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?

"It is critical that we maintain a focussed and steadfast determination to end child poverty. In addition, the government needs to make necessary investment in early intervention services to
break intergenerational cycles. cited from NCH Tackling Child Poverty and Improving Life Chances: Consulting on a New Approach .Action for Children response.February 2011

this refers to fact unemployment is more prevalent in families were parents have not worked

"if we're in the business of trying to quantify the contribution of Children to society"

But we're not, are we....?

i have already have wage - from working
i dont want to be a sahm.paid or not.its not what id chose and i dont get this inference if only one could escape the wage slavery we's all be a sahm. well, not me. work isnt solely money (it helps) but no way id sahp

I think this is really interesting.

Also, could I mention that Coco has asked a question rather than offered an opinion, as far as I can see. He/she is offering questions but some of the comments back seem to turn personal very quickly. To question/analyse this sort of thing you have to step back from the personal.

Maybe we're conditioned to think our private lives should not be funded by the state, because it suites them!

I am doing research in to whether parents would choose to return to work or stay at home, if money was not a factor. MN might be a useful resource!

and with the links between unemployment and poor achivement etc, isnt this based on the parents not working who are paid benefits, rather than the parents choosing not to be in employment and not needing benefits? I dont know, genuine Q?

straight answer pamela,id not sahm ft.ever,no way
and money isnt the issue.it really isnt
i get an approbation from work that i dont wholly get being mum.its not enough

in same way others get an approbation from sahm that dont get from work

but this inference all mums are trapped wage slaves, desperate to eschew the capitalist bonds and be free with the kids isnt necessarily true either

Also, could I mention that Coco has asked a question rather than offered an opinion, as far as I can see. He/she is offering questions but some of the comments back seem to turn personal very quickly. To question/analyse this sort of thing you have to step back from the personal.

Thank you! Your spot on

do i get 2 wages nder this dizzy scheme
salary for work
paid for being mum
a 4 wage household in effect

Ok Tether, genuine question - what more do SAHPs do that I don't do?

It's not about how many hours worked - it's about defining what SAHPs would be being paid to do. In my view, it's no different to what I do already. The only difference is that I have a ft paid job too and contribute to the economy.

I don't need to be paid to look after my child. That is not why I had him.

and with the links between unemployment and poor achivement etc, isnt this based on the parents not working who are paid benefits, rather than the parents choosing not to be in employment and not needing benefits? I dont know, genuine Q?

Again your spot on!

People are confusing themselves over the fact its people from a low socio-econmic background. Ie from generations who dont work

Not a study into the university educated SAHP married to the well-paid Oxford graduate for instance!

Agree pig. There is nothing fundamentally different in what I do/ achieve in terms of home and parenting on my days off work. I simply do things at a different pace and maybe different timings eg I might prep dinner at 6 am rather than 4 pm on a work day, and I might read to the boys at 6 pm rather than lunchtime. More importantly, there is no different in outcome for my boys on work/ non work days. They might have a slightly different routine- but its not better or worse.
So where does the pay come in?
I earn on working days because I do a job which someone else pays 'me to do, to their specification and standards. On home days, I do what I cboose to do, to my own spec and standards

pipandpet, unless you have school aged children and only work school hours, then SAHPs have more contact with their children that WOHPs do.

I would not give up work to take advantage of being paid to bring up my child. Like sm, I enjoy work and enjoy the balance it gives me. But DP might. Other fathers might. I suspect that the low-status of SAHP would be a thing of the past were enough fathers in that role.

*than

Coco - are you trying to prove that Children of non working oxford graduates do better than those in work then? Because I would really like to see your evidence base!

The action for children study is about poverty in childhood.

Not SAHP's!

A massive, massive difference.

Are you trying to suggest that all things being equal, children in families where one parent doesn't work have better outcomes than in families where both parents work??!!

Im trying to say people have grossly misunderstood the research.

Its not about SAHP its about poor social mobility due to low socio-economic factors.

There are all sorts of factors Which determine how children do. So, as a graduate with a decent job, lots of books in our home, a sound understanding of how to raise my children etc, my children are highly likely to have good outcomes whether I go to work or stay at home.
So remind me again why the tax payer should fund 'me to not work??!

But if parents were paid to stay at home with their children, they would be taxpayers too

But tether what you're ultimately then arguing is that Government should pay SAHPs because they have more contact hours with their children. That's bonkers surely?

I may have fewer 'contact' hours but I do the same amount of laundry, same amount of cooking (apart from lunch because I am at work and he is at school) keep a clean house, do homework with him, reading, playing, etc. The only real difference is that I do all that and make a contribution to the economy by working as well.

I agree that SAHPs should have more positive recognition and status, but that should not manifest itself in a financial reward (which is effectively paid for by many WOHPs).

Fund you not to work? No payment for the hard work parents do.

Unless you see no value in that.

When I was a WOHP the tax payer funded some of my 'lifestyle choice'

Why?

Through tax credits to pay for my ridiculous childcare costs actually.

I think most parents in one way or another, working or not have had help from taxpayers have they not?

Though many seem to like to forget this part....