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 to the op. There are choices people make about childcare. Looking after your own children is not the same as paid employment.

Tbh I think people forget how hard it can be for those in the middle though.

Too 'rich' (by a few pounds) to qualify for help, but not rich enough to pay their own childcare.

Its a bit of a no-man's land.

"The gvt has no money, it only has what it raises in taxes from people"

Therefore, the government has money. Doesn't make sense to say it doesn't. Each government then chooses how to spend its money in the best interests of its citizens. Supposedly.

dora I'm I think we are at cross purposes.

I have pointed out that many women have to SAH when they don't want to as childcare is so expensive.

Your couples where the man earns £25K and the woman SAH. Yes fine. What if she wants to work though?

xposts dora someone rang me up

"People choose to have children, carers don't necessarily have that choice."

Agreed. You chose to bring that person into the world to look after. It's not like we have a dwindling population! Why should anyone fund what is essentially our selfish lifestyle choice?

OP - Was this the anti SAHM comment you were referring to above?

"likale Wed 08-Jun-11 14:08:43

The rational for introducing this would be that by having a SAHP, then the life chances of children would be increased. If this were to be examined I would bet that this is not true and that the life chances and achievements of children with SAHP are worse than those with working parents."

I was a bit .

Couldn't be arsed with it at the time though as it is clearly tripe. I think people are being a bit mean to you really.

YABU.

If you choose to have children then you should be able to provide for your family, going out to work if necessary. I think more readily available childcare for working parents would be a much better option.

That was mainly it yes. Nothing else was to bad, but that was grim.

^ for Molly

TeaOneSugar - you put it very well.

It's all about affordable childcare. My god I bang on about this to someone or other at least 3 times a week.

I don;t understand why having children is selfish? This has been a theme throughout the thread.

It's mindboggling that people genuinely see no value to our society in having children. Where the hell do they think the next generation are going to come from? Ship them in from a different country? Quite mad.

YANBU

I don't hink payment is a viable option, but yes, there should be some better supportive system in place for SAHPs. We haven't all had a choice in the outcome, and I think that there is a sweeping generalisation made that those who stay at home are loving it.

In fact, according to the thread I started to help others in the same position as myself I have discovered that there are a LOT of SAHPs out there who are trapped , (yes TRAPPED...genuinely) in a life they never imagined, struggling at home with their children, who yes, they love dearly and want to see raised in the best possible way; but are at odds with themselves, have lost confidence, are dying to get out to work, but cannot for a myriad of reasons. A lot of this is by other's perceptions too - employers, other mothers, even their own families cannot see the value that they give to society, thus they lose confidence and self-worth.

Everyone's attitude needs to change in regards to SAHPs.

I am sick to the back teeth of the generalisations that we chose to have kids, we should see them as a pleasure thus we should raise them ourselves and be cheering all the way about it!
Partly that's true. But partly a lot of us are also dying inside, very qualified, very intelligent but earning nothing, being financially dependant on DPs (at least until DCs are older)...taking a career hit, a moral hit, a confidence hit, a physical hit just by the nature of our sheer biology.
It's a no-win situation, and although there are a lucky few that chose to do it and find it fulfilling, there are a hell of a lot of us who never had the option.

Maybe payment (although not really viable as an option IMO) would command a bit more bloody respect for a hard job which mostly gets brushed under the carpet as something unworthy, not difficult and that anyone could do.
A lot of people can't do it. Yet there are women (and men) who can't and don't have any other option, which leads to all sorts of social, health and mental issues.

good post 3littleducks

Im pretty sure I remembered your post Threelittleducks from a while back...

Infact thats what partly inspired my thinking about this thread in relation to what value, if any do we place on the SAHP?

I suppose its because I couldnt possibly think of anything more fulfilling than having children and looking after them, and its what I have wanted my whole life for as long as I can remember. I am one of lifes born mums as thats been all I have ever really wanted. I do struggle to see when some people on here say they arent fulfilled by it, but thats my own feelings coming in to it I suppose.

bloody brilliant post TLD

dora, even life's born mums get bored by the relentlessness of it all

everyones situation is so so different, many mums aren't working because they were made redundant, they can't afford to pay all the childcare needed or maybe they just would like to be at home when their kids are small and are living with all that entails?

I agree too many posters think SAHM's are all madly in love with craft, play dough, sand, muddy walks when a lot of us are bored senseless and crave some adult company BUT CAN'T AFFORD THE CHILDCARE COSTS OF 2 OR MORE KIDS

am I making myself clear?

op, YANBU

I don't agree with the 'not everyone could do it' comment, because if we had to, we could all do it. Like the examples you mention in your post

ilovedora27, petty to ask I know, but can I ask do you have a family support network to give you help and most importantly a break now and then from your kids?

or do you have them 7am-8pm all day every day with no help whatsoever (apart from the odd friend) and share them with your partner when he sees them, usually at weekends only?

because these situations are way different to each other

I do think there should be away of providing childcare for everyone as children are only young for a short time.

However I honestly would never get bored of craft, play dough, sand and muddy walks. Things like that are the best bits its why I work in childcare. It does depend on your personality and what you like though. I think the government should subsidise childcare but it will never happen the cuts are making it worse for my sector there will definitely be no money put in to it for many years, probably not ever tbh

ilovedora

Lets just say it was possible to pay for any parent who wishes too, to have the option of staying at home with their children would you welcome this?

Is allowing people such an option, if possible, not a positive thing?

I get us both up at 5.30 am and then get me and her ready to walk to work, then get to work for 7am, then I do my shift from 7am til 1 or 2ish. It can be challenging as my DD wants to hold/hug/follow me all day and I have 7 others to think about but its fun. Its usually made harder with them all together.

I dont have a break as I just have a biscuit with the kids at snack. Then I walk home with my DD then am on my own until shes asleep as my husband doesnt get in until 7ish. I do put down and in to bed.

My husband and parents help out at weekends but I am alone during the week though. I could easily have 6 kids and go off work though and thats the first thing I would do if I won the lottery tbh.

coco - Dont know coco most of the people on my estate get the same amount as me and my husband coming in and dont work, a lot of my friends get more tbh. According to that poor kids program yesterday with both my husband and I working we are still below the poverty line but I would feel bad if I didnt earn it myself.

I feel too guilty to do it though and so doubt I would ever stop. If my husband could keep me then probably would have a break for a few years but I wouldnt take the money from the government no.

Its a completely unworkable idea. I think you'd find loads of people would stay at home to get paid for something they would do for free. You'd get more people giving up work, or producing more children they couldn't afford if they had to fund themselves, simply to be able to stay at home. And its not a job- there is no performance management or quality control- what about people who make a very average performance of being at home? I'm not talking about abusive parents or seriously abusive ones because they are rare- but many parents are fairly mediocre - why on earth should they be paid?! And meanwhile the people actually working would be taxed even more to pay the non workers! Ridiculous idea.

Its a completely unworkable idea. I think you'd find loads of people would stay at home to get paid for something they would do for free. You'd get more people giving up work, or producing more children they couldn't afford if they had to fund themselves, simply to be able to stay at home. And its not a job- there is no performance management or quality control- what about people who make a very average performance of being at home? I'm not talking about abusive parents or seriously abusive ones because they are rare- but many parents are fairly mediocre - why on earth should they be paid?! And meanwhile the people actually working would be taxed even more to pay the non workers! Ridiculous idea.