Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Russ D
Perhaps it was unplanned? Perhaps the mother had a particular ailment where she was advised that her chances of conception were reducing as time went on and if she wanted a child she should have one at that time?
This is not about paying someone to stay at home - it's about renumerating someone for the hard work they go through in bring up a child, which does not have any "sitting on their backsides" involved.
|
Russ, my sister has four children. And we both are of the same opinion that staying at home and bringing up children is preferable to working 50-60 hours a week (as I do). Besides, there are plenty of benefits for parents already. Tax breaks, discounted/free heatlthcare etc.
I work my arse off, and get bugger all from the state for it. Why should someone who has a baby and wants to stay at home (therefore not financially contributing) get a better deal than me? When I have chosen not to have a baby simply only because I know I cannot afford to it myself? I am not as ease with sponging off the state, and I have the greatest contempt for those that are.