"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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.