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?

You don't have to be fighting any side but it certainly reads as though that is what you want people to be discussing.

If I did I would have erm, started a thread about that.

I never ever brought WOHMS into this- it was others.

I apolgised at least once that if anyone read it as an anti-wohm thread (though this idea is never evident in anything I posted) as it seems people were taking offence. But nowhere in my op does it mention this at all.

I then said lets extend the argument to WOHMs too -and had one reply!

This is the second time I have explained this.

Sorry sardine hard day same as my best friend who works with the elderly for 5.93 an hour. I stand by it being harder than being a SAHP to children without SN as there are obviously so many people to care for on top of your own children in addition to the extremely low wages. I wish people would campaign for these carers to have improved wages as most people will use carers at some point in their lives.

I would very much resent parents getting paid the minimum wage for looking after their own children as it is to me more laid back in the sense that you are working to your own timetable and often it is only with a couple of kids, compared to carers who are doing a lot more.

Havent read the whole thread but it is SOOOOOO depressing that people naively think the gvt has money! The gvt is not your parent! The gvt has no money, it only has what it raises in taxes from people, and in the case of labour gvts, what it is willing to over-borrow for future generations to pay off.

So the idea is that I pay extra tax from my hard earned wages, to fund someone else who chooses to stay at home with their kids, on top of what I already contribute to the benefits system through my current taxes.

I don't think so.

My dd is at school full time so I'm effectively at home whenever she is, I do everything a SAHP to a school age child does, school run (most days), washing, cooking, shopping, cleaning, ironing etc etc, and I also work 30 hours a week.

Why wouldn't I just hand in my notice and be paid to stay at home, with 30 extra hours a week to get all the household tasks done.

But this was a hypothetical thread- as someone said based on a "utopian" goverment.

We kind of used to pay SAHMs by giving their DH a transferrable tax credit

I think the divorce point is indeed interesting, and I think the same "recognition" (from the other parter) is there even in the absence of the divorce. SAHP enabling partner to earn without paying part of salary in childcare costs is in the same position as if they worked and earned enough to cover external childcare costs. In the forner case SAHP is rewarded by sharing in enjoyment of increase in net earnings of partner as result of being releived from childcare costs, and this of course this "reward" would crystallise on a divorce becuase they would no longer have ongoign enjoyment of the insreased income stream.

Why wouldn't I just hand in my notice and be paid to stay at home, with 30 extra hours a week to get all the household tasks done

Then this idea, (as improbable as it is) would give you that choice

dora I agree. It is "women's work" that gets paid shit as far as I can see. Caring for anyone, including children, cleaning, that stuff. Gets on my tits.

Which I think is the basis for this idea as a discussion point - that women do so much work and keep everything going, for free, or sometimes for minimum wage. And it's not recognised. That if all the women in the world withdrew their free labour for a month, everything would grind to a halt and it'd be chaos.

So who would do my job and the jobs of all the other parents who might take that option? My job that requires years of education, experience and training.

Maybe it wouldn't be worth bothering to educate girls anymore, they'll only go and get married and have kids and then leave the workplace to be SAHMs.

no, no and thrice no. There is no financial value to society in general in being a parent. It's a choice you make. Not a job.

Its not really free labour if you have a husband supporting you though is it? Anyone rich enough to be an SAHP has a husband who pays the mortgage, bills, food, disposable income so you share it between you.

Ridiculous. This is about SAHP, not about girls.

Not ridiculous at all, you are suggesting that being a SAHP becomes a paid career choice, one that future parents as well as current ones could take.

You don't need a degree to be a SAHP.

Oh dear god above. Are you aware that childcare is so expensive that a lot of people, usually women, work to keep their hand in rather than earn money now, so they'll be able to carry on later without losing touch. From this, we might deduce that childcare has a quantifiable value. If you genuinely believe rearing the next generation of geriatric dementia social workers, day centre staff, bed changers, spoon feeders, home helps, oap lunch clubs, chiropodists, osteoporosis specialists, rheumatologists etc etc is an entirely worthless occupation, lets hope you'll never need their services when you are old. Of course being a SAHM is economically valuable. If you think it isn't try employing someone to do it all. The main objection to it isn't this "sky is falling, ooh the debt, oh the deficit" nonsense, its defining (mainly) women's work as the consequence of their sexual relationships. So being a wife and mother is your natural destiny as a career.

YABVU, its a lifestyle choice to have children.

However I do thnk it should be the same for all parents, currently some do get paid to stay home via IS, some get financial assistance through tax credits as their partner works whilst others have to ensure their household income has the luxury of covering a SAHP.

All mums should get paid maternity and then standard child benefit. If you then choose not to work its done so in the knowledge that your household can support that choice themselves.

I am asking should it, not stating as a fact.

Why just bring girls into though? How about boys if we are not going to educate people too?

SAHP is very privledged position to be.

But it doesnt always mean people are rich.

It could mean DP is earning a couple quid above the threshold for childcare help, so it would mean working for the other DP is actually pointless due to staggering childcare costs wiping out any gain

Well off to me would be about 25k a year. I know very few people on a wage that high, either male or female. Most SAHPS here are kept on benefits, and everyone else works for low pay.

If your DH earns enough to be able to be out the tax credit bracket then he is more than well off enough to support a family imo.

"Its not really free labour if you have a husband supporting you though is it? Anyone rich enough to be an SAHP has a husband who pays the mortgage, bills, food, disposable income so you share it between you."

Dora that's not true either!

Childcare is so expensive that many women who want to work cannot afford to.
Many single parents on benefits who would like to work but cannot find a job that pays enough to cover the childcare. Many women in relationships who cannot find a job that is break-even once they have paid for childcare.

£24k PA will not pay childcare for 2 preschoolers.

catch 22.

childcare is the key to this.

as for "Maybe it wouldn't be worth bothering to educate girls anymore, they'll only go and get married and have kids and then leave the workplace to be SAHMs." well yes this is effectively what we have at the moment for large groups of women due to childcare costs.

It might be dobale to support his or her family- but that doesnt mean there is room for disposable income. Literally the most essential costs are met, then thats it.

Which is fine, but they arent rich as such.

Well said MrsGuy.

It seriously pisses me off when people ignorantly think that 'the government' has money.

Yeah but you get it paid by tax credits if you are on low income so single parents could work if they chose to really. We have significant amounts of single mums on the minimum wage who work and attend our nursery. They dont have to pay as tax credits pay.

I do understand if you have a high earning DH that it would be hard to afford childcare but they dont need paying a wage to be a SAHP as they already will have all of their husbands decent wage if they are not entitled to TCS.