Discussion on Living Income Guaranteed

Back to Latest topics

Raising Children

C873562228582e5293c9f72508e4b87e?s=45&d=identicon
Carrie Tooley

I have two children - One child is now 24 and the other is 6. When I was raising my 24-year old, I worked all of time and because of this I had to leave that child in the care of others until they were old enough to stay home by themselves. I don't mind working - I actually like it very much. I just feel like I missed out on so much of my child's life and that I wasn't there for them as much as I could have been because I was physically exhausted, distracted with work issues, and other life things. When my 24-year old was in their last year of high school, I became pregnant after years of believing that it wouldn't be possible for my husband and myself to have more children. Again, for financial reasons, I had to cut breast-feeding short, go back to work, and hand my child over to the care of others. Unfortunately, this child did not do as well as my first with others taking care of them and was having physical and behavioral issues come up from me not being home with them. So my question is: Does what you propose with living income guaranteed address this problem? Will parents, like myself, be able to stay home if we want to? And if we DO decide to stay home, will it be seen as though we're 'living off of the state' or collecting unemployment benefits where we will be pressured to get back out into the workforce as soon as possible? Is there a cap of how long we can stay at home with the children?

Posted
E3e733ce654a9058566d3a2fd6ae0f9a?s=45&d=identicon
Maite Zamora Moreno

Hi Carrie,

"So my question is: Does what you propose with living income guaranteed address this problem? Will parents, like myself, be able to stay home if we want to?"

Yes, definitely. Anyone in a caretaker position will be able to stay at home and focus on such responsibilities, while receiving a Livinng Income Guaranteed that is sufficient, where one won't require to sacrifice time spent with one's family for the purpose of generating an additional income source. The Living Income Guaranteed movement recognizes the fact that parents are not able to spend sufficient time with their children and how this is having a detrimental effect on society, as it influences the development and education of new generations and how they are able to participate in and contribute to society as a whole. Forcing parents to take up employment and placing their children in the care of others is a disservice to the parents, the children and society as whole - thus, with LIG, parents are no longer punished for having a child, but unconditionally supported.

"And if we DO decide to stay home, will it be seen as though we're 'living off of the state' or collecting unemployment benefits where we will be pressured to get back out into the workforce as soon as possible? Is there a cap of how long we can stay at home with the children?"

No - one would not be living off the state, since LIG is not financed through state-owned funds, but by the profits generated from a country's heritage. No one will thus be paying for someone else's LIG, removing the resentment that currently exists within taxpayers towards welfare programs that are funded through income taxes. There are also no caps for how long one can receive a Living Income Guaranteed - it is unconditionally provided; when to take up employment is therefor a decision for each to make in consideration of one's responsibilities.

Posted
8caa5d00343cff5f070358e37a28774b?s=45&d=identicon
Avery Williams

It is amazing to me that people today would question LIG. When no one seems to have any time to spend with the children after they are born because both parents have to work full time just to make ends meet. People work till they are dead like a battery that has run out of power and nothing left for there children. Is this the way we want our world to continue?

Posted
80a8517f8bd97709e8b8f8169a85f44b?s=45&d=identicon
Sandy Jones

Another few considerations: Staying home with ones children is work/a job and a damn important one at that, as that parent usually takes on the bulk of the domestic duties/responsibilities as well. Secondly, with the implementation of LIG many parents may take on the challenge of home schooling or at least have the option to consider doing so.

Posted
8caa5d00343cff5f070358e37a28774b?s=45&d=identicon
Avery Williams

Yes it is a very important job raising a child and that must be well respected and honored. Rather than have woman believe that because they do not go out or the home to work to make money what they contribute is not good enough. That kind of devaluing of home builders must stop.

Posted
C44896419315a543c8b58ca5af3dd47e?s=45&d=identicon
Anna Brix Thomsen

"Forcing parents to take up employment and placing their children in the care of others is a disservice to the parents, the children and society as whole - thus, with LIG, parents are no longer punished for having a child, but unconditionally supported."

  • Yes, this is a very important. I work as a preschool (and elementary school) teacher and especially in preschools and especially with very young children, I see how hard it is on both parents and children that the child is forced to go to preschool. There's something unnatural about it. I mean, it is one thing to have one's child at a home daycare with a few other children, but seeing 20 toddlers being 'managed' by one or two teachers is very disheartening to say the least. Young children require constant adult supervision and care and in today's 'industrial' preschool environments there simply isn't time or resources to care about all children. So instead they are left to their own devices which often leads to injuries and fights breaking out amongst the children, not to mention the constant noise and chaos that such an environment creates.
Posted