Government funding to support SAH

After posting about Maternity leave a few days back, it came to my attention how few women and men are given paid leave.
Many other countries seem to recognize the importance of the parental role and encourage and support it by offering up to three years of assistance for a parent to stay at home.

Why is the US (by large) non-supportive of parents staying home?
Is there some sinister conspiracy at play? Is our government working to sever the bonds between parent and child in order to strengthen our dependence on the state?

It seems apparent to me that most parents receive only a few weeks off that are typically unpaid. After this point in able to survive the parent must return to work or lose their job. In most situations, both parents must work in order to survive. Certainly, though, many Americans live well beyond their means and this would naturally play into both parents needing to work to support that lifestyle. However, regardless of those who live beyond their means, I think that the majority of Americans still do not meet the financial criteria that would enable a parent to stay at home and raise their children.

When you take into consideration how much daycares charge per month, many people are spending a large percentage of what they earn to a) be separated from their child b) have someone not as vested on the guidance and well being of their child raising of so said child and c) to be bringing home (following payment of child care expenses) an amount that is far lower than minimum wage.

Is there anything that can be done?
Would you be willing to pay into a more socialistic approach- an increase in taxes to support the role of a SAH parent?
Or do you prefer the current way US treats families- supporting both parents working rather than supporting SAH?

Why should the government pay someone to stay at home? It isn't the government's responsibility to pay our bills - it is mine and my husbands.

As for Maternity leave, employers should be more apt to use it as a benefit package.

ETA: No, I do not want my tax dollars funding people to SAH.

I do not think it is the government or anybody besides the parents responsibility!

When planning to have a child this should be part of the plan. People should save so they can stay home if that's what they choose to do.

I am not for paying more in taxes so people can continue to have babies to live off the people.

<blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" I do not think it is the government or anybody besides the parents responsibility! When planning to ... [snip!] ... what they choose to do. I am not for paying more in taxes so people can continue to have babies to live off the people."</blockquote>



But we are already doing this. Day care assistance. I am paying taxes so that people who can't afford the cost of daycare can receive full funding to send all their kids to day care. This can cost nearly as much, or more than an entire months salary.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Safka9973:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" I do not think it is the government or anybody ... [snip!] ... receive full funding to send all their kids to day care. This can cost nearly as much, or more than an entire months salary."</blockquote>


But those people are then working and paying taxes into our economy.
Not to mention that the money payed out benefits small business, generates tax dollars and puts more money into the economy again.

In your scenario, we are paying for something that holds no economical benefit.

Quoting Emily Dickinson:" Why should the government pay someone to stay at home? It isn't the government's responsibility to pay ... [snip!] ... employers should be more apt to use it as a benefit package. ETA: No, I do not want my tax dollars funding people to SAH."

This, exactly.

Our government has decided to assist people in NOT RAISING their children. And whether you choose to or not, you are already supporting other people's kids...

Quoting Safka9973:" Our government has decided to assist people in NOT RAISING their children. And whether you choose to or not, you are already supporting other people's kids..."

Excuse me?
So working mothers are not raising their children?  

I'm sorry that I think its ridiculous to even suggest me to pay money for the sole purpose of supporting someone's lifestyle choice - when it benefits no one but the recipient of the assistance.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Emily Dickinson:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Safka9973:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" ... [snip!] ... and puts more money into the economy again. In your scenario, we are paying for something that holds no economical benefit."</blockquote>



Not much. The majority of the taxes are paid by the top 1%. People who are on assistance which is a pretty hefty percentage are not really paying much for taxes, receiving higher tax returns and government assistance so for the most part are not giving back.

The cost of caring for your own children is also much lower than paying someone else to care for your child[ren]. So in reality, we are paying more than what would be paid to SAH.

And at what cost to society? I am not talking about financial deficits with this question. What has this done to us as a people?

You have to really weigh the pros and cons when it comes to this situation. In countries where the government funds 1 year of maternity leave, they usually have out the ass taxes. I lived in Germany and they are very pro mother and pro child. I love that. They do take care of the citizens in more ways than just 1 year of maternity leave. Its a great country.

BUT, there's, 19% sales tax, tv tax (for each tv in your household, church tax, etc. That adds up. I'm not willing to pay taxes for ridiculous items just so someone can SAH. Its a privilege, not a right. Its ideal but it shouldn't come out of the US citizen's pocket IMO.

Quoting Safka9973:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Emily Dickinson:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Safka9973:</b>" ... [snip!] ... at what cost to society? I am not talking about financial deficits with this question. What has this done to us as a people?"

There are other taxes than income taxes. Social Security tax, Medicare tax, sales tax, etc. Even people who receive government assistance currently use that money to stimulate our economy. When they use food stamps, guess what? That money goes to the people who make the products they buy, the people who stock the shelves, etc. Their daycare dollars support a small business who then in turn spends that money in our economy.

We get NOTHING out of handing out free money so that a mom can stay home and not work. Not to mention the fact that if the government starts paying people to stay home - instead of work - the amount of working people is going to diminish rapidly. How stupid would it be to go to work when the government will compensate your salary if you have a child?

If a woman (or man) chooses to stay home, more power to them - if they can financially afford to do so. Its not my responsibility to work to make sure they can.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Emily Dickinson:</b>" Excuse me? So working mothers are not raising their children?   I'm sorry that I think its ridiculous ... [snip!] ... for the sole purpose of supporting someone's lifestyle choice - when it benefits no one but the recipient of the assistance."</blockquote>




If someone else is spending the majority of your child's waking hours taking care of them, then I would say that no, you are not raising your child. Someone else is.

I do understand what y'all are saying. And I am completely non supportive of free loaders. But when the majority of the nation is on a min wage salary I would rather pay taxes to have people raise their own kids rather than pay for a day care to do it. Paying for someone else to work at McDonald's and miss out on their child's life to me seems to have no benefit. Esp with the crazy costs of child care.

Quoting LEGENDARY JAS ♥:" You have to really weigh the pros and cons when it comes to this situation. In countries where the government ... [snip!] ... just so someone can SAH. Its a privilege, not a right. Its ideal but it shouldn't come out of the US citizen's pocket IMO."

I also think there is a BIG difference between paid maternity leave and paying someone to SAH indefinitely.

I would support a paid maternity leave for a short period of time because of the health benefits to a nursing mother/nursing baby. However, there has to be limits and restrictions on that or else people are going to abuse the hell out of the system.

Quoting Safka9973:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Emily Dickinson:</b>" Excuse me? So working mothers are not ... [snip!] ... work at McDonald's and miss out on their child's life to me seems to have no benefit. Esp with the crazy costs of child care."

So teachers raise children?
Once your kid is school aged, you no longer have to do anything to raise them?

That is an ignorant statement to make towards any and all working mothers. I raise my child. No one else does. She goes to school to learn. She goes to daycare to socialize and spend a few hours while I work. I teach her right from wrong, I instill morals in her, I am the one that has raised her and I am the one she calls mom.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Emily Dickinson:</b>" There are other taxes than income taxes. Social Security tax, Medicare tax, sales tax, etc. Even people ... [snip!] ... home, more power to them - if they can financially afford to do so. Its not my responsibility to work to make sure they can."</blockquote>



I don't see how it is any different for the state to may the mother vs the daycare provider. Other than the mother would be paid less. Mom still has to pay taxes on maternity leave earned.

It's a job for that someone is getting paid for regardless of who the payee is.