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?

"Do people really see having children= zero value."

NO! Not in the slightest. It's a hugely important. But that doesn't have to translate to monetary value.

I find suggestions earlier that SAHP are unlikely to bring up their children as well as WOHMs shameful

(Not that you have suggested that)

Eh?

Awful

Not sure what you are referring to Coco and you seem to have made a statement and then negated it ??

Eh? Referring to posts earlier in thread as I said

I find suggestions earlier that SAHP are unlikely to bring up their children as well as WOHMs shameful

WTF said that? I do think people are reading and responding to something different to this thread tbh. And coco not being funny but you have a distinct air of a stirrer about you

Hang on your asking me to pinpoint and name certain posters,and you call me a stirrer.

This typical of these threads. There are some geninely awful posts, if they are pointed out as being rude rather than admit they were uncalled for people attack the person by saying they are insecure, reading it wrong,imagining it etc- but now an orginal- a stirrer!

Other people have said some negative things about SAHPS I say thats not on so Im a stirrer.

Madness.

It was the "not that you have suggested that" bit I was referring to.

And no its not funny to personally attack someone for pointing out they are think implying SAHPS will not raise their kids as well is very offence and hurtful for thousands of people

I was making it clear to Ormirian I didnt personaly mean them.

Not getting involved in a SAHP vs WOHP argument, but as with anything of this kind, I don't understand where people would think the money would come from for this. It would come from our own taxes, which would all go up massively, so nobody would be any better off, so it would be rather pointless.

D

Ah ! Ok Sorry thought that was to entire thread.

If a SAHP for a couple of kids is worth 30 - 70k then I am as a childcare professional who looks after up to 8 including my own child should be on about half a million

No in my opinion I dont think they should be paid to stay at home.

No worries!

and for what its worth I look after the 8 including my own and get the minimum wage for it. No way should someone doing a quarter of the work get paid for it

You chose to have kids and stay at home - can you imagine the women who would keep churning out kids being paid by the government to do nothing - oh yeah we can because there are enough of them already.

But it was never proposed by anyone (I think?) you would get 30-70k and certainly not per child

But what it it wasn't a payment per child- to prevent people having children soley to increase income for essentially children unwanted otherwise?

Yes, great idea. Then they government could also employ an army of trainers to make sure parents have all the necessary skills to do the job well and inspectors to come round and check everybody's kitchen is clean, beds made, and children fed.

Oh hang on, how would we pay for this?

You said the work of a SAHP is worth that in OP. Why should anyone get paid the same as someone who is working and looking after kids at the same time. No one is going to look after 8 kids for the minimum wage if you got paid the minimum wage just to take it way easier at home.

Are you suggesting a SAHP would be the type of person who needs training in such basic skills?

In that case what would be the point coco? Is the payment purely a symbol to show respect for SAHPs?

I couldn't give up work unless they more or less replaced my salary - ditto DH. Neither of us earn a fortune but our joint salary is OK.

No cocoflower but I think it is being suggested that if you are being paid for what is essentially a job your skills would have to live up to doing that job properly.

FFS lots of SAHM's get tax credit and working family malarky and family allowance - how much more will the economy take - er nothing as it is already straining with what it has to pay out after the lovely labour government decided to share the wealth so.