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?

No, studies I have read suggested that;

^In our 'Value of a Mum' research 2009 it was highlighted that the average value of a Mum was over £32,000 a year. From the Mums that participated in the research, only 53% had life insurance. The research was carried out on Legal & General's behalf between 23 and 29 January 2009.

We found that the value of the work that Mums do around the home is £32,812, that's £8000 more than in 2005 and 40% higher than Dads, who come in at £23,296.

The value of a Mum is sometimes overlooked when families try to work out their life insurance needs. The research also highlights that the average family spends £132 a week on the children, which equates to around £572 per month or £123,552 over 18 years.

If Mum was no longer alive where would that £123,552 needed to pay for domestic work and childcare come from? Who would fill the gap and help maintain the families living standards should the worst happen?^

From L&G

Obvioulsy I have applied this to SAHP and not just SAHM

But take the childcare element out of that Coco and you'd need to pay it to every parent! DH and I (mostly I ) do all the domestic work ourselves. An childcare is only an issue for most families for a relatively short period of time anyway.

lots of SAHM's get tax credit and working family malarky and family allowance

Also plently who dont and in a bit of no mans land though.

I am also unsure who it is that has suggested WOHPS are better parents than SAHPs. I think everyone would say that there are some SAHPs who are better parents than some other SAHPS and some WOHPs. Equally, there are WOHPs who are better parents than some other WOHPs and some SAHMs

Well if SAHPS are worth that much why are carers who do 10 times the work get paid the minimum wage then?

132 quid a week on the children?!!! fuck me these people must be loaded!

Agree that Coco is a stirrer...........most definitely.

Why else would someone twist people's comments about SAHPs being paid to stay at home....to them being anti SAHPs??

She is seeing offence where none is intended...and I'm afraid Coco that something you regard as being an interesting debate is looking more ridiculous with every comment you post. I can see straight through this...as can others.

You don't strike me as being incredibly bright! There...I said it...
Was that the sort of reaction you wanted?

I have no idea iloveddra.I once did community support work for NHS. It was really, really hard.

Perhaps the study (NOT ME) is basing it on hours?:

Full-time Mums put in the most hours at home (82 hours a week) and are worth the most (£36,036). However, Mums that work full-time still put in an admirable 55 hours a week and are worth £24,492.
The family rely on Mums more than Dads to spend time with children as women put in 33 hours a week vs. 21.5 hours for men.

You are a very nasty person sausage.

I do 24/7 with my daughter and 3ours at my job to. Still is only worth 6 quid an hour. Do you not think the country would ground to a half if all the women quit their vital jobs to keep the country running to just stay at home at leisure? It is a ridiculous suggestion.

Also I have never met any family who spends 132 a week on the children. Thats absolutely crazy. This is like one of those made up daily mail things were they say it costs about 150000 to mbring up a child which is more than a lot of people earn in over 10 years.

Actually I think you are....

I refer to an earlier post when you suggested that I was anti SAHPs (in spite of what I actually said). I know you back tracked a little when I invited you to read what I actually said...but your words are there!

I also think it's not particularly nice to see offence in other people's posts where none is intended...to twist things to make them appear to be something entirely different...anti SAHMs...undervaluing them etc etc (as if monetary value was the only kind of value anyway).

I think that is really nasty actually....

I actually said It seems anti-SAHP. I thought this as you said something about getting out of bed early and I wondered if you were implying SAHP dont and are lazy which is why I wrote it.

After the "it reads anti-SAHP" I straight away I may be wrong

I was leaving it open to correction at the time should I have misunderstood.

I am open to being told im wrong but its not nice to attacked

I think ultimately sausages that was the point of the thread -disguised as debate but really coco just wanted a SAHM vs WOHM bunfight.
As I said earlier I prefer to call myself a parent.

Coco that servey was trying to get SAHP to buy their over priced life insurance and to justify why they need it.

Loads of people do not have life insurance including working families. it is a luxary many cannot afford to have.

How can you say a SAHP is worth more than a working person???? What about a working person who comes home evenings and weekends to look after their kids then they must be worth more per hour because they work and look after the kids???? what about a single mother who works three jobs to make ends meet does is she not worth a penny because she see's her kids less????

This just gets crazy now.

Your fence has well and truly disapperead now.

Good grief.

How many times have I apolgised if anyone read this as anti-WOHM. How many? Read every post I have written

I have said that so many times

Why am I repeating myself

Btw Sarah you think Im a SAHM do you...? Nope

Bit odd to start a thread agaisnt myself huh?

How can you say a SAHP is worth more than a working person????

I said that? Really? Where?

Coco you may not of intended your Op to be a SAHP V WOHP thread but that is what it is. Sorry.

You did Coco here it is

*Perhaps the study (NOT ME) is basing it on hours?:

Full-time Mums put in the most hours at home (82 hours a week) and are worth the most (£36,036). However, Mums that work full-time still put in an admirable 55 hours a week and are worth £24,492.
The family rely on Mums more than Dads to spend time with children as women put in 33 hours a week vs. 21.5 hours for men.*

if i have miss interpreted it then i am sorry.

Yeah and who turned it into that?

Not me! I apologised many times if anyone thought that and said apply it to WOHM yet others kept dragging this argument into it

Infact I asked what if this was applied to WOHM parents, what then?

Not one person replied

I said

Perhaps the study (NOT ME) is basing it on hours?

I.e I have copied and pasted this

I was leaving it open to correction at the time should I have misunderstood.

But how could you possibly have misunderstood when I clearly stated my views on SAHMs in that very same post. Not one word was 'anti'?

Sarah - I tend to agree. I think Coco has indeed been spoiling for a childish bun fight...but it didn't really work. I think Coco has had a lot of time on her hands today and wanted some sort of reaction. Didn't quite work as she had planned...

Off myself now!

Not one person replied

Perhaps they were as bored as I am now.............

Theres only one person after a bunfight though isnt there who just keeps coming back and unable to make peace?

If you feel deeply hurt than all I can do is apologise but I fail to see what I have done that warrants such attacks.

However, you are upset so again I apolgise and have a great evening

Cocoflower yes we did reply. i said if you pay both then the increase in tax and because everyone else is earning more the cost of living will increase and will counter act the increase of money.

And you cannot base the hours of someones day unless you are adding value to the hours ie

A sales man for a company within the 1 hour can earn the bussiness millions (investment banker)

A SAHP in 1 hour read a book, Iron, meet freinds at the cafe?

this does not compare and is not a salaried type possition.

Im sorry if the thread is tiresome, there are many others.

Have a great evening