Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

Well said - AdelaofBlois.

by the way ephod was WOHP.

But having outside employment is one form of contributing to the family unit.

apologies for "ephod". Tried the new app on my ipod and spell check did a naughty thing. Back to the pc.

But all the ephod can better support their children if our taxes go down not up.

Oh... well I did explain it. Which part did you not comprehend? I said it in the context of helping people who couldn't go to work because the cost of childcare was prohibitive. So, I'm willing to talk about how the state to contribute to helping them back to work. But I oppose the sate giving them money to enable them to stay home and do nothing towards that goal of getting back to work.

Is that clearer?

Sorry, got a bit carried away.

To backtrack, let's say this was to be treated as a 'job'. If so, what is it paid at? It's a job in a low paid sector (public), in a low-paid area of that sector (caring, especially since associated with women), which demands very low entry qualifications (having had a fuck and been (un)lucky enough to conceive), and which many people are willing to do for free. That's how to assess what it should be paid at-not by totting up hours spent against costs to get someone else to do it. And it's tiny, probably a lot less than 10k, but take that as a starting point (since some nursery nurses earn about 12k). And let's assume Eric Pickles bursts and is full of taxable oil so that it can all be paid for.

Except it isn't close to a living wage, so the poorest still need benefits, yet it's still a lot of money for those who would stay at home anyway-a huge cost that changes little for these groups.

And then there are groups for whom its jolly pleasant, and genuinely allows more of them to stay at home (accepting too the odd premise that this is a general good and worth paying for). Except, again, it isn't what a woman (and it will be women...) would be earning anyway, so she is still worse off and more dependent on her partner or the state than if she worked for someone ele. The only way it could ever not be is if carers were paid the equivalent of their potential earnings minus half childcare costs. Which would mean varying the amount according to previous earnings, not the 'job' itself.

Basically, it's not a way out of the trap set by caring roles, it could never be so practically or in any other way-it would be a crumb tossed to the womenfolk in memory of dear old Mummy, designed to prevent social mobility and enshrine the current imbalances. Hence Cameron / Middleton vagueries.

So your cause is to have an intelligent debate... yes?

Good point, Issy.

To what were you referring when you said "Hmm.... not convinced,sorry"?

Oh, coco, please adress the issues here. Spinning round with your tongue flapping without rhyme or reason isn't helping your cause.

Just out of interest how much do you think they should get paid?

coco, you have not answered my question about your sourse of confusion. Please could you do so in your next post?

Am I seeing things? Has someone come onto mumsnet and said that staying at home with one's children is 'doing nothing to help themselves to build the life they want' ??!!

Can't believe this thread is still running. OP states that she is neutral, on the fence, but is clearly not since despite hundreds and hundreds of post that say "no", OP is till coming back with questions, arguments, rhetoric, and indignation.

I posted earlier that the OP can not sit on the fence, there is no fence. i.e. this is a hypothetical proposition (suggested by the OP). It's not a fence, it's not even a debate, it's a pile of rubbish (or a journo doing research, or someone trying to wind people up).

Underneath all this, there is an interesting question abut how do we better value parenting. But this thread is not it.

WibblyBibble

1. Yes, I agree, it a worthwhile job. But apart from child benefit, the government should not be paying for people to bring up their children. Yes, unless you are well-off, you have to make sacrifices for children, and it is a financial strain, but I do not think a salary from the government is the answer. Some people would just have child after child, for a continuous salary. Your comment - If I dont look after children state would have to, is utterly parasitic, and depressing. Family and friends do look after children and help out for free. Its when its other people children, that money comes into it.

1. I agree having a baby is not always a choice, but keeping the child is a choice (whether by adoption or abortion).

1. Re having children isn't 'a lifestyle'. My mother spent part of her childhood in a council house, and was not unhappy. You do not need money for a 'lifestyle'. We live in N Wales and usually take children to park, woodland walk, paddle in river - anything that is free at weekend! Camping holidays, gifted clothes and books, second hand pushchair etc. We are working class, in that we both work.

No, I do not think parents should be paid for looking after their children full-time. It would be crippling.

We need to reduce the expenditure of the government, not increase it.

Cocoflower - if the government isnt going to pay SAHM's a salary - who the hell do you propose would do so?