blueblood Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go... Does this stay at home mom have a working husband, or are we talking single moms? Does the question apply also to stay at home dads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go... According to my 2004 CPC Candidate yes. According to the CHP Candidate Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go...Many Canadians receive many government cheques for many reasons.For example, Adrienne Clarkson will receive a government cheque for over $100,000 every year for the rest of her life (as will Michaele Jean). Many Canadians over the age of 65 receive monthly government cheques (and they also pay lower taxes) for no other reason than that they are over 65. How do you define a "welfare" cheque? I started a thread that lists every organization in Canada that has received a transfer payment (a government or "welfare" cheque) over $100,000. To be clear, a transfer payment is defined as a payment for which no good or service was provided to the government. Public Works Transfer Payments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go... Does this stay at home mom have a working husband, or are we talking single moms? Does the question apply also to stay at home dads? Yah, I'll say she has a working husband, i think single stay at home moms already receive welfare. Good point, It also applies to stay at home dads. I'm just really curious at this. On one hand, if she wants to get money he/she should go out and get a job like everyone else. On the other another income makes it easier for the family to get ahead, he/she can more afford to stay at home and properly raise the child, thus help reduce the burden on daycare and the other costs of a non properly raised child. Another point is in the case of marriage when it comes to divorce it could essentially negate gold digging. I'm on the fence as far as my opinion goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'm just really curious at this. On one hand, if she wants to get money he/she should go out and get a job like everyone else. On the other another income makes it easier for the family to get ahead, he/she can more afford to stay at home and properly raise the child, thus help reduce the burden on daycare and the other costs of a non properly raised child. Another point is in the case of marriage when it comes to divorce it could essentially negate gold digging. I'm on the fence as far as my opinion goes. None of those are public interest issues IMO. If they want more money, get a job. Why should I send money to families just because they have kids? I also don't want to fund their daycare either. People know the costs (or should) before they have kids. If they can't be responsible enough to realise that ahead of time, the rest of us shouldn't be burdened with their negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go... Does this stay at home mom have a working husband, or are we talking single moms? Does the question apply also to stay at home dads? Yah, I'll say she has a working husband, i think single stay at home moms already receive welfare. Good point, It also applies to stay at home dads. I'm just really curious at this. On one hand, if she wants to get money he/she should go out and get a job like everyone else. On the other another income makes it easier for the family to get ahead, he/she can more afford to stay at home and properly raise the child, thus help reduce the burden on daycare and the other costs of a non properly raised child. Another point is in the case of marriage when it comes to divorce it could essentially negate gold digging. I'm on the fence as far as my opinion goes. No, if they want to have kids support them themselves, and don't have em. I have known plenty of stay at homes moms who did not raise their children properly. And whose definition of "properly" are you using? To say that children who attend day care are not properly raised is ludicrous. And what do you mean cut down on gold diggers? Are you saying men should not be finiancialy responsible for their children, and that a woman hads no right to half the assets and sousal support if needed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 I also don't want to fund their daycare either.Would you extend that argument to primary school and high school too?Should parents bear the entire burden of educating their children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 No, if they want to have kids support them themselves, and don't have em.I have known plenty of stay at homes moms who did not raise their children properly. And whose definition of "properly" are you using? To say that children who attend day care are not properly raised is ludicrous. And what do you mean cut down on gold diggers? Are you saying men should not be finiancialy responsible for their children, and that a woman hads no right to half the assets and sousal support if needed? How right wing of you. If the kids become law abiding citizens who work hard that's being raised properly. I've also seen some kids that attend day care that weren't raised properly, it happens. I'm not attacking your precious women with the gold digging statements, i'm attacking gold diggers in general, men are bad for it as well. In my town there is a guy who is married to a female pharmacist and all he does is sit on the couch and watch his ass grow. IMO no man or woman has a right to a dominate spouses assets and bank account. If one partner gets full custody of children pending a divorce, why should the other have to bankroll them, if they don't have any say in how they are raised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 No, if they want to have kids support them themselves, and don't have em.I have known plenty of stay at homes moms who did not raise their children properly. And whose definition of "properly" are you using? To say that children who attend day care are not properly raised is ludicrous. And what do you mean cut down on gold diggers? Are you saying men should not be finiancialy responsible for their children, and that a woman hads no right to half the assets and sousal support if needed? How right wing of you. If the kids become law abiding citizens who work hard that's being raised properly. I've also seen some kids that attend day care that weren't raised properly, it happens. Day care has nothing to do with it IMV, it is the nature of the child and the family. For example, my daughter attended day care from the time she was 3. She got her first job when she was 14 and has worked ever since, all through school to graduation, and college, and is now a business owner. Her partner and her, they are in their later 20's, own their own home worth about a half million now. They bought their first bungalow 7 years ago, sold it after fixing it up for a 200k profit. Bought the home they have now for 220k and and have turned it into a half million home. They did this working full time, and having on side jobs out side of work hours, plus renovating and are also raising a very wonderful daughter, who is fluently bi-lingual, well adjusted, loving and happy, and who also went to day care. Her partner was raised in a stay at home mom family and is way less independant and broad thinking than my daughter is. Plus a heck of a lot more needy. Though they are now positioning themselves to buy a second business, worth well over a million, within the next 3 years. I'm not attacking your precious women with the gold digging statements, i'm attacking gold diggers in general, men are bad for it as well. In my town there is a guy who is married to a female pharmacist and all he does is sit on the couch and watch his ass grow. IMO no man or woman has a right to a dominate spouses assets and bank account. If one partner gets full custody of children pending a divorce, why should the other have to bankroll them, if they don't have any say in how they are raised? Dominate partner? So you are saying stay at home parenting and living is makes the other person less than and their efforts worth nothing? You bankroll your kids because they are your kids, you brought them into this world you pay for them. I simply cannot wrap my mind around someone who could care so little for their children, they would not want to support them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Day care has nothing to do with it IMV, it is the nature of the child and the family. Agreed. Some stay at home mom's do a great job of raising their kids too. Dominate partner? So you are saying stay at home parenting and living is makes the other person less than and their efforts worth nothing? In a market sense yes. Why should someone be automatically entitled to another's income? If the stay at home person makes an effort, then they have somewhat of a point, but if they sit on the couch and watch their ass grow then no, they aren't entitled. It's a case by case basis, but no they should show why they should get a say in the finances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Thread drift. For example, my daughter attended day care from the time she was 3. She got her first job when she was 14 and has worked ever since, all through school to graduation, and college, and is now a business owner. Her partner and her, they are in their later 20's, own their own home worth about a half million now.....Why do I get the impression that too many posts amount to statements that "I'm OK and even better than you"?People seem remarkably concerned about their own status compared to others. This deserves a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Should parents bear the entire burden of educating their children? Don't they already? People pay taxes. Cut the education portion of taxes out and let people pay. Make it a requirement that kids need to go to school (or be home schooled). Essientially the education tax is a silly transfer program yet again. Give people their money and they can invest it in whatever school they think best suits their child. The voucher system to a whole new level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Day care has nothing to do with it IMV, it is the nature of the child and the family. Agreed. Some stay at home mom's do a great job of raising their kids too. Dominate partner? So you are saying stay at home parenting and living is makes the other person less than and their efforts worth nothing? In a market sense yes. Why should someone be automatically entitled to another's income? If the stay at home person makes an effort, then they have somewhat of a point, but if they sit on the couch and watch their ass grow then no, they aren't entitled. It's a case by case basis, but no they should show why they should get a say in the finances. They are entitled because they stay at home and provide the foundation so that person can work, that is if they are doing so, and raising the children, and yes it entitles them to half the income. It is called partnership. If you do not want to share your income do not get married, and have children. Moreover, if you have the idea that a man should work, keeping all his income for himself while the government pays the mom to stay at home, you really need to think further. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ August my example was only to show how way off base some are if they feel day care does not allow for children to be properly raised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Catchme, while I agree with you that the spouse should in most cases be entitled to half the income during the marriage... I have to strongly disagree with long term spousal support. Eventually once people decide to abandon a partnership, they've got to stand on their own two feet. The income earner has an obligation to support the partner in the marriage, but outside of that, who cares. Once they aren't married, that person has no further obligation IMO. As well, the potential for abuse is huge. As a young single person with some income earning potential, I can gaurntee that I wouldn't enter a marriage without a prenup... wayyy to much to lose in an inherently biased system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catchme Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Catchme, while I agree with you that the spouse should in most cases be entitled to half the income during the marriage... I have to strongly disagree with long term spousal support.Eventually once people decide to abandon a partnership, they've got to stand on their own two feet. The income earner has an obligation to support the partner in the marriage, but outside of that, who cares. Once they aren't married, that person has no further obligation IMO. As well, the potential for abuse is huge. As a young single person with some income earning potential, I can gaurntee that I wouldn't enter a marriage without a prenup... wayyy to much to lose in an inherently biased system. I do not agree with spousal support beyond the time it takes for the spouse to become educated and gainfully employed. Moreover, I believe that woman are absolutely foolish if they are in a marriage and have no self supporting skills. Oh, I agree the potential for abuse is huge, the potential for males to shirk responsibility is even huger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'm on the fence as far as my opinion goes. It's funny you are convinced that minimum wages for working people are pure evil but you are on the fence when it comes to welfare cheques for people who decide not to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Well the topic is stay at home moms and welfare. Just my two cents. My wife and I work opposing shifts (i work so many on so many off and she works on my off days). She works part time. We dont use daycare, never have, and never will. Now I know lots that use daycare and have healthy adjusted children and raise their kids just fine. For us, its just not what we wanted. And we receive the conservatives monthly child benefit of 100 bucks per kid. This benefit has helped us a lot. It does in fact provide for my wife to work a little less and spend more time at home with our kids. Which was the intended reason for the benefit. So for that I give kudos to the conservatives. Because the liberals plan would have done NOTHING for our family. Though for some people i am sure that the liberal plan would have been a better deal. Everybody has a different situation. And as I am in a higher tax bracket, I feel it gives us a little bit back from the amazing amount of tax I have to pay each year, so I feel no guilt in accepting this cheque. So basically they took it out of my left pocket and put a little bit back into my right pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Day care has nothing to do with it IMV, it is the nature of the child and the family. Agreed. Some stay at home mom's do a great job of raising their kids too. I happen to know some women who made a good salary but had kids primarily to get out of work. I also know of some women on welfare who had a second child just to see their welfare cheque get bigger. Welfare moms and moms who have kids to get out of work are probably not the type who should be encouraged to have more kids. It just happens that the kids of welfare moms are more likely to end up on welfare themselves than the kids of working moms. Either way, stay at home moms already receive financial support through generous tax credits, spousal RRSPs, the Child Tax Benefit that one-income families are far more likely to collect and in much larger sums than two-income families, and saving thousands of dollars on daycare. I'd estimate that stay-at-home moms "earn" about $7-8K/yr on average in tax credits and government transfers by staying at home. IMO, stay-at-home moms are already fairly compensated for their efforts - babysitting a couple of kids doesn't pay more than $7-8K/yr in the market. That's enough. I don't support further increases in pay for staying at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'm on the fence as far as my opinion goes. It's funny you are convinced that minimum wages for working people are pure evil but you are on the fence when it comes to welfare cheques for people who decide not to work. I know it's funny actually, I just don't think you need both welfare and a min. wage. Anyhow, I just think that come divorce time, if the stay at home partner has an income, she won't be entitled to the working partner's income. It's sort of an income for themselves (it's not much but it's something) IMO since our society already hands out welfare cheques to those that don't have real jobs, why not to stay at home parents, its sort of funny how it works. Mind you I'm all for tossing out the whole legal concept of marriage and the benefits that go with it. Either way, stay at home moms already receive financial support through generous tax credits, spousal RRSPs, the Child Tax Benefit that one-income families are far more likely to collect and in much larger sums than two-income families, and saving thousands of dollars on daycare. I'd estimate that stay-at-home moms "earn" about $7-8K/yr on average in tax credits and government transfers by staying at home. IMO, stay-at-home moms are already fairly compensated for their efforts - babysitting a couple of kids doesn't pay more than $7-8K/yr in the market. That's enough. I don't support further increases in pay for staying at home. I see point taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Just a question, should a stay at home mom get a welfare cheque? I'd like to see where this can of worms would go... No. The practice of staying home should be to nurture marital and family stability, not to encourage people to spawn children they don't have the means to raise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.