I think mothers who want to stay home work their kids instead of work should receive something. We do so much work and it truly does go unseen.
On salary.com in 2023, it states that if stay at home mothers were to receive a pay, it would be $184,820. That is how much work we do a year. We cater to every single person in the house. We know what everybody likes, dislikes, where everything is, how to manage the bills, take care of the children, cook, clean, and if you have pets take care of them as well. We also are considered nurses, therapists, teachers, taxi service, and organizer of all things running in the house.
Mothers know how to handle every single situation within a home and how to keep it running properly. All with a goal of raising good/kind humans with respect for others.
It is extremely important to have a mother stay home for the children. They learn how to behave like respectful humans instead of rude children that do not know how to interact with others because they are constantly being dumped onto other people.
Isn’t that what we want for America too? For the next generation to be better than the one before them. We want the younger generations to take over when we are gone, so let’s do everything we can to ensure that happens. Let’s make moms stay home again, and let’s help them to make America great again! (Again!)
i concur; but i’d argue that giving a single income family a massive tax break would incentivize becoming a single parent home for the financial benefits…this is a tough one tbh.
that would render marriage obsolete if not pointless and would also impact the child the benefit of having a two parent household. the reason i say this is the wording of “single income” does that mean one person works and another stays at home, or can it also be interpreted as a single parent. If it can be interpreted as the latter you then have a push to single parent households and the destruction of the nuclear family for financial security which i don’t believe is the right route for a child or a household as a whole.
haha, yeah like i said this kind of topic is a tough one none the less there’s alot of potential clashing especially depending on wording as we all know with how the world is going now wording can be interpreted in different ways hence why alot of judicial issues.
I think that a simple change to the definition of “dependant spouse” in the IRS code would greatly improve the incentive and “compensation” for a married single income household.
Currently, if one spouse isn’t disabled, the only tax credit you get is included in the standard deduction.
If you allow a stay at home parent to be considered a dependant spouse, additionally to the standard deduction, the increase in household financials would put them on par with dual income households while promoting marriage
I appreciate the concept and agree that being a stay-at-home parent is undeniably a full-time job. However, I have concerns about accountability. If financial support were provided directly to parents, it could invite government oversight into our personal lives. For instance, foster care homes receive funding for caring for children, but they are subject to regular visits and evaluations by government officials. Similarly, individuals on SSI are required to submit detailed spending reports and may face investigations if discrepancies arise.
Additionally, I worry that such a program could inadvertently encourage complacency or even neglect in some cases, as unfit parents might exploit the system while continuing to receive financial support. For these reasons, I believe offering tax breaks would be a more effective and balanced approach.
My wife is a Stay at Home wife. We are struggling and things would be easier if she worked. She too has said something along these lines. I reply, however, that she does get paid, she gets all of my income. The government should not be supporting families. That’s why we have a welfare state and the Single mother rate shows that. The government helps so much it hinders.
What would be beneficial is letting Stay at Home moms have unferreted ability to use their talents to increase their families finances. Like making Homestead laws more available and with less restrictions. Not what you are getting at exactly, but free money is never free.
We should be looking at defunding unconstitutional programs. This would reduce the tax liabilty of all Americans. If wealth isnt being redistributed through taxation and pet re-election projects, the government wouldn’t need to lean into the tax payer as heavy. We’ve allowed our goverment to over reach their scope of influence. All legislation since the Civil War “Reconstruction” era needs to be put to a Constitutional test and repealed if its found lacking. No excuses about implications…just pull off the band aid
I have to agree with Jack. But there is a solution (I believe I’ve proposed this as a policy before). Encourage stay at home parents to be a part of “community schooling”. It’s homeschool but for the local community. Paid for by donations from the parents that are sending their children there instead of public school to be indoctrinated. The government can grant these “schools” a subsidy for the work that’s done, healthy foods being fed (evidence of “healthy” required), etc. That and the donations serve to pay the folks helping the building that’s hosting the schooling (could be a church as well!). It developes a relationship with the community, the children, prevents indoctrination, allows parents a strong voice in what’s being taught, social skills, etc.
Im on the same track as you, but I’d want to see it happen in a different way. Many women really enjoy their work be it business, creative, etc. Just like men.
It used to be that one salary could cover the entire family, now thats not the case. But if we got a “salary” or “stipend”
Or some form of UBI as a family, each partner could choose to only work 20 hours a week, or another configuration that works for them.
The labor of keeping a home/family IS labor and it should be recognized and valued as such. I thank you for bringing up this topic.
Unfortunately a UBI would not work out that way. A lot of parents would just not work and live off the gov’t tit. which would harm the children in the household and put a strain on the funding. I do like, however, the idea of paying them to contribute in the community via schooling (see previous comment).
Instead of a salary for stay at home moms, create a tax credit for those married filing jointly with this situation. I think it would be great if it is at least a 5,000-10,000 dollar tax credit for those stay at home moms. Plus the ability to write off education expenses for homeschooling up to 5,000 a year plus 1,500 per extra child. (Ideas for $ amounts mentioned are subject to debate)
I doubt families that already have two parents would opt to eliminate one of the parents entirely when having one of the two parents stay at home would yield the same result. You wouldn’t need to be a single parent family, just a single earner.
Whatever added benefit this would be could be limited to two-parent/single-income homes, and not necessarily reduce any tax benefits that single parent homes already get. That way it doesn’t punish being a single parent, but also makes a two-parent/single income attainable for families that want the focused energy of one parent to stay in the home.
It could maybe be a percentage of what public schools receive per child., that way the homeschoolers get some funding, the public schools have less burden, and the gov’t saves some money.
Ooooh, I like your point about the ability to more easily earn extra income with household overproduction. We have Cottage Laws for baked goods (there may be other applications I’m not aware of), at least here in Texas, but it would be better to encompass more of what is produced in the home (home cooked meals, canned goods, poultry/poultry products, garden products). We have Farmers Markets here, but sometimes the lesser production + cost of booth/commitment isn’t worth it, so there would need to be some brainstorming there regarding how to get small amounts of goods from many local producers to the local market efficiently…
This is a great idea but premature I think. We can speculate that the next four years are going to be a boon for the the American people. But if something like this was implemented to soon it would just be another handout program that would put a strain on the rest of the country. Long story short, this is a great program for Vance to implement in 4-6 years.