Essay of the Week

The government should pay money to the parents of very young children, so that one of them can stay at home and look after their children. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

In the modern age, mothers and fathers are often so busy that they do not get to see their children and governments are considering subsidising them to stay at home. In this essay, I will argue that this would be a positive development. First, because having a parent at home is good for children’s development, and second, because this type of policy can save the government money in the long term.

Financially supporting parents to not work can be beneficial to their children’s development. Because many parents only work because they have a financial need, this type of subsidy can encourage many of them to give up their careers and spend time at home. If children spend more time with their parents, this can help them with their emotional and intellectual development. For example, having a parent who is always at home to talk to can help toddlers learn to speak more fluently and be more in touch with their emotions.

Furthermore, while funding full-time parents can be expensive in the short term, it can save money long term. If children grow up close to their parents, they may be able to use their mother or father as a role-model when they face difficulty in the future. As a result, they may be more economically productive members of society or less likely to get involved in crime, two factors that can be an economic boon to the government in the long-term. For example, children who grew up close to their parents might be less likely to use drugs and as a result, the government may be able to spend less on policing and get more tax revenue.

In conclusion, financially encouraging parents to stay at home is beneficial long-term. First, because it helps children grow up well, and second, because it is a good financial investment in the future.