Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

[Cocoflower]

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?

SardineQueen - what have you been reading. No one has said any of the crap you have just posted.

All we are saying if that SAHP should not get a working salary.

We do realise that children grow to be tax paying adults
Parenting is hard for both SAHP and WOHP (Both)
Children are a drain on society until they pay taxes (this is just fact) but they are also essential for ecconemy and growth.

What you cannot do is expect society to pay YOU as a Parent a salary just for a life choice. NO ONE made you have kids.

No one thinks they are worthless .

Let us take an example of a couple (example ignores tax). One (A) earns 100k. The other (B) works and earns 35k and they pay 35k to a nanny. couple have 100K in total.
Second example, B is a SAHP. 35k less income coming in but 35k less going out. Couple have 100k in total.

hence, I do not see how there is any less "reward" in the second example than the first. In the second case, the role of the SAHP has enabeld the couple of have joint income of 100k. There is clear worth in that and you can put a number to it. Why do you think in the second secario B should get more money on top of that?

I have certainly seen one post that is very anti-SAHPS sadly....

Agree Sardine.

The figures being bandied around re potential "salary" are ridiculous btw.

The only workable solution that I can see in this utopian society where money- is no object-- is to pay each family a sum equivalent to the average childcare cost per child. Those that work use it to pay for childcare those that don't hold on to it. There you go. Fair to everyone.

Why do you think in the second secario B should get more money on top of that?

Because you could argue been stuck technically working for free to give it all too a nanny to pay for looking after your children, or get to not work and get nothing always equals, well nothing.

Rock and hard place? Or tough luck, your choice?

The only workable solution that I can see in this utopian society where money- is no object-- is to pay each family a sum equivalent to the average childcare cost per child. Those that work use it to pay for childcare those that don't hold on to it. There you go. Fair to everyone.

Intresting idea Molly

No Sardine....

What people object to constantly is the taxpayer forking out any more to parents who choose to stay at home with their kids rather than going to work.

I don't know how or why that translated (in your mind) to people generally undervaluing SAHPs or their kids...

I have certainly seen one post that is very anti-SAHPS sadly....

Oh really? well which one...
If it was one of mine then did you read the whole of the post...or did you decide to concentrate on one phrase maybe?

There are undoubtably some negative posts about SAHPS on here!

I have read those views on this thread. Not all from the same poster, but they are there.

No not yours!

If you have a read back I think it was after yours

Cocoflower - examples please

All i have seen are people saying that SAHP should not get a wage for looking after their own kids. Nothing negitive about SAHP.

Good plan. I have questions:

1. Where do you propose this money should come from?
2. Why, at this particular time in UK history, should SAHPs be paid for doing so when this has not been the practice at any other time in history?
3. What happens if 90% of women (as women form the majority of SAHPs) decide not to return to work and instead claim the SAHP payment?

But you DID suggest earlier that I was anti SAHP....

Not sure how you could possibly have come to that conclusion from reading my posts properly.

Do SAHPs really want to be emplyees of the government? Paid by the state to to the job of bringing up children? Because most employers demand certain targetted results, and it sounds like some sort of Kafka-esque Soviet nightmare to me.

Lobbying a government to support families to be able to fiunction to the best of their ability is another matter - but surely families manage familes and the government manages the country?

Re the above....it's all my comment...in response to Coco

So you lose 2 lots of tax and increase spending? What economy in the world could afford that? I thought this was about making parents feel "rewarded". And obviously my example is over-simplistic. People tend not to work for free - either they get a bit extra out of it after childcare costs or they are keeping their hand in to earn more later when childcare costs go out
The SAHP in the example is equally as rewarded as both the nanny and WOHP B. Is the suggestion that the SAHP is worth more? ie are you suggesting that not only shoudl the SAHP be rewarded, but that they shoudl be rewarded MORE than the WOHP?

If you build in tax (and I take a flat rate of 20% here to make the example easier):

SAHP gets 20k under your policy. let us assume this is taxed, so 16k after tax.
Working parent needs to earn enough after tax and childcare costs to beat 16k. Let us say childcare costs are also 20k. Hence, they need to earn 45k to break even as compared to staying at home.

You are right that some people choose to work anyway, but I doubt many people would be prepared to be down 16k for the privilege of doing so.

I think:
That looking after your own children is hard work at times
That children are of value to society
That SAHM are often doing something fantastic

But I just do not 'get' the proposition that there should be a payment of any sort.

We live in a society where we all have the right to choose to have (or at least try to have) a child/children. And if families are on low incomes we have a tax / welfare system that goes some way towards making sure that those children can be looked after. Our society is relatively stable, where we can anticipate demographic changes (such as increasing elderly population) we try to influence that by encouraging people to make provision for their old age, and encouraging people to be supported for longer at home rather than in hospital. I value living in that society. I don't value SAHM or WOHM any more or any less than each other for the role that they take in that society. But I don't particularly value them any more or less than other who take on roles as carers, volunteeers, paid employees, or chatty old ladies at bus stops.

I really don't understand what 'fence' the OP is sitting on. The fence does not exist.

SQ you are either reading a different thread or are reading what isnt there as you are insecure about YOUR OWN worth. I dont get how anyone is undervaluing SAHP's people are simply saying paying parents to stay at home with their kids is not a good idea.

Should get paid a penny < FENCE > Should not get a penny

Simple

Surely if you pay SAHP, there would need to be risk assessments, monthly/quarterly/annual appraisals. You would need to justify your time to be sure you are a worthwhile employee, regulated coffee breaks, potentially a medical?

And someone to take over when you go on maternity leave!
But the paid holidays would be good. As long as there was proper holiday cover.

Haven't read whole thread, but if a SAHM is a 24/7 job, then a f/t WOHM is also spending approx 13 hours a day being a SAHM! Should they be paid too, in addition to their f/t job?? And should they also get all their childcare paid for?

Or will you come up with some magic formula for who gets the money, does it depend on whether they are in school, how many kids you have, whether you partner works long hours???
Bonkers.

I have a much simpler idea.
The government should give all their money to me. All of it.

Because I am worth it.