2007-01-03 08:10:46 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
absolutely, a full pension with all benefits.
2007-01-03 08:18:48 · answer #1 · answered by shadow_warrior_priest 1 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I live in a place where we have a public daycare system. People can send their kids there from 6 months old, paying a fee of 7$ per kid/day. It actually costs 42$ per kid/day. If the mother (father) of the kid was given the 35$ per day instead, maybe SHE/HE would raise her/his own kid, instead of the state. In that optic, I would support that kind of money given to parents for the job (which is a real job, and demands time and effort) of raising kids.
But it's never simple to give money to the gov. Some of it always ends up lost. I know. I live in one of the most taxed state in north america, and there is always money missing for this and that. And then, you find out how some corrupt functionnaries have stolen it and wont even get punished. And, you might have noticed, a new tax that is implemented for something never disappears, even if the reason for it is no more.
So think about it, if you are about to clutter yourselves with flashy social programs.
2007-01-03 19:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My question is who is going to pay it? My retirement is paid for by myself, partially, and the state agency I work for. I don't know where this pension is going to come from. A homemaker's pension, or retirement, will be the retirement their spouse gets when he/ she retires. I guess, using their spouse's income, they would set up a private retirement fund, but that would sort of be pointless as there would be no employer contribution to the fund.
2007-01-03 16:20:15 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Paid for by those who work out of the home and still have to do all of the jobs that homemakers do (raise kids, cleaning, cooking, laundry, etc)??? Absolutely not. Otherwise we'd ALL be homemakers and no one would be working.
2007-01-03 16:27:26 · answer #4 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes- but not from the government, per se. When I decided to quit work and raise my children, it would have been nice to have the option to collect my social security or pension early... Then rebuild it when I return to the workforce. I do feel that my kids have benefitted from my being home, but it is definitely a financial sacrifice.
2007-01-03 16:18:16 · answer #5 · answered by Not so looney afterall 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes i do. My mom is a stay at home mom and her staying at home has enabled my father to excel at work leading to higher pay. Homemakers work just as hard as people who work for paychecks. Homemakers deserve pension!
2007-01-03 16:13:43 · answer #6 · answered by cutie123 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I beleive that the person who is providing financial support to the household should continue after that person has died. Widows and widowers should be able to collect their spouse's pensions.
2007-01-03 16:20:20 · answer #7 · answered by dpon62 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Their compensation comes from the breadwinner's paycheck.
I don't believe in government handouts. They're evil.
2007-01-03 16:20:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If they set it up for themselves and pay for it out of their own pockets, sure. But if you are expecting the government to pay, NO WAY. That is same thing as welfare.
2007-01-03 16:14:02 · answer #9 · answered by HAGAR!!! 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
YES! People who stay at home and raise the kids are doing the most important work there is......preparing our future generations. They need support!
2007-01-03 16:13:50 · answer #10 · answered by kj 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.
They like to do what they do, there is no need to pay them for doing something they enjoy. They would do it anyways.
Capitalism at work.
2007-01-03 16:13:22 · answer #11 · answered by r1b1c* 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋