Just A Crazy Idea I Am Putting Out Here

[LadyKay]

So I was thinking like I do from time to time.  With parents having to choose between staying at home to take care of their kids. Or go to work. What if the Gov paid one parent to stay home while the other parent worked? Like say they will pay one parent $1000.00 a month to be a stay at home parent as long as the other parent was working out side the home. Let say they would do this until the child is say 16 years old. What do you think?   Would this work? 

[teddyv]

I think it might be better if there were structured as tax write-offs. Perhaps the equivalent of taking of $1000/month off the main earner's income. Although your idea could potentially increase tax revenue if the benefit as suggested is taxable.

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 9/11/2020 at 12:50 PM, LadyKay said:

Let say they would do this until the child is say 16 years old. What do you think?   Would this work?

It depends on how much money taxpayers are willing to pay to support other people. It is not like the government actually has money of it's own to hand out to every possible cause, or am I wrong in that?

[teddyv]

Our economic system is also strongly predicated on productivity and this more and more means every adult working. 

[LadyKay]

8 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

It depends on how much money taxpayers are willing to pay to support other people. It is not like the government actually has money of it's own to hand out to every possible cause, or am I wrong in that!

Seems there is always money to blow people up. No one ever complains about that. 

[LadyKay]

7 hours ago, teddyv said:

Our economic system is also strongly predicated on productivity and this more and more means every adult working. 

But it use to not be that way. It use to be perfectly acceptable for one parent to stay home and care for the family while the other one works. So what happen? Why have basic life things become so expensive that two people in a household have to both work? Children have to be put off or just dont have any. Or make it sometimes else's job to care for them or leve them on their own.

[teddyv]

I'm not sure why it happened specifically. Among many things, I'd say that the rise of consumerism was part of it. 

[Zemke]

4 hours ago, LadyKay said:

But it use to not be that way. It use to be perfectly acceptable for one parent to stay home and care for the family while the other one works. So what happen? Why have basic life things become so expensive that two people in a household have to both work? Children have to be put off or just dont have any. Or make it sometimes else's job to care for them or leve them on their own.

Well the bigger picture is this world is still in the hands of the wicked one and slavery and submission is part of the devils hate for humanity. We are but grass and we do not know what we are doing and it's why we either submit to Christ and become bond servants or become slaves to the darkness of this world.

The smaller picture is faith and the Christian community. I know many couples that have the man working and the woman doing the work of homemaking and they do well. Granted the Christian community is strong among them and families help one another but they just do it. Some of them have great incomes but most are pretty much the standard like most of us.

We've taken special collections for families going thru a rough spot. Our deacon is a great older gentleman and has the liberty to disperse anything under $800, and anything over that needs church congregational approval. When situations arise we all receive mail for a vote to extend funds or are informed of a special offering will be taken that coming Sunday.

And there are people in the fellowship always bringing up how we can do more. 

In this current economy for the last 50 years it really takes faith and a faith community. Without Christian community I'm not sure many could pull it off without strife and divorce. The world is set up for it.

The serpent came after the heart of Gods creation, the unity between God, man and woman. The world is full of divorce, homosexuality and abortion. Nothing new under the sun.

[Omegaman 3.0]

9 hours ago, LadyKay said:

Seems there is always money to blow people up. No one ever complains about that. 

If "nobody" ever complains about that, then why would it change? You know that isn't true, plenty complain about it, but it is a nice attempt at drama and diversion. Blowing people up (as you put it) is about various things, such as protecting industries, national security, human rights, and assorted other excuses and justifications. Sometimes it is pre-emptive, and it is hard to know whether loss of life of some, can be weighed against prevention of loss of life of others, it is too complicated for me.

Whether people want to spent money that way or not, is side stepping the issue of whether some people (such as yourself perhaps) think that it is just, right, and moral to force others to pay for benefits to strangers, to subsidize choices they made. Is that the proper role of government? Robin Hood may have been a hero to the poor masses, but he was still an immoral, criminal thief!

If there is a need (not a wish) that needs to be addressed such as paying people to stay home to take care of children they chose to have (no one made them do that), then why isn't it the place for charity, where kind hearted people, such as yourself, step up to the plate and volunteer their own money, instead of expecting it to be a burden upon taxpayers.

In past times, this was something the church did, as well as other people who saw needs. I live in the U.S. so I have that perspective. Having watched charitable giving here, I notice that when taxes are reduced, charitable giving rises, which is of course to be expected people have more disposable income. Added to this, is the fact (here in the states at least) that out of $100 taken in taxes for social welfare, $28 goes to the need, the rest is swallowed up in inefficient bureaucracy, etc. Compare that with private charities, which sometimes get 90 cents out of every dollar, the the beneficiary. Those numbers may not be current, but those were the numbers when I last researched it years ago.

Now, I happen to personally know a couple who had unprotected sex only twice, and from that, had 5 children. In their marriage, they decided that the wife would stay home to raise the kids. They had to make some sacrifices in lifestyle. If then needed a car, they only bought cars with over 130,000 miles on them. They did not go out to eat a lot, and when they did, is was usually with economy in mind. They did not buy expensive electronics, or have cable TV. Rather than taking advantage of the "free" public education (that they themselves paid for through property taxes), they elected to home school their children, and that had it's own expenses. You no doubt get the idea.

The husband worked, but only had a workman's wages, and that not even at union scale, just hourly, though skilled labor rated. The family lived below the poverty line, was eligible for welfare, but did not take it. They never went without clothes on their backs, sufficient food, not a roof over their heads. The even managed to give charitably themselves, and tithe at their church. Of course it can be rightfully said, this is not because they were clever, but that they were willing to sacrifice luxuries, and God provided all their needs, and they were even comfortable. Not every poor person can say that, but many people who are poor such because of poor choices throughout their lives. The church should be more involved in helping people learn to make good choices, but I understand that in some parts of the world and even in my own country, the church has been less than effective at seeming relevant.

In any case, I suggest not mixing unrelated topics. Paying people to stay home funded by others, is a separate subject, than justifying military strength and action, which is worthy of discussion, but that was not your topic.

[Omegaman 3.0]

15 hours ago, LadyKay said:

But it use to not be that way. It use to be perfectly acceptable for one parent to stay home and care for the family while the other one works. So what happen? Why have basic life things become so expensive that two people in a household have to both work?

Well there are a number of reasons why things are more expensive, off the top of my head, I can mention a few. One is a simple law of economics, perhaps also part of normak human behavior that makes the law work. The more money there is available, the more things will cost. For some examples, college education became more expensive, when scholarships become more available. There are only so many "seat" available, and when people are spending other peoples money, they do not concern themselves with costs so much. If you had only $10,000 to allocate toward your education, then that is what you would spend, and no more. However, if you have a scholarship, or a student loan, then you have more money to spend, and you do not shop as hard. When a college understands that there is more money available, it will raise prices to take advantage of that.

The same thing goes of medical insurance. If it is your money, you are thrifty, if the insurance pays, you will spend more freely, and of course the medical industry will raise prices also, to get their part of the pie.

It is not some evil, greedy conspiracy,  people do the same thing when they look for a job, they will generally go for more money, rather than less. Maybe it IS greed, I will leave that for others to decide for themselves.

However, along with more money, you sometimes get an improvement in quality. It days of old, the doctor came to your house, with a black bag, and you paid for his services with one of your chickens. However, chickens will not pay for an MRI machine, so that, that the costs of facilities, 8 year educations, malpractice insurance, and drug research standards all come at a cost.

Even things like amusement parks. Near me is Disneyland. It has a lot of things that it did not have when I was a kid, so some costs increases seem appropriate. However, it is now out to financial reach for many families. I believe Disney's way to set prices, is by attendance. The park only holds so many people. So, to avoid sending people away, they raise their prices until the park is just about at it's attendance limit. In affect, it is the customer who decides what to pay, by showing Disneyland how much they are willing to pay. Same with gasoline, groceries and most everything else.

So when people have more money to chase a limited amount of goods, prices just naturally rise. As I said, along with that, you might get a quality increase as well, but not always.

To your other question:
It is still acceptable for one person to work, and the other to stay home! People have to be willing to either lower their material expectations, or compensate by having the one spouse work two jobs, or find other ways to generate extra income. It is not that difficult, it is just a choice, a decision to make. 

My father was the only income in our family, my father-in-law was the only income for his family, yes that used to be more common than it is now.

However, in both of those cases, they lived in smaller that average homes, and only one driver, one car, and cars did not have luxuries like radios, and air conditioning. They bought a car and kept is for a while. In the case of my father-in-law, he bought a used car in 1967, and still had it as his only car when he died a few years ago. He was just a salesman, but he squirreled away every penny for many years, until he could make a down payment on his first rental property. He kept that philosophy all his life. He was raised in the depression, so he knew how to do without.

he kept at the business of trying to be a landlord, devoting all the money he made to that end. He quit his job when he was 43 years old, and never worked for anyone else again. He had 6 kids in all, at at his death, he left them all, multiple properties. He was not a genius, not especially wise really, but he made some sound financial decisions that served him well.

Most anyone can do the same, makes sound decisions that is. The may not die a multimillionaire, but they will most likely be better off financially, and not stuck in one income level all their life.