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.
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.
As we all know, teenagers from 15 years of age onward are getting pregnant and having children while they are still at school. People might say: 'It's their choice' and 'They shouldn't have children if they can't financially support them' and both of those statements contain truth in them. However, some underage parents didn't choose to have sex. They may have been forced. The government should pay a salary to parents who stay at home because they themselves could be underage, still completing high school and have possibly been kicked out of their homes.
If your child goes into childcare from a very young age then their role models become the teachers and carers at the center. Not the parents who they need to look up to. If parents stay at home to raise the next generation and void the income of working then they need to be subsidized for this
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.
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 government shouldn't be taking money from us just so that lazy parents could get paid. There are other people that work their ass of everyday and still got no money to support themselves.Or people that live in the street and cant even get a meal most of the time. The government should take money from us to help those that have no home not give money to mothers that are able to get a job and work as hard as the rest of us.
First of all, where would this money come from, its not like America has tons of bills stacked up somewhere waiting to be spent. And second of all, if you don't have the steady flow of bills why are you having kids! That's ridiculous, don't be fooling around if you know your not gonna be able to support a child if were cursed with one.
First of all, where would this money come from. Its not like America has tons of money stacked up somewhere waiting to be spent. And if couple has a kid whether they planned it or not they have to responsibility of caring for it financially. Otherwise give the child to someone who truly wants it and can care for it.
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.
My question is who is going to pay these moms. The government? Our country is already in so much debt, and i don't think this money should be used to pay some moms. If not the government who, me? I don"t want my hard earned money that i work for to be used to pay some stay at home mom.
Being a stay at home mom is not a job. Do you get paid for it or should? No. It is your choice to be staying at home and there is a thing called family and day cares that look after your children. You want money then get a job. Every parent needs to take care of their children and if you think you should get paid for that then there is something wrong with you.
It is there choice to stay home and not get paid. They know thats what their getting, so dont wine about it. If you want to stay home and get paid then get a job were you can work from home and stop complaining. There is no reason for it.