Quote:
|
Originally Posted by orangebird
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.
|
But we all sponge off the state ... you 'sponge' every time you go to see your GP, for example (unless you go private?). Yes, I know you pay tax for the privilege, but then so would most of the people we're talking about here. After I graduated, I spent six months on the dole. While being on the dole was depressing and a little degrading, I didn't feel guilty about taking the money as I knew that in my lifetime I'd pay a lot more in than I'd ever get out! Unless, of course, you or I became chronically ill and ended up costing the NHS a fortune while no longer paying tax. I don't think that's really sponging, though, and I'm sure you don't either.
Every society has to find the right balance between the individual's responsibility to look after him/herself and the community's responsibility to look after each other. If we as a nation decide to support families in this way, it's because we believe that giving them the freedom to decide whether or not to stay home with young children rather than being forced to send them to nursery due to financial pressures relieves stress on the family and is therefore good for everyone, and therefore for society as a whole.