Q: "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?"
A:
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.
