Yes! The government should pay parents to raise their children. It's not just a 40 hour work week, its 24/7, 365. Every second of every day you have another life to take care of. Now I do think that this should only happen until they begin school. Once in school I think that the parents should then have to return to work. If they have problems finding a job then I think the government should have a type of unemployment that is paid to the parent. I do believe that only one parent needs to be paid to stay home. If you think about it paying someone else to "watch" your child is essentially paying them to be a vital part in raising them. Why should you pay someone else to raise the child you had when the government could aid financially in you raising your child. Unfortunately the US seems to be behind and incompetent in the way we do things so I know this will never happen.
I think that they should get paid because well for starters it is clearly a job that parents do and most people get paid for jobs. Also well they should get paid because of their kids they have to stay home even if they went to work so it isn't their fault that because of their child they can't work.
Being the daughter of a single mom, who worked three jobs to keep the smiles on her kids faces I want to lean more towards yes. My mother has never taken a dime from the government (due to her pride), but I know it would have helped. I know that there are people out there who will abuse the system (just like welfare). But there could always be "rules" put in place. You would need a previous employment of X amount of years. And maybe the pay will be nothing more than a small allowance? Just a little wiggle room money. I would say I am a solid 50/50 on this topic.
Parents who choose to leave work to take responsibility for their own children often make a financial sacrifice in order to fulfill this important role.
Some families have to return to work to make ends meet.
Others choose to return to work as they put their career before their responsibility to their children and are high earners.
The scheme funds the latter two cases and not the first. Surely the most deserving are the first two categories and the high earning career parent does not need to be funded by the taxpayer.
If you have no choice other than to return to work and use childcare you deserve financial help.
If you stay at home and sacrifice income to take personal responsibility for your child you also have a case for help with your financial loss.
If you prefer to put career before caring for your own children that's your choice but should not be assisted by the taxpayer.
A lot of parents have to go back to work even after they give birth to a new child, usually for financial reasons e.g. to support the family. Just when they have gotten into a great routine with their child, they have to find alternative care for their child to accommodate their work schedule. Also, they have to stop breast-feeding their children, which is a huge disadvantage in two ways: First, it will be stressful for both parent and child, and secondly, a study has shown that more breast-feeding done at a younger age can help make children smarter. Even though most parents actually get a day care subsidy, the bills would still be very large and they cannot concentrate on their work because they are anxious about their young child being in the hands of others. Why can't stay-home parents just be paid a sum of money every month to cover the costs of taking good care of the child. This way, only one parent will need to work and they can spend more time with their precious child. Also, this way, both parent and child can have more opportunities to bond with each other, which would make the children more filial when they grow up.
I am currently pregnant, and both my husband and I would like to stay at home, at least while our child is in its formative years, but with such huge financial demands, the only way we can make it work is by living, at least in part, on benefits, while I will still have to work part-time. Already I seem to be facing stigma from narrow-minded people who think we are just being lazy and can't be bothered to go out and work, which is simply not true. We both want more than anything to have a large part to play in our child's upbringing, and I think that if the government could help with this, then they should. Hopefully that way it would become something less frowned upon by society as a whole. However, I do think there should be some restrictions to prevent young people getting pregnant simply to get an 'easy' wage, especially when good jobs are so hard to find. I also feel it should be optional so that people who want to go out and work still can, and nobody is forced to be a stay-at-home parent if they don't want to.
Stay at home parents do just as much work, if not more, than their working partner. They have multiple job titles, driver, teacher, nurse, counselor, chef, etc.. While these things are possible with both parents working, it puts unnecessary stress on the family trying to juggle jobs, school, housework and day care. If a parent stays home, the children also have a more stable schedule when needed and don't need to be sent to school/day care sick if the parents cannot get the time off work.
Many families are struggling on one income so that the mother can stay home and raise her children. If the government assisted them with some amount of income it wouldn't be such a struggle for so many families. It wouldn't be such a burden on the father and the father would be able to spend more time with his family.
So many parents are going back to work after there maternity leave because they have to financially. When they have just gotten into a great routine with their baby and started to bond with him or her. They have to find alternate care to accommodate there work schedule and drop there child off with mostly a complete stranger, many have to stop breast feeding and its stressful on the child and parent. Most are getting daycare subsidy and barely making much more to pay the rest of the day care fee's. Why cant parents be subsidized for staying home instead of a daycare facility if they choose not to go back to work right away. No they would not be making as much as they would working and Yes there would have to be guidelines and rules to follow to get subsidy just like there is to get daycare subsidy and other things such as copies of receipts for food and diapers and other supplies. Maybe a health nurse would do a check on the child's well being and home situation just like a licensing officer would at a daycare. But I think parents should have that choice the first few years are the most important and being able to have the choice to stay at home and raise your child instead of a daycare should be out there!
Looking after a child is a full time job. It is physically, mentally, and emotionally draining for a parent to look after a child day in and day out. Not only do stay-at-home parents look after their children, but they also need to look after their house and that is work too. They deserve pay just as much as a person going to work does.
No I don't think mothers should have to stay at home to look after their kids We live in a society now where both mom's and dad's both have an active role in the raising of the child. If a dad can stay home and do it while the mom goes out, I don't see any problems with that. It should be dependent on the family situation as to how the child is raised and who stays with it. So no, I don't think mothers should have to stay at home with their kids necessarily, it just depends.
The child care industry thrives on working parents. Therefore, if parents were to stay home and look after their kids, the child care industry would cease to exist. Many jobs will be lost and with the large number of parents already staying home because of this salary, it only seems like this package will hurt the economy.
Making babies is optional. It's not something that just "happens," where the parents have no control over it. So if you make a kid, it's your responsibility to support and care for the kid, and that includes financially. Why should parenting become a career paid by the taxpayer? It's completely impractical and impossible to fund.
As much as I think it is unfair that parents are charged such a high rate of child care, which keeps a lot of mothers in the home when they could be out earning money for the family, I think it would be abused to pay parents to stay home and look after their children. People might have children just to get the money, and the children wouldn't necessarily be well cared for.
We don't have that kind of demographic problem here. I understand this policy in France or Russia but the USA has stable population growth. Maybe in the future this will be a good policy to pay people for having children. But right now that's just ridiculous. Population growth in America is fine.
If you aren't going to take your own money to pay for your own kids, why did you have them? I mean, abortion is never the answer, but if you know you will have to give your kids away or take money from the government to care for them, why didn't you give the child up for adoption?
Parents are meant to be a good role model for their kids. Being a role model means that kids get to witness their parents working for the community and building a healthy relationship with society. If all the children see is their parents staying at home, possibly not even wholly committed to the task, what if they say "I want to be a parent when I grow up"? This is a perfectly valid opinion; we can't simply deny it, but the children need to understand and be exposed to the working community before they can form an opinion. And what about parents who are in it for the money? Because let's face it, there are going to be parents out there who would take advantage of this and use it for their own benefits, rather than in the child's best interest. The government can't monitor a project this big; and that's already some serious funding issues. It would be unfair for those who work to have their taxes given to families who couldn't go out and work, rather choosing to stay at home, most likely reveling at the time they can spend on the Internet and in front of the TV. Taxes could definitely be put to better use than this, there are other more serious funds that the government can use the taxes for. The taxes are meant for the benefit for everyone, not those who get paid for staying at home.
If you’re a stay at home parent by choice, and you are able to work but you aren’t, and you’re spouse is not making enough income, I don’t think you should. Mainly because you’re choosing to not work when you could. You’re making the decision to not make money, so why should the government give it to you?
Just because a parent doesn't stay home with their child doesn't mean that they still don't take care of the same chores as stay at home parents. I work and then I come home cook dinner, make lunches, I make breakfast, I make sure homework is done, I do laundry, I clean my house, I pay with my child, I take him to and from places. Staying home is a choice. I don't think of parenting my child as work, it's a privilege. I don't think of taking care of my house as a job, it's a privilege.
Most moms should earn a salary from the government that cant work anywhere else but if they can work another job and aren't disabled they shouldn't rely on the government to raise their kids they should make money to raise their kids there-selves and be a good role-model for their kids. They don't want their kids to take the wrong way through life and be lazy like their parents.