(edit title) Parental leave benefit, payment level CHANGED! Your previous salary in the EU will be used Options

[Taxalien]

I don't see any point in taking hypothetical arguments regarding a way to remove a benefit system that there is no historical precedence for in Sweden. All employers I know of will gladly tell you that they don't care about this money. If a lawmaker came and said, we are deleting this system and employers have to pay it as salary instead I am pretty sure the Swedes would do it.

There is however, another way to settle the discussion.

Calculate the value of the insurance policy for the average Swede, having the:

• average number of babies at the average age of having them
• median income
• 10 year government bonds as an alternative investment

I've done that excercise.

The result is that a couple (father 32, mother 29) would have:

• two children in 1999 and 2002.
• Based on the average distribution of föräldrapenning claims, their claims would run from 1999-2004 (which is a bit unrealistic, but that is what the statistics say)

Assumptions:

Start paying for the policy from age 24, 21 until retirement at 64.

From 2010, the median income distribution is used taking into account the difference in median income at the start point for their age group.

The insurance premiums paid (that would otherwise be assumed to be paid to the employee, since it doesn't matter to the employer who he has to part money to) would be: 186521 kr

The value claimed would be: 336530 kr

The alternative investment, assuming money kept until both retired is: 1031447 kr

Some comments about this result:

Parents take out the föräldraförsäkring when they are young, and consequently earn less, but they pay for the insurance both before and after they can claim for it.

A more fairer system:

Parents would claim and subsequently through the tax system be obliged to pay it back. For someone incapacitated it would not mean anything and the whole country would pick up the bill for it. The benefit level would be based on a reasonable median income basis and would not have to take any account of how much the family or parents were earning, thus leading to "Equal rights to equal protection and income support when having children."

[Yorkshireman]

All employers I know of will gladly tell you that they don't care about this money. If a lawmaker came and said, we are deleting this system and employers have to pay it a ... (show full quote)

All employers I know of will gladly tell you that they don't care about this money. If a lawmaker came and said, we are deleting this system and employers have to pay it as salary instead I am pretty sure the Swedes would do it. ... (hide full quote)

You have absolutely no basis for this assumption. The Swedish Government play no part in salary setting, in fact they avoid it, hence no legal minimum wage in Sweden. It is left for employers, and where active, trade unions.

There is however contrary evidence that the wishes of a Government with regard tax changes that are not followed, the glaring example recently was reduction of VAT on food in restaurants where the wish was that it result in creation of thousands of jobs, yet resulted in very few and even less in terms of price reductions.

[Taxalien]

It is a huge difference between a VAT change and a change in "NI".

But it is a hypothetical argument. Personally I would rather see the whole benefit system scrapped and replaced with a benefit system that covers everyone regardless of their previous salary history as well as something that takes into account how much you lean on or abuse the system.

Today that is sorely lacking not just here but everywhere.

[skogsbo]

But it is a hypothetical argument. Personally I would rather see the whole benefit system scrapped and replaced with a benefit system that covers everyone regardless of their ... (show full quote)

But it is a hypothetical argument. Personally I would rather see the whole benefit system scrapped and replaced with a benefit system that covers everyone regardless of their previous salary history as well as something that takes into account how much you lean on or abuse the system. ... (hide full quote)

any system would be flawed; unless the system was so complex it required many extra staff in every office to implement it, then there will always be extreme examples are either end of those who potential lose out and those who gain more.

[Somebody]

I have a few more questions

Ir there any maximum gap from the day of quiting a job
And a date of birth to be eligible for income based parental leave?

Can start claiming it while a mother is still pregnant?
Say 30 weeks in or so?

[Somebody]

Doubled post

[Yorkshireman]

Ir there any maximum gap from the day of quiting a job. And a date of birth to be eligible for income based parental leave?. Can start claiming it while a mother is still pregnant?. Say 30 weeks in or so?

Föräldrapenning can only be taken from maximum 60 days before the calculated birth. If you had to stop working before that due to the pregnancy then make sure you get a doctors note to say you are off sick instead, and then you will get sick pay.

The income based amount is based upon the same income that is used for sick-pay calculations (SGI), normally once you quit your job SGI is reset, however, for parents this is not the case, theoretically! they will allow a 6 month gap between quitting job and birth, if you leave your job within the 6 months prior to birth, they will count the income you had ... otherwise they will look to the lower level.

[Somebody]

Thanks a lot Yorkshireman,

My GF is working part time (20-25hrs a week)
and making after tax 8-9k.
Does the rule of 80% still apply here or she should be employed full time (40hrs a week)?

[Somebody]

Thanks a lot Yorkshireman,. My GF is working part time (20-25hrs a week). and making after tax 8-9k.. [b]Does the rule of 80% still apply here or she should be employed full time (40hrs a week)?[/b]

Does anybody know the answer to that?
I would really appreciate it.