Skip to main content

Stay-at-home Mums: To be paid or not?

An "interesting" debate in Germany which is sure to spread to other countries.    Should stay-at-home mothers be compensated if they save the State from otherwise providing child-care.

"Is it a "stay-at-home premium" that will stop mothers from looking for work, or is it fair compensation for parents who choose to look after their young children without the state's help?

The German government's plan for a childcare allowance payable to parents who do not use state-subsidised nurseries has sparked fierce debate.

Recently Chancellor Angela Merkel's centre-right coalition reached agreement on the measure, under which eligible parents of infants aged between 13 and 36 months would receive 150 euros (£120) a month."



***



"Another article argues that for a mother to stay at home indefinitely is not fair on the father, who finds himself condemned to be the sole breadwinner in uncertain economic times. Christoph Droesser says such men miss out on valuable family time.

"A woman who expects me to provide for her and our children 'until death do us part' puts a burden on my shoulders of which even the strongest can no longer say today whether they can bear it, even if they want to," he adds.

An article in Die Zeit's magazine supplement makes a different point: choosing to give up one's career to stay at home with the children can result in poverty if the breadwinner ends the relationship. Julia Friedrichs, whose article is about a mother who faces this predicament, says the possibility of resuming work and sharing childcare with her partner had not even entered the woman's mind."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...