Jane Merrick Thinks There’s A Magical Money Tree…

Stop maligning stay-at-home mothers. Instead, let’s throw some cash at them.

Don’t we already? Isn’t there child benefit to consider? Also unemployment benefit, should they not have a husband whose wage is keeping them??

Oh, but you want more, don’t you? You want them to have a wage

For the 2m stay-at-home parents, it might be easy to dismiss their contribution to GDP – after all, some may say, why should they be paid for looking after their own children? But when you consider how little they take from the state, besides child benefit, compared to their contribution to society – not just in savings in state-funded childcare but all those voluntary hours they put in at schools and the local community – they have a net worth.

Well, so do I. And it’s not in my ability to work for those who don’t want to!

11 comments for “Jane Merrick Thinks There’s A Magical Money Tree…

  1. ivan
    October 16, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Humm, there are stay at home mothers (the dole bludging kind) and there are stay at home mothers (the happy, married, look after the home while hubby works kind). The first lot gets too much money thrown at them while most of the second lot would, I think, be very happy if they could pass on their tax exempt allowance to their husbands – this is not throwing money at them by-the-way.

    In the case of family members being front line carers at home (also mentioned in the article) then I think there should be more money ‘thrown’ at them, they do have to live and generally have extra expenses – just think how much it would cost the NHS to do their job.

    • October 16, 2014 at 1:15 pm

      Was just about to say that.

      • October 19, 2014 at 7:25 am

        They do get money, they get a carer’s allowance.

  2. October 16, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    “Liberating women into the workplace” was how Patricia Hewitt described Labour’s abolition of the Married Man’ Tax Allowance, after the Tories had halved it. The result? Even more women forced to go out to work, and even more “latchkey” children going feral.

    If you’d had children yourself Julia, you’d realise that being a parent is quite a sacrifice, and you don’t get much from the state. It’s not a job for selfish people who only care about themselves.

    • October 16, 2014 at 1:16 pm

      Yes, I’m all for subsidy for stay-at-home-mum when the father connected to the home is working but not otherwise. Not when the mother is on benefits, with the father not present.

      • October 19, 2014 at 7:26 am

        Agree with James. We need to recognize the difference, not be blind to it.

  3. October 16, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Net worth my arse. It’s not just benefits but education and the NHS. “He’s bumped his head. Quick! Take him the A&E”.
    On top of that are the costs borne by employers for working mothers – A year on maternity, paternity, child friendly hours, wages expected to be the same for a woman returning to work on reduced hours after 12 months on maternity etc.

    Having children may be a personal sacrifice, but it’s still a choice. One people should be sure they can afford and accept, before making it.

    Single mothers with no employment take out of the pot while childless people in employment pay in. I certainly see no net worth in these folk.

  4. Brightside Bob
    October 16, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    “He’s bumped his head. Quick! Take him the A&E”.

    Not these days, you’ll have social services, backed up by plod, knocking on(down) your door…

  5. Peter MacFarlane
    October 16, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    “Having children may be a personal sacrifice, but it’s still a choice”

    Fortunately for you, especially when you get older, most people are sensible enough to make the right choice.

  6. Viscount Rectum
    October 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    leave unmarried mothers alone( well not all the time) my kids are by unmarried mothers and I love them all.

    • October 19, 2014 at 7:26 am

      But do you support them?

Comments are closed.