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?

allnewtaketwo
Do these children, for example, not go to nursery or school?

Most SAHP are usually getting back into training or work at this point- actually many try and do it before this point. The ones who are not at this stage usually have good reasons like they are actually careers not just SAHP - or erratic work patterns of partners who do earn a wage that is enough to live off - which in this day and age is rare or they been made redundant and are having a breather while waiting for next job.

The tax argument - I earned before I had DC, DH earns tax now, I use the money to buy stuff thus paying VAT at least, and when DC are at school I'll work and earn and pay taxes again.

I do not agree with paying SAHP - having support for them things like children centres can help with isolation issues which can lead to medical problems like depression. Help to get them back into work place when they wish to return would be helpful.

Other than that reducing the cost of housing and living costs - if at all possible would be helpful not just to SAHP families but large swaths of the population - but how much control a government has is debatable.

I also not sure its the government place to assign social status to sections of the population. The media I would argue have a greater role - but they exist to make money.

its not complex or complicated
sahp isnt job,there is no tricky negotiation or formula.

This thread is just going round in circles now

DH earns and is paying tax now - should have been.

and?
does that mean youre being huffy because noone agrees?

And while we're all talking to ourselves instead of eachother , I think what you're asking me is how I can say that WOHP/SAHP's time "expenditure" is different but not more or less valuable?

I suppose I am saying that inherent in the assertion that what a WOHP can "do" in an hour or two in the evening equates to what a SAHP "does" all day is ascribing a value to the time, assuming that it is something that can be done more "efficiently" or "intensively" if you just push it into hyperdrive.

Ironically, making this statement suggests parenting is being viewed in the same way as paid work by describing it as something you can do more or less "efficiently" if you follow a certain process (e.g. doing it "more intensively" or "managing" or "co-ordinating" it). It assumes that you can have "equal value" for time spent intensively as less intensive time over more hours. Which of course leaves the WOHP "in the black" in the debate as they also have the status and pay of work, but painted in this example as doing exactly the same types of activities as parents who stay at home when valued on the same terms as SAHPs.

I'm not saying that we who work are not effective as parents but even though I do work, it seems somehow insulting to suggest that you can distil everything a mother offers into less and less hours just because you are hyper-efficient. As if all mothers offer exactly the same and you can either stretch this out or condense it depending on whether you want to pursue paid employment and that is a "choice".

Effectively, saying that a WOHP does "the same" as a SAHP in less hours is playing into the Supermom meme that if you just work harder and do it all more intensively you can have it all.

I don't think you can. I think that if you are looking at parents who are in a position to choose vs dictated to by financial realities, you can find something that suits you and fulfils you as a woman - and for some of us that means more time at home and for some more time at work, and those are both valuable but different. However a child's experience will not be the same just because you will it so. It may not be worse but it will be fundamentally different if they get the majority of their guidance in language and social skills during the day from people who are not family members. They don't just exist in a bubble until we come home, ready to soak up what we have on offer in an hour and a half before bed, no matter how much we might want that.

"and i v much doubt parents would want the associated regulation"

My utopia has no associated regulation. None. I question your assertion that being paid a wage necessitates external regulation.

working9while5 - I was told you can have it all just not all at the same time.

No, its not 'having it all' - its just doing things differently.
And tbh working9, it is your posts which seem closest to making some sort of value judgement. It feels a teensy bit close to suggesting that a parent who works is somehow not able to have equal influence over shaping their childs life than a non working one- which is clearly nonsense

commercial childcare is tightly regulated and paid
parenting isnt regulated and unapid
if you want comparable salary as parent you'd have to demonstrably meet same criteria and regulations

carer allowance is regulated and carries expectation of 35hr week, support at meetings, liaison with la and nhs.and if inadequate safegurding would be invoked.so carer allowance is regulated too

"Commercial childcare is tightly regulated and paid
parenting isnt regulated and unapid
if you want comparable salary as parent you'd have to demonstrably meet same criteria and regulations"

Why?

to ensure minimum standards,adhere to legal statutory minimums, allow for inspection - and invoke sanction if breached.

And why would paying parents for what they already do necessitate this?

Then I assume all pet owners should be inspected, no?

with payment comes responsibility
if govt pay they can rightly expect a say in delivery and standards

The planet is overpopulated. We don't need more people. if people have children they do it for selfish reasons of reproducing their genes and because they fancy being parents and having something small and cute to fuss over, not unreasonable reasons as a parent myself.
If people chose to make being a parent and housewife/ husband a career choice they and the other parent of their kid/s should pay. They aren't doing the rest of us any favours so we shouldn't be paying for them to have kids.
Family units should aim to be self supporting.

Why? because many childcarers are looking after their own children and everyone elses for the minimum wage and they have to do observations, courses, nvqs, degrees, complete diaries, liaise with parents, first aid, child protection, liaise with external and internal agencies such as medical staff, speech therapists etc.

If we started paying SAHPS this same wage for staying at home with their children, parenting however they feel like. How on earth would this be fair?

no,coco the children act and safeguarding doesn't cover poodles or pooches
commercial childcare does

2rebecca

I assume you dont accept childtax credits then?

"with payment comes responsibility"

Childcare as an industry went largely unregulated for years. Many jobs remain unregulated. Payment itself does not bestow a need for external inspection.

Or, in other words, no it doesn't.

think you'll find childcare is v regulated
children act, every child matters, early years guidance, coshh, food hygiene,crb to name a few
is also inspected and expected to be responsible

no such onus upon parents

But if parents are getting child benefit and child tax credits then why are we not regulating them right now?

I thought CTC were a top up? Ie you had to be working to qualify? They're not a payment for being a 100% sAHM?

cb is universal
ctc is means tested to maintain work
incomparable to salary for doing housewifery
if the argument goes sahp does what cm does,so pay a salery.then the sahp should go through same regulation as cm