Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Should unemployed mothers be paid same as teachers?

  1. #21
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,606
    Thanks
    745

    Quote Originally Posted by freecell View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    So, since they should be paid, in your estimation, for the love they have for their children, should they not recieve less if they love less? How should the Love Quotient be measured, and how should it be paid out? Interview the children? Their neighbors, classmates, teachers, friends? What sort of hiring requirements with the bureaucracy tasked with awarding this Love Benefit look like? Should the father be exempted from the Love Payday? That would be sexist, wouldn't it?

    Who gets taxed to provide the money to reward mother's love? The childless, the sterile, the old, the homosexual, the lesbian? If EVERYONE is taxed, wouldn't it make more sense to drop the whole silly idea, and let that horde of government workers stay in the private sector where responsible people (called "employers") can be sure to get productive work for the money their paid?
    I AM not saying a lot of money. How about just giving a helping hand with gas helping others? Homosexuals and lesbians help others too. You also don't have to have children of your own to make a difference in a childs life.
    Charity is a VOLUNTARY act.

    Governments flatl cannot engage in charity.

    Also, search the internet for the recipe for Frog Soup.

    The purpose of the post you quoted was to illusrate the silliness of trying to pay a mother for her "love". That's paying someone simply because they don't have a mental disorder.
    Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 5th February 2012 at 08:03 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,387
    Thanks
    59

    From
    Cary
    Charity is a VOLUNTARY act.

    Governments flatl cannot engage in charity.
    Yea and we wouldn't even be talking about this is more people were aware and cared.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    29,848
    Thanks
    3844

    I would say no, that women shouldn't be paid for being mothers. That's a position that shouldn't be commodified. I do think the state has an interest in helping maintain healthy, intact families that support the growth of children and the care of the elderly. @The Man , you're pictorial essay didn't say anything about women taking care of the elderly at the same time as children, which happens here a lot.

    I get the feeling the Russian economy doesn't have places for women in quite the same way we see them employed in the West. In the US, the teaching profession benefitted enormously in the early 20th century from the fact that women had only a handful of occupations open to them, with nursing and teaching at the top.

    My wife doesn't work outside the home, but if she did we'd have to find daycare or help, so her work does have economic value to us. In fact, the things my wife does to save us money because she does not work outside the home (lower expenses, more time to look for bargains in the marketplace) significantly blunts the lack of income.

  4. #24
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,606
    Thanks
    745

    Quote Originally Posted by freecell View Post
    Yea and we wouldn't even be talking about this is more people were aware and cared.
    Don't be foolish. You're underestimating the cupity of your average politician, eager to use any excuse possible to grab more power.

    You don't seriously believe any of the socialists programs implements in the last 100 years had ANYTHING to do with the welfare of the people, do you?

    One of the major reasons Americans of today (Americans, the most generous people in the history of the world) can't care as much as they could is becuase the government is stealing half their wages for these entitlements not one person deserves.

    "I gave at the office" has become " I was robbed at the paymasters".
    Last edited by Mayor Snorkum; 5th February 2012 at 08:32 PM.

  5. #25
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,606
    Thanks
    745

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I would say no, that women shouldn't be paid for being mothers. That's a position that shouldn't be commodified. I do think the state has an interest in helping maintain healthy, intact families that support the growth of children and the care of the elderly. @The Man , you're pictorial essay didn't say anything about women taking care of the elderly at the same time as children, which happens here a lot.

    I get the feeling the Russian economy doesn't have places for women in quite the same way we see them employed in the West. In the US, the teaching profession benefitted enormously in the early 20th century from the fact that women had only a handful of occupations open to them, with nursing and teaching at the top.

    My wife doesn't work outside the home, but if she did we'd have to find daycare or help, so her work does have economic value to us. In fact, the things my wife does to save us money because she does not work outside the home (lower expenses, more time to look for bargains in the marketplace) significantly blunts the lack of income.
    The Mayor's wife also performs her necessary child-rearing functions, without demanding an entitlement from the taxpayer. The Mayor provides the needed cash, by magic.

  6. #26
    Senior Member The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,420
    Thanks
    3292

    From
    Vancouver, BC
    I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-family Yet you do not wan to help some family who needs it.

    You realise USA is spending (wasting?) $600 billion on defense. More than 5 next countries by military spending combined. Cut it down to $300 billion, that would still be enough to bully the rest of the world with your aircraft carriers. And you'd have $300 billion more to spend on regular people. That money could help so many families. Think about that.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,387
    Thanks
    59

    From
    Cary
    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-family Yet you do not wan to help some family who needs it.

    You realise USA is spending (wasting?) $600 billion on defense. More than 5 next countries by military spending combined. Cut it down to $300 billion, that would still be enough to bully the rest of the world with your aircraft carriers. And you'd have $300 billion more to spend on regular people. That money could help so many families. Think about that.
    Well as a con, I am pro family. You are correct the money can be spent more wisely.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    283
    Thanks
    1

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    My point is should unemployed mothers be paid a teacher-like salary? Is that a good policy? That is my question. I thought I'd outlined that already..
    Well a better question is to what extent the government helps to absorb some of the costs associated with child birth. For instance, in the US, children get you a deduction, you can also get a 6K child care deduction (although I have twins and I'm not sure if that is PER KID or for BOTH kids since I haven't filed yet).

    And of course there are various potential tax advantages to having them as well as welfare benefits associated with having children since income thresholds are typically adjusted upward if the household is larger.

    Russia does it, this I understand....that is because Russia is facing a demographic crisis:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/rs.html

    -0.47% (2011 est.)(population growth rate)
    country comparison to the world: 222

    11.05 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 173

    16.04 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 5

    0.29 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 67
    ---------------------------------------------

    by way of comparison, the US is:

    0.963% (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 118

    13.83 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 148

    8.38 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 89

    4.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 23

    ----------------------------------------

    In comparison to the US, Russia's birth rate is lower and its death rate is higher.....

    Doesn't bode well of course. Very common situation in Western countries.

  9. #29
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,606
    Thanks
    745

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man View Post
    I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-family Yet you do not wan to help some family who needs it.

    You realise USA is spending (wasting?) $600 billion on defense. More than 5 next countries by military spending combined. Cut it down to $300 billion, that would still be enough to bully the rest of the world with your aircraft carriers. And you'd have $300 billion more to spend on regular people. That money could help so many families. Think about that.
    Yes, the conservatives are pro-family. Especially those families who are paying almost half their incomes in taxes to all the government of the country.

    What's really being wasted is the unconstitutional spending, like for the Department of Education, Social Security, and Medicare. The Kenyan's goal is the complete emasculation of the US military. When the 6 x 10^11 dollars spent on the defense of the nation is cut to zero, the annual deficits the Kenyan runs up will still be a minimum of 4 x 10^11 dollars.

    Clearly, it's not the Constitutional spending on defense that's the problem, the problem is the unconstitutional entitlement bullshit.

  10. #30
    Senior Member The Man's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,420
    Thanks
    3292

    From
    Vancouver, BC
    Quote Originally Posted by newpublius View Post
    Well a better question is to what extent the government helps to absorb some of the costs associated with child birth. For instance, in the US, children get you a deduction, you can also get a 6K child care deduction (although I have twins and I'm not sure if that is PER KID or for BOTH kids since I haven't filed yet).

    And of course there are various potential tax advantages to having them as well as welfare benefits associated with having children since income thresholds are typically adjusted upward if the household is larger.

    Russia does it, this I understand....that is because Russia is facing a demographic crisis:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/rs.html

    -0.47% (2011 est.)(population growth rate)
    country comparison to the world: 222

    11.05 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 173

    16.04 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 5

    0.29 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 67
    ---------------------------------------------

    by way of comparison, the US is:

    0.963% (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 118

    13.83 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 148

    8.38 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 89

    4.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 23

    ----------------------------------------

    In comparison to the US, Russia's birth rate is lower and its death rate is higher.....

    Doesn't bode well of course. Very common situation in Western countries.

    Just for the record, the Russian government has very different numbers than your CIA

    Growth rate: 1.15% (2011)
    • Birth rate: 12.6 births/1,000 population (2011)
    • Death rate: 13.5 deaths/1,000 population (2011)
    • Life expectancy: 70.3 years (2011)
      –male: 63.03 years
      –female: 74.87 years
    • Fertility rate: 1.61 children born/woman (2011)
    • Infant mortality rate: 7.2 deaths/1,000 live births (2011)
    • Net migration rate: 1.11 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2010)
    Demographics of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed