US personal tax rate is, on average, around 28%, whereas many European countries have rates from 35% to 55%. The problem with comparing taxation is that each nation does it differently. Some institute a payroll tax that decreases personal tax, others use a progressive tax instead of a flat tax, et cetera.
In addition, those taxes are also going to pay for much more than simply financing a new mother's maternity leave, for example, healthcare and education. It isn't like it would be comparing apples to apples. Personally, I would rather pay more taxes so the population of my country received more services and benefits, but apparently I am a dirty socialist.
I'm not sure how much of our lack of social services and benefits has to do with actual taxes collected versus allocation of said taxes. Would we honestly receive more services and better benefits if we were subject to a higher tax rate, or would those taxes simply be diverted to something else?
Probably depends on who is in office and the "people"'s willingness to pay for said allocation and how it affects their voting, to be honest. This could turn into a political discussion that I am unwilling to have, but I think we got a little taste of it with the public's perception and tolerance with the whole "Obamacare" debacle. As far as I am concerned, that ship has sailed in the US. A politician could offer free unicorns for every citizen, but if you breath a word about raising taxes, your ability to be elected declines sharply (why should I pay more just so THEY get a unicorn, I worked hard for my unicorn, that is the american way). And if you can't get elected, you can't enact change.