Subsidization of the Stay at Home Mom/Wife

This is an issue I've been thinking about for a while, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. The scenario goes like this: a couple decides, for religious reasons usually, that the woman should not hold an outside job. In the case of a mother, she takes care of the children, and perhaps even homeschools them.

The family's income, based on solely the man's income, is low enough so that the woman/children qualify and use governmental programs that pay for all or part of their housing, medical care, food, other needs, etc. If the woman exercised her ability to work, the family would earn enough money to cover those needs on their own, and still pay for child care. Should working wives/mothers subsidize those who choose not to work as a lifestyle choice?

I, generally, am for subsidies that promote societal well-being. And I think that at least in the case of the mother, there is perhaps an argument to be made that a mother at home full-time can devote more resources to ensuring the children are getting what they need to become productive citizens. And I certainly think that subsidies for child care for working parents should be more available to those who need them (think working mothers coming off of welfare, for starters.)

On the other hand, to be frank, to work or not work outside the home is in very many cases, a lifestyle choice, perhaps inspired by religion. Why should I, as a working mother/citizen, subsidize the religious/lifestyle choices of others in society, especially when I do not personally subscribe to the religious interpretations that back up that choice? Shouldn't we be responsible for how our individual lifestyle choices impact our family's well-being?

So, I could lean either way on this issue. One thing I do know for certain: I get very tired of stay-at-home women preaching that it is wrong for women to work outside the home.....and then proceed to explain that you too can afford to stay home if you apply for this service, and that program, and so on. Those services exist, at least in part, because of working women's tax dollars. Tax dollars that wouldn't exist if everyone heeded their commandments and stayed at home.

One thing I sometimes see is the belief that if all women stayed at home, men's salaries would rise. That may have been true in the past, but I don't think it's true now. Tell Corporate America "Okay, you need to fire the lowest-paid half of your workforce, double the salary of the remaining half, and pay double to anyone new that you hire." I'm guessing that most companies would respond "Gee, I here that Mexico/India/China has bunches of folks dying to work for $1 a day. See ya, suckers!"

I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the subject.