Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

823 replies

Cocoflower · 08/06/2011 12:10

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?

OP posts:
LolaRennt · 08/06/2011 12:32

I think the government should pay people who care for others, but not sahp. Being a SAHP is a role you choose and if it is going to be a paid job by the govt it would need to be regulated as such.

What about parents who have children then basically leave them to run feral, it happens enough. Young children in an out of the care and legal system. Surely if parenting becomes a job they should be able to be fired?

I think it would also be hugely unfair to the rest of taxpayers, the child free and to working parents. It is not the govenrments job to pay for your children any further than social health care or education.

HidingInTheUndergrowth · 08/06/2011 12:32

I also think there is a big differance between being a carer and a sahp in this respect. If you are a carer and you didn't do this then the tax payer would pick up the bill as it would be covered by the nhs. Therefore the carer is saving the taxpayer a significant amount of money by doing this work and should at least be recognised and supported for this a bit better then they already are.

If you worked then the taxpayer would not necessarily be expected to pay for all your childcare so why should be pay for it just because you decide to stay at home and not work.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 08/06/2011 12:32

The role that all parents do adds worth - no-one would dispute that. So we either give every parent an equal wage as a thank you, regardless of whether they work, stay home, are rich or poor.... or we target scarce resources to those that need it most. I know which I would prefer.

When my SAHP friend with her £150k+ p.a. director husband tells me just what a busy day she's had dropping both kids off at junior school & leaving some instructions for her cleaner and gardener before heading off to the gym, hairdressers and a trip to a gallery with friends.... I don't think I would be too happy thinking my tax-money was giving her a few extra £££ for doing it

hambo · 08/06/2011 12:33

Cogito - SAHP do what WOHP do? That isn't possibel! They are physically bringing up their children. If the WOHP was a nanny then yes, they would be doing the same....

I do think that SAHP are undervalued. However to offer a wage would mean that certain standards would be required. I am not sure how to make SAHP feel more valued.

Original poster
Cocoflower · 08/06/2011 12:34

Tbh Im havent actually formed an opinion either way.

Perhaps people I think I started this thread because Im on lots of benefits and wanting more but apart from £20pcm in tax credits (which most famiys get) we dont get any other benefits, own our own private home, both work etc!

Im not trying to grab at money at all.

Its just sociological (is that a real word?!)intresting to see how we place the work of SAHP

OP posts:
BimboNo5 · 08/06/2011 12:34

Having children is a priviledge, one that many people will never know sadly. To expect to be paid for choosing to bring them up is absurd. Why should having kids be valued by society?

karmakameleon · 08/06/2011 12:34

Of course a SAHP has worth, but if you pay them only and not WOHPs, you'd be saying that bringing up children doesn't have any worth unless you personally do the full time care. Is that what you are intending?

I think that paying a reasonable child benefit to all parents is the best way if you want to recognise the value that bringing up children has for society. However, I don't think that the government would ever be able to afford pay anything that truly reflected the value of the job.

sausagesandmarmelade · 08/06/2011 12:36

No they shouldn't....

Many get paid by the Govt/Tax Payer to stay at home anyway...

They choose to have children so why the F should society be expected to meet the bill.

What a ridiculous suggestion....especially at the current time when it's clear that the public purse is already struggling.

BimboNo5 · 08/06/2011 12:36

Wow- I work full time AND bring my children up- who'd have thunkt it Hmm

Tangle · 08/06/2011 12:37

If the government payed me to raise my children then the government would be expected to ensure that I was spending that money in a suitable and approved fashion and raising my children in a suitable and approved way.

Yes, parenting should be recognised and valued - but not by turning all parents into government employees. Money rarely comes with nonstrings attached. I'd rather have the autonomy I currently enjoy.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 08/06/2011 12:37

Yes, SAHP do the same as WOHP. There may be nurseries or childminders involved along the way but the childrearing buck stops at the parent. The responsibility is no different whatsoever.

LolaRennt · 08/06/2011 12:38

See the problem is OP is that in your scenerio you are saying that we have to pay someone to see value in their role. ANd then you have decide the value of that role.

Looking after your children as a sahp or a wohp is your decision and either should be valued by your fmaily but you aren't actually helping society any more one way or the other really.

Foster parents do get paid for their role because they are helping society.

JanMorrow · 08/06/2011 12:39

you wouldn't get anyone doing any actual jobs if you got paid to stay at home with your kids surely? (or far less anyway).. ridiculous notion.

sausagesandmarmelade · 08/06/2011 12:39

and everyone has worth....

Those who go out to work have lots of worth...without them those in need just wouldn't get the assistance they need....public services wouldn't be funded..the country would grind to a shuddering halt!

Being a SAHM is a 'luxury' that not everyone can afford...
Yes it's a full time job...but don't expect us to fund it any more than we already are (with child benefit etc).

BimboNo5 · 08/06/2011 12:39

Lets be honest there is already a sector of society who want to sit at home repopulating society and have no intention of contributing to society financially at any point- why make it any more appealing? The economy needs to be making money not handing it out willy nily!

cumbria81 · 08/06/2011 12:40

Absolutely not! What an absurd idea! Why should people be paid to have children?

If no one needed to work and could just get £30k from the government simply for popping out a few sprogs, who would work in shops? Who would clean our buildings, man our hospitals, drive our buses, teach our kids?

TheTruthNothingButTheTruth · 08/06/2011 12:41

This is the most unreasonable thing I have ever heard. You made the choice to have a kid, so you bear the consequence. Why should the tax payer support you ? Some of you ( like the OP) think that the government has money growing on trees.

wordfactory · 08/06/2011 12:42

So SAHM who uses a nice nursery a few mornings a week while she goes to the gym should be paid...while the nurse grafting in intensive care on the night shift while her Mum looks after the kids, doesn't?

Hmmmmmmm.....

dottyp82 · 08/06/2011 12:42

what if you are a SAHM caring for a child with a disability and your husband has left you! should you have to work also?

Teachermumof3 · 08/06/2011 12:43

*Absolutely not! What an absurd idea! Why should people be paid to have children?

If no one needed to work and could just get £30k from the government simply for popping out a few sprogs, who would work in shops? Who would clean our buildings, man our hospitals, drive our buses, teach our kids?*

Well said, I couldn't agree more!

Just out of interest, OP-how much do you think SAHP should get paid?!

MollysChamber · 08/06/2011 12:43

Cogito The responsibility may be the same but presumably the people caring for working parents kids through the day are doing something? Therefore you can hardly say that the labour is the same. Someone has to be looking after the kids. There is work involved whoever is doing it.

I presume OP is talking about rewarding the labour. Still an unworkable idea though.

Bucharest · 08/06/2011 12:44

Has somebody stuck their nose into the bottomless pit of government money to see where this money is going to come from?

NHS? Teachers? DLA?

No,thought not.

notso · 08/06/2011 12:45

It would be nice if DH was able to use all or part of my tax allowance while I am a SAHM, but I don't think I agree with being paid to stay at home.

worraliberty · 08/06/2011 12:45

Because of the worth they add to society perhaps? Or are they of no worth?

Some parents are absolutely awful and should not be parents at all.

So the ones who do a really bad job, could they be sacked or would they just carry on picking up their pay packets?

karmakameleon · 08/06/2011 12:45

I don't think it's unreasonable that the State helps out with the cost of raising children and recognises that it is a valuable and difficult job. That's why we have child benefit, tax credits, maternity pay, free schools etc and I doubt anyone would argue with any of them.

I think the issue arises if we say that SAHPing is more important than WOHPing and that we should provide this allowance only to SAHPs.

Swipe left for the next trending thread