It’s not difficult to justify welfare for people in need.
But what is the rationale behind welfare for people who already have more than enough?
There might be a case for Paid Parental Leave for people on very low incomes. But what is the justification for giving it to high income earners?
If people on well above average incomes can’t arrange their own finances without the need of top-ups from the taxpayers it ought to be their problem not ours.
If the state wasn’t paying them it’s probable their employers would to ensure valued workers returned to their jobs. Many already do supplement and extend PPL for that reason.
That raises several questions: Is PPL a benefit for parents or a subsidy for employers?
Does it help people have children, or help them fund more expensive choices about how they live?
What would happen if it wasn’t there at all?
Would employers give it? Would prospective parents budget for an income drop before the birth? Would they buy less expensive houses and pay less for what they put in them, the cars they drive and other discretionary spending?
Would it make a difference to when they had children or whether they had children at all?