If you're asking if I think the Government should give payments high enough to allow parents (single or otherwise) to stay home for six years until their kid goes to school the answer is no.
Well seeing as people don't actually want to read, I'm leaving the convo to the rest of you, enjoy
A woman is partnered with 3 young kids. The marriage breaks down, he won't pay CS. She has no proper training so would be working min wage jobs of say a grand a fortnight. It will cost her $200 a day in CC after JET runs out. She earns $100. She has no family to take the kids every day. So she decides when the eldest is 3 or 4 to study a degree to improve her wages. So she's not working.
Flash forward 3 years and the youngest is in school and she has her degree. The problem is that in her profession you are expected to work until 6pm. She still has no family. Out of school care closes at 5pm. The ex also works long hours or is not having contact with the kids so won't pick them up. So she has to leave an hour early every day. After 6 months the workplace gets jack of it and tells her they are demoting her to a lower paid, less hours position since she is not fulfilling work commitments. She now can't pay her bills and has ruined any chance of a good work reference.
This is why it isn't as easy as to say why don't you just stick them in care and work.
A lot of others came to similar conclusions to me, so I don't think we all just ignored your posts and all came to similar conclusions.
i can accept, though, that others have different priotities. And I do not believe that they should be punished for this. Some genuinely believe that children benefit from having a parent at home until school age. I do not believe that a SAHM should have to go against her beliefs simpy because her marriage ended.
I also believe that having children should not be a privilidge reserved purely for the financially well off. The cost of living in this day and age is pretty extreme, and a LOT of families simply wouldn't be able to have children without things like BB (hence its introduction) and FTB. Pretty sure when FTB was introduced it was because "no child should be living in poverty in this country".
That's just how life is too. That's one reason we have welfare.
And as cost of living has skyrocketed, and that is a fact that is well documented, so should welfare payments increase. Otherwise welfare has essentially gone down in real terms. Welfare payments are kept low for obvious reasons. So its not possible for them to decrease in real terms without placing people in severe financial distress. If cost of living goes up, welfare should go up.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using BubHub
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!