Talk

Advanced search

Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

(814 Posts)
Cocoflower Wed 08-Jun-11 12:10:08

Should SAHP be paid for the role they do by the goverment? If not by the goverment then who?

According to which study you read SAHP work is valued at 30-70k a year. Infact you can now even get life insurance based on being a SAHM which demonstrates a worth surely?

Is it not time we started valuing and recognising one of the hardest jobs out there 24/7 hours of work and no holidays through offical payment as being regarded as a public worker? Is raising future generations and caring for human life worth any less than any other type of work?

Now people may argue; if you have kids you pay for them, why should the tax payer foot the bill?

However if both parents work then the tax payer is footing some of the bill through tax credits anyway to cover childcare. Why not pass this straight onto the parents?

Now, I know many people work for more than just money,and many would stay in employment anyway even if they could be paid to stay at home.

But there would be many people would choose to stay at home if they could afford it and feel valued by getting paid for this? Would this be good if means freeing up thousands of jobs for people who need the jobs in the state the country is in?

Would this system just encourage people to have children they dont really want? Or should we say unlikely as having children is such a big thing to take on and its likely you would get paid more in a job anyway?

SamsGoldilocks Wed 08-Jun-11 12:12:13

God that would be lovely - but i feel all carers should be entitled to this not just parents. If you have to stay at home to look after someone the Carers Allowance does not adequately support you or your family even with DLA added in.

Cocoflower Wed 08-Jun-11 12:14:25

Yes, sorry didnt think of that. Perhaps this should extend to anyone with a caring role.

Icelollycraving Wed 08-Jun-11 12:15:29

Yabvu. The country is already crippled financially. There are numerous benefits to assist people on low incomes with families. How on earth could the tax payer afford this burden on top of everything else? In an ideal world,have children when you can afford them. In reality that does not happen. I think better childcare provision would actually encourage people back to work. If people want to stay at home then they should fund it.

worraliberty Wed 08-Jun-11 12:15:46

If you choose to have children then you should be able to support them financially...not expect the Government to use tax payers money to do it.

Benefits are paid to those who fall on hard times and that's fair enough, but to suggest we as a Country pay people to look after their own kids is madness imo.

TheCrackFox Wed 08-Jun-11 12:17:40

When I was a SAHM i wouldn't have wanted the govts money anyway.

BettySwollocksandaCrustyRack Wed 08-Jun-11 12:17:40

Of course not - YABU! It is a choice to have kids, why should the government have to pay out for that more than they do already!! What a ridiculous idea!

Callisto Wed 08-Jun-11 12:18:57

People choose to have children, carers don't necessarily have that choice. If you can't afford children don't bloody have them.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 08-Jun-11 12:19:53

YABU. The state already helps out families on low incomes with CB and CTCs and WTCs, enabling more SAHPs to take that option. And it is an option - not a right. To do more would be a drain on public finances.

Cocoflower Wed 08-Jun-11 12:20:23

This isnt just about low incomes. It would apply to anyone doing this work.

Its about should the work of the SAHP be recognised and rewarded? Even if not workable right due to the state of the economy are we saying its not worth anything even in the future?

By the way Im not actually saying it right or wrong but I am intrested in hearing what people think.

catwhiskers10 Wed 08-Jun-11 12:21:18

Why should you be paid to look after your own children and your own house?
And where would the money come from?

Imabee Wed 08-Jun-11 12:21:29

Nice idea (I am SAHM) but its never going to happen. We can't afford for my role be done by someone qualified so I have to do it myself!

Cocoflower Wed 08-Jun-11 12:21:32

Again it not about low income or cant afford children.

Its about getting recognition if people deem it worthy.

ninedragons Wed 08-Jun-11 12:22:44

FFS, I don't want to pay the MASSIVE increase in tax that sort of stupid scheme would require.

You want to be a SAHP, you bloody well make it work financially with your partner, not sponge off the rest of society.

worraliberty Wed 08-Jun-11 12:23:15

Its about should the work of the SAHP be recognised and rewarded?

Raising my children is reward enough.

I don't see me running a household and raising my family as a job.

It's my choice and it's my pleasure. It's not a career and I don't think the two things should be confused.

MollysChamber Wed 08-Jun-11 12:24:19

Yes the work of the SAHP parent should be recognised and valued but for the government to reward it financially would be crippling and unnecessary.

Cocoflower Wed 08-Jun-11 12:24:23

But we pay other people for caring roles?

Btw for its worth Im self-employed so it wouldnt even apply to me! And we can afford children of DH salary alone (just about!)

But I do think should we not recoginse the work SAHP do?

Callisto Wed 08-Jun-11 12:25:36

Why should SAHP be recognised and rewarded for what they do? How bizarre to think that. Surely having a child is reward in enough, and if it isn't perhaps that person shouldn't have had a child in the first place?

camilla2010 Wed 08-Jun-11 12:26:59

They couldn't pay for it because the work a SAHM does is priceless not valueless.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 08-Jun-11 12:27:00

SAHPs only do what WOHP do... but don't have to work a job at the same time. It would be discrimination therefore to pay one and not the other - valuing one parent's child-rearing activites as being worth more than another. Unacceptable...

peppapighastakenovermylife Wed 08-Jun-11 12:27:28

Hmmm but say in this example

Family earns 40k between them (20k each) and has a childcare bill of 1200 a month.

Government pays £400 of that childcare bill per month.

Family pays that much back in tax etc per month PLUS their childcare money pays a nursery nurses salary for that month. Nursery nurse then pays £200 of tax etc and has a job so goes out and spends money in the wider community.

So by going out to work, even though the government gives that family £400, they pay a lot more back financially and in terms of wider economy. Plus by working in those early years they will hopefully progress and make more money. By the time my children are all in school I hope to be earning twice what I would be if I had given up work and therefore in a few years time I will be paying more tax. It is about the longer term.

Also, these figures that say a SAHP is worth 40k per year. Surely they are only actually worth the childcare money e.g. for a two child family perhaps 15k per year as everything else has to be done anyway? Or am I missing something? In those figures they seem to add daft things like cleaner, cook, personal assistant. We still have to clean, cook etc despite working?

Another thing - are we just talking about children up to school age? As why would the government pay someone to be at home when their child is at school?

HidingInTheUndergrowth Wed 08-Jun-11 12:28:08

It's stuff like this that sometimes makes me a bit hmm about some parents. As if having kids and then looking after them somehow makes you some kind of saint. Far more special and brilliant then anyone else who hasn't managed this amazing feat.

Besides the governemt already gives money to parents in the form of child benefits and tax credits.

BimboNo5 Wed 08-Jun-11 12:28:10

No- its a lifestyle choice, one that should be funded by the family who choose to make that choice.

Cocoflower Wed 08-Jun-11 12:28:23

Because of the worth they add to society perhaps? Or are they of no worth?

Having children is of course rewarding in itself

peppapighastakenovermylife Wed 08-Jun-11 12:31:50

Also, if you do this by income.

Combined salary for example = 50k. Will not be entitled to any money.

One parent gives up work dropping family income to 20k and suddently gets a few hundred pound a month as their income is lower.

That doesnt seem fair. The person who is working has to pay childcare to do so and their pay is going to support the parent staying at home.

Only way to do it would be to give blanket figure to everyone.

However economy couldnt cope with it

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: