Many parents (mostly women) decide to stay home and take care of the family members instead of going out for work. Some people suggest that they should be paid by the government for doing that. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include examples from your own experience.
Yes? Why not what
By one of the members leaving their jobs families become vulnerable to financial crisis - by virtue of nuclear families today, there are only two earning hands. Adopting this policy will help families make their ends meet
Individuals abandoning their professional dreams for the family should be acknowledged for their sacrifice
In a way, they are doing service to society by affording quality upbringing to their wards and taking care of the elderly
NO? Why not
This would turn family relations sour and make them commercial
This might provoke those volunteering to ask for similar benefits
This is personal prerogative and why should the state be punished for this.
This kind of arrangement is likely to send an unwarranted signal to others who might emulate these steps and leave their jobs, posing a burden on the public exchequer
Extending state grants to those relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, is a suggestion evokes mixed responses, making it imperative to assess both the sides of the coin before delivering a plausible verdict.
The support for this proposal stems from the belief that forgoing the dreams of gaining prominence in occupational domain, and dedicating oneself to serving the family is worthy of being acknowledged; there is hardly anyone prepared to put their desire on the backseat just to rear their children, tend to the elderly, and surrender their financial freedom. Therefore, providing them some financial support would not only act as a consolation but also sustain their expenses.
Having said that, despite this idea looking fascinating to some, implementing it is bound to have severe/extreme ramifications for families, as well as society. Where on one hand, this could undermine the emotional bonding between the family members, which is more influenced by love, and affection, rather than being driven by monetary considerations. One chooses to renounce their progressive careers, for they are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of their little ones, and elderly family members, and adding this materialistic dimension would be an insult to devotion toward the family.
On the other hand, this policy is likely to set wrong precedents for others as they will also become inclined to emulate, and leave their jobs, reducing the numbers contributing to economic productivity, incrementing the burden on tax-payers by virtue of consuming public resources, hampering the prospect for the future development of society.
In hindsight, disputes aside, this kind of a scheme cannot be deemed acceptable owing to the challenges it is likely to pose for the community, and the individuals concerned. Therefore, I fail to concur with this.
Introduction 1
In times when everyone is engrossed in chasing their career goals, some going against this trend, and relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, but should they be extended state grants, is a million dollar question.
Introduction 2
As per a school of thought those relinquishing their professional ambitions for the sake of affording care to their families, should be extended state grants. Even though this suggestion seems plausible to some, it is bound to create more complications than rendering solutions.
Introduction 3
