Should the government pay parents to stay at home and look after their children?

  • It's more than a full time job!

    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.

  • It is work.

    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.

  • Physically, Mentally, Emotionally Draining

    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.

  • Underage parents who don't qualify for jobs

    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.

  • Parenting is not childcare, it's a job.

    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

  • Yes, but with certain requirements.

    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.

  • Why fund high earners childcare?

    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.

  • Parents have to go back to work even after they have a newborn child.

    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.

  • Parents should not be looked down on for wanting to stay at home and raise their children

    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.

  • Staying home is a job

    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.

  • not they shouldn't

    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 childcare industry exists.

    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.

  • No, it's work, but you make the kid you support him or her.

    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.

  • Not in all cases.

    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.

  • Not in the USA

    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.

  • Parents need to take care of their own children!

    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?

  • The government shouldn't be using taxes to pay parents to care for their own children.

    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.

  • Should stay at home moms receive checks from the government

    In my personal opinion, no they shouldnt. I mean you are basically baby feeding your child their whole life! Teaching them right from wrong attending their every need, and making sure they dont get boo boo's or hurt. Although this all sounds dandy, in the long run your child will never learn how to be independent! The real world is different from the safe little environment you create under your roof, and this is the world they are being kept from because you want a "connection" or youre simply to lazy.Believe it or not you are being selfish. You may say what you want and come up with a million excuses. Like i can't afford anything on minimum wage, I want a connection, its a struggle. Truth is youre a liar. There are tons of job opportunities, you are just simply to lazy to try and get one( i know this because seeing my mom, work her ass off, made me want to be just like her, she is my role model!! I myself am a senior in high school, ive held a job since 8th grade, and make a lot more then minimum wage, simply because i worked for it, and with what i make, im sure i make more then you, and im only 17), but oh i understand it may be "too hard" to get one. Which is also another lie. You can get any job/position you strive and apply yourself for, if you prove you want the job, you keep calling, you keep checking up, if you are dedicated, then odds are youd get it. Plus pay for a job ranges anywhere from 7.95 to 30 bucks an hour, which you'd know if you actually took time to look. Next is there are thousands of parents who work a full/part time job and still do all your chores/task when they get home, because they know whats needs to be done, and know smothering their child now won't pay off in the long run. Last, is if you are truly a great parent, you should be able to keep a connection with your child. You shouldn't have to be home 24/7 for your child, or even family to love you!! My mother has had a full time job her whole life! 8am-5pm are her shifts, but guess what she still came home and cooked, clean, helped with homework, drove me around, and spent time with me!! Which made our connection stronger then you could ever achieve, because i saw a hard working women who was damn near perfect. A women who worked her ass off to be at the top, and to come home to me, just to talk about my day and what i learned, a women who isnt around me 24/7, but still knows all about me and my life! Simply because she didnt make a me a path to walk on, she helped me build my own path. That there, is a true mom/parent.

  • Perhaps not !

    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.

  • Perhaps not !

    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.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-04-28T04:22:42.140
If two parent stay at home do thet both get payed. I would like that so i could bang my wife
Extraterestrial says2014-08-09T06:26:44.710
I say yes not because raising a child is a job. It is a privilege and a right. It is natural order and the Feminist halfwit that said it was a job is deluded. I say yes because the system created money and to live we need money. Being a parent takes up time, which does not allow a parent to be able to work so they can feed their child. Working for pittance is slavery Systematized slavery and Abuse by big power psychopaths. Raising children is a natural birthright not a government right or a job. If those criminals want to hold everyone back with their illegal money system and not a natural system then yes they should pay. I however do not believe that average people who are enforced into this system should have tom pay for anyone else. In a natural system we would all have our jobs and help one another. Money is fraud. A way of using others to do your work while living a free life. We are all here to work not be abused by government corruption and lie upon lie
Extraterestrial says2014-08-09T06:35:43.223
For those who say about childcare payments, i see your point exactly. People being brainwashed into believing that work comes before family. This tactic is so the government does not offload funds but actually gains more funds. For example 2 working parents plus all the childcare workers equals high tax for government. They pay little for the childcare itself. If they paid for parent to stay home, then that parent will not provide tax for their greedy pockets and also we wont need childcare workers, so the government doesn't get tax from them people as well. The system is designed to enslave us all so they control. How many times do you hear one agency deny having anything to do with another but that is their drone script they read. They are all part of the same organization intent on destroying us all.