Who thinks the government should pay housewives/husbands a wage?

Question

If the household includes children under a certain age, say 5, then do you think housewives/househusbands should be paid? I read somewhere that the housewife works hard enough to earn a wage of £25,000 per year. Yes please!!!!

Yes I agree people choose to have kids and stay at home but also people CHOOSE to smoke and its the tax payers who pay for their treatments when they get cancer. Surely the governments money would be better spent on people who are contributing to society by bringing up the people of tomorrow than spending it on self inflicted disease and poverty.

And by the way all those of you who are assuming i am a housewife, I am a mum to 3 children with another on the way and I work full time. I intend to return to work after my 4th is born so stop assuming I'm talking about me.

Answer 1

If the government was to pay House wife's/husbands that would be the most sort after job in Britain, how would your employer (The Government )know how productive you were, and if you were not doing your job properly, they cant exactly sack you
So as the great Duncan Banatin would say THATS A NO FROM ME

Answer 2

It would be nice to get paid. lol. But it would not be a good idea to pay stay at home mom's or dad's.

People choose whether they want to be parents or not. If a person was paid by being at home with their children, I bet a lot of people would have babies just so they could stay at home and get paid. How I conclude this? People I hear discussions about it all the time.

We already have the WIC and Welfare or other government granted systems already paying for those with low income bracket. With California being the high tax and in debt state, It would not be a good idea.

Parents do work hard and some do work harder than others whether be with 1 child or 5+. Plus, qualifying age would also be a factor. I have come in contact with some teens who had no worries about money as they felt "getting on welfare was easier than getting a job" (a quote from an ex friend). Now, with stay at home mom's or dad's, a 13 year old mother could qualify for that and only way she can be denied is if her mother claiming her and the baby on tax's, who is also a stay at home mother. If the mother is working outside of home, the 13 year old will not qualify still.

Yeah, it goes into a lot of depth when analyzing it.

The government paying would mean increase in tax dollars and something would have to bend, for this to happen. Our education money has already been cut back as new tax's increase for certain things. So, something always has to suffer for another thing to stay afloat.

Answer 3

I think this idea would be pretty unworkable because you would create a very powerful incentive for people not to work, much as has happened in the past with the social security system. Given a choice between a low-paying job and earning 25,000 a year for staying at home, which will people choose? And it would not just be the "slackers" in society asking themselves that question but this would become an important family financial decision for everyone.

By the way, you need to be careful with your examples. The one you used about smokers choosing to smoke and the rest of us paying for their cancer treatment is way off base. The excise taxes alone (ignoring VAT) that smokers pay for their habit each year outstrips the cost of their cancer and other related sickness treatments by more than 4 times. The reason people complain about this is that the tax is collected by central government and the cost of treatment is borne at a regional or local level. The issue is not, therefore, an economic one but a question of how central government distributes the wealth.

Answer 4

Believe it or not this is going to happen soon with the Helicopter money scheme, since people in countries like Switzerland have been complaining against the private banks and their endless crises that affect intentionally the economies of all the nations and they want their total cease of functions and return to the state owned Banks. So these bankers had the idea of giving people free money, indiscriminately if they work or not, in Switzerland, The Netherlands and other countries.

It can be as those subsidies in the past to poverty but this time it is for silencing consciences. If it's going to promote laziness? It's the most probable, although some people need it, but that policy will not be a panacea, it would be better that the banksters leave the society prosper alone without creating crisis every two years, that's what people want, to earn their own money and enough money to get a human standard of living.

Answer 5

I agree with you, I think that parents that stay at home should get a wage, BUT saying that, we'd be facing the same problem whereas so many people would fall pregnant (become terrible parents) just to pump the money coming in. I'm a mother, work full time and sometimes I cannot afford the things that people on benefits can (even babies wear brand trainers and they can't even walk!!).

I believe that the best way to combat the growing problem of young thugs and pregnancy within the poorer communities, is by making sure that you're always better off by working and if you choose to stay at home and look after the family, then people that have been working, are prepare to work as soon as the child is at school and carry on getting some kind of education towards their return to work, then they should get a proper wage for staying in.

Answer 6

Definately not. The married person's allowance should be restored or the stay-home spouse's tax allowance should be wholly transferred to the breadwinner.

Payment of a "wage" to stay home parents is morally wrong because, although You may choose to have children, others shouldn't have to pay you for doing it - however good a parent you are.

Yes, that's the bottom line I'm afraid. All these wonderful socialist or shang-ri-la schemes are fantastic until they have to be paid for.
What a surprise, it's always the much-derided middle class, middle-income (£35-80k/pa) person who has to pay for it.

Before you get on your high-horse just consider that people in this income bracket don't qualify for any "allownaces" or state "benefits" and they aren't wealthy enough to be immune from all the stealth taxes that the government inflict in the name of "re-distribution".
These people are also usually the ones who worked hardest at university to get a real degree (not 'media studies or some arty-farty certificate) and have a good solid wealth (for their company and country) creating job.
They usually work the longest hours of any employee, normally without overtime payment.

It's accepted in good grace that the middle classes taxes support those genuinely in need, and rightly so. But this squeezing has gone too far and is now a positive dis-incentive to work hard.

How many times have we heard they cry "they won't mind paying a little more for ..." from left-wing vote-seekers when seeking to increase middle-earner taxes (e.g. the last rise in NI rates)? What hypocrites!

Why should the biggest private tax payers, the middle class, (about 20% of the population) be expected to pay for yet more 'benefits' for the feckless (those who spend all their working lives then claim state benefits when they retire) and the "disadvantaged" (definition often unclear)? Would you include a "houswives' wage" too?

Answer 7

I don't think that housewives should be paid by the government. A lot of them can receive help if required, however I don't see how in the long run it will have a positive affect. People already get benefits. Besides, if they do get a wage will they have to pay tax on it?

Answer 8

Since Labour came into power, child allowance (like many other allowances) have become means-tested. Unfortunately, it now seems that if you wish to remain in a partnership/marriage and have children then an average income of £25k minimum is required, which means a ridiculously low amount of child benefit. So, it would appear that by having children the government will penalise you as, if you choose to return to work, then you will prob earn more than the means tested amount which means you get very little. If you choose to stay at home and try and teach your children about values and responsibility, every day you will be scrimping and saving.

I think the government should get rid of means testing for child benefit (which is in effect what you are asking) and give a fair flat rate fee ...i.e the same as a childminder would be paid. Where will the government be in twenty years time if the majority of women don't want to turn themselves into paupers because that will be the result if they have children?......No one to pay our pensions for us when we hit 70!

Answer 9

So that all the people who have a job have even more taxes?! No way! They do get paid, it's called Child Benefit! What more would they need? I think it is their choice and as long as their partner can support both of them, I think it would be great to look after kids at home - I'd love the opportunity some day! But no, they shouldn't be paid - wages are paid by companies to those who give them their time and labour to further the company; 'home-makers' are staying at home to benefit their children.. where would the money come from?

Answer 10

this is a very popular question, I'm surprised if you will get to read mine!! I agree with your opinion to a certain extent. I'm 22 and really want to start having children. Me and my partner work full time and we are on quite a good wage (about £24,000 per yr) but when I stop work to have kids my maternity pay is so low that we are going to struggle alot! I think this should be higher because then parents will be able to bring up kids alot better rather than worrying about money.

With the news yesterday that the UK is at the bottom for Child welfare and happiness means this country needs to change. No wonder the youths are going to pot with parents working long hours, they have no idea what their kids are doing anymore. At least in the netherlands they sit down every evening are have a meal together - they work on average 5hrs less a week than us - can you imagine how much of a luxury that would feel like!!!

Answer 11

Although i think that this would be wonderful in an ideal world it would mean that taxes would have to rise by huge amounts to cover them. While I don't agree that the tax credits are enough why should people who have had their family or people with no children support those who do. £25k is a decent wage (a fortune where I live!) and it would be a good career option for the lazy who don't want to work.
I would love more than anything to stay at home with my baby but we cannot afford it so I am going back to work (tomorrow unfortunately when my mat leave ends) the world doesn't owe me a living!