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?

In France it is possible to take parental leave after maternity leave ends, up to the last child's third birthday. Parental leave guarantees a return to work at the same level/salary and pays a stipend to parents. Over 90% of users are those for whom it would be either uneconomical or impractical (because of difficult hours) to use nurseries.

Thats very intresting Bonsoir.

Do parents who dont use the parental leave resent the other parents who do stay at home like many posters on here would?

To be fair lynehamrose, you seem obsessed with proving I am saying something I am. not. In terms of language meaning equal does have two meanings and you seem really intent on proving I think being a sahp has more value despite me saying a) I don't agree with inferential 'valuations' as though human relationships were property and b) me choosing not to be a sahm myself.

It's about being free to talk about the subjective experience for the mother of opportunity cost when you can't be in two places at once and the need for value/status/benefit to be taken out of the discussion in a comparative sense. About being able to make statements about how you feel about your choices in life without placing an absolute value on it eg I spend my time with my children more intensively ergo I am better, I don't ergo I am better.

You are saying time and time again that apparently I 'value' one type of experience more than another despite me saying explicitly I don't.

Why? What are you trying to prove here? That all choices have equal status and are identical in all respects? Why do we talk about this at all if we don't feel we have to make compromises, whatever we choose? Why do you want to find a value judgement that is about superiority?

I'm sorry, but I haven't managed to read all of the thread, but this subject is something I've been thinking about today (prompted by another thread here).

I feel less valuable and valued by society because I don't go out to work, and have been a SAHM since ds3 was born. I feel that people who work have value and respect because of the work they do, and they have a job title and a wage. I don't know what the answer to this is - though I agree with the people who have said that the country can't afford to pay SAHPs and it's not the government's responsibility to do that. I don't want paying for what I do - but I would like to feel valued by society.

Cocoflower - taking your list, and answering the points

Possible Cons

How would we pay for this? we* cant. end of. The government spending already outstrips taxes
Should the role be regulated, if so how? preposterous. You* choose to have children, deal with it.
How about parents who don't deserve a payment and what is the criteria preposterous, could* you imagine costs to manage these payments. Money is created by private industry, not the state
How would it work to be fair to WOHPS it* wouldnt work, the state should not have to pay for everything. It is even more unfair for childless couples
Encouraging unwanted children? Yes, it would encourage more children, in an already well populated country
Unnatural- should be about vocation and love- not career my granny worked as a seamstress, when she had three children, and mum was partly raised by grandparents. SAHM has always been a luxury. My mum delayed motherhood till she was 32, so they had some savings for her to stay at home for five years.*

Possible Pros

Add value and respect for the role - We* have respect. If I'm honest a lot of working mothers are envious of SAHM. I am. The extra taxes would get MANY peoples back up.
A paid role for the CV when people wish to return to work. No, on* CV, you will have STILL taken time out to look after your children.
To elevate the status and the own self-worth of the SAHP poppycock. you* do not need a pat on your back from state. the reward is being a loving mother, and knowing you are doing your best.
To allow an option of SAHP or WOHP for any parent - this* needs to be done, by creating conditions that incomes are higher in proportion to living costs/ house prices.
To compensate for those who wish to work but cannot afford to - sorry, but* thats life. we do not live in a perfect world. Work with the cards you are dealt with.
To compensate for those who wish to work but circumstances stop them - as* above.
Not entirely dependent for income on partner, especially for those in controlling realtionships sorry, there* are various charities and gov support in place for this. My friend is a single mum and works as a childminder. It is doable, but very tough.

Orm-
"if it really is impossible to go out to work because there is no afforable childcare, and a parent is being forced to stay at home,"

I agree that's a problem, but disagree that throwing more money at the problem is a good idea. Affordable childcare is a problem that should be dealt with. For example, tax deductible childcare and I mean all of it and not the cap that now exists on childcare vouchers would be a good start.

Then more people who want to work could. I am all for helping people who want to help themselves but can't. I am totally against rewarding people for doing nothing.

TBH, I think there is much less resentment and recrimination between SAHMs and WOHMs in France. The financial implications are so very different here.

If I'm honest a lot of working mothers are envious of SAHM. I am. The extra taxes would get MANY peoples back up.

Intresting, very, very intresting....

If it did happen then ohlala would you take it up to become a SAHM?

Yes, I would, as a true hypocrite, but I would still consider it unfair!!

Higher rate taxpayers are already paying 50p in the £1. The extra taxes would create many problems.

i am not a stay at home mother but would like to be if i could afford as for tax payer funding my choice ie in childcare costs tax credits etc i get no help towards child care and 41.70 p a month in child tax credits my husband is on minimum wage and i am a staff nurse hardly rolling in it which means we work opposite each other ie shifts to ensure kids are always looked after far from ideal and very tiriing but there you go

Bonsoir

The financial implications are so very different here

Woulld it be ok to expand on this? Very interested

In all reality the idea would never work.

Though it would be nice for every parent to have a choice about staying at home.

If it did happen I would imagine the payment would be very low, only one parent/carer per house hold could claim, you have to have already paid a certain amount of tax into the system first, payment per household and not child and stops by school age.

The idea is to give options to any parent.

Therefore at one point you may have been funded by the tax payer, but once the payment stops at school age the idea is you then give back again by being in a realistic position to work, and thus the cycle.

In regards to another poster;I dont see how anyone who has looked after a child under four can say SAHPS do nothing;you have been very lucky and had a very easy child in that case.

Not read all of it and this is a question not my opinion (as yet) but what if the governement averaged out how much they paid/didnt take tax off working parents for things like busy bee/accor vouchers. 20% saved off £500 ish childcare costs for me so £100 a month I and my DH collectively benefit from the governemnt not taxing me the portion of my wages that pay towards childcare.

What if ....... they paid SAHP's the £100 a month to stay at home conditional upson something, I dont know what, but some critieria to meet to show they are meeting the education that a nursery would provide. Maybe (I dont know, thinking out loud) X many library visits a month to get kids in to books and regenerate libraries/towns etc ........

So £100 a month for anyone with preschool children who are not in receipt of child care dicounts, if they somehow prove they are educating their own child, like a nursery would .......

What do we think??

PS) I work, its not about me.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove working 9! I assume that as a working parent, you value that and it works for you! I just don't like the idea of trying to attach a value judgement to what someone does purely on the basis of whether they work inside the home or in and outside.

Pamelat, could I have the £100 if I send my nanny and children to do the same things?

Actually, if the government ever starts reviewing my job as a parent to this level, I will take my paycheck and tax bill on hike back home to the US where such nanny state tactics would never be tolerated.

Seriously you are kidding, right? The question was what are you trying to prove by telling me I am saying something I'm not saying despite all available evidence to the contrary and then saying, essentially, the same thing I've been saying all along!! It is bizarre. You don't.really have any point other than to tell me what I am saying is wrong, not really what I am saying (as it's al subtext). and that you disagree with your interpretation of my words which I have said, oh, about a million times is yours and yours alone. That was what I asked you to respond to; I've told you that you are misinterpreting and you just keep saying over and over that you're not but that somehow you know what I am saying better than I do!

I don't want to place a value judgement AGAIN but you, to use your words, seem hellbent on proving I do. Why? What are you getting out of having an argument that essentially says you know my mind better than I do and it is all wrong!

I have made my thoughts clear and explicit and stated my thinking again and again and you keep missing the obvious to dwell on some subtext you are obsessing over. - don't make a value judgement that either wohps or sahps are superior parents or people,, there, clear enough? Let it go.

Sorry, not reading whole thread, and have always had symapthy for the idea of valuing the work, but what are you being paid for? I don't, having spent time at home with kids mean what do you do and how skilled are you at it, but if this is a 'job' what is you are doing that is of worth and how is it assessed against other parents?

It's not 'raising your children' or 'keeping the house' because working parents do that too. And what about the varieties of work? Should you get paid this allowance on a pro-rata basis if you work part-time? More if you have more than one kid? And, critically, is there a minimum standard of care expected-why should the state pay people who abuse their children (not SAHPs, but abusers who stay at home) a benefit to do so until actually convicted of abuse? And should someone whose behaviour stops short of neglect but is in other ways troubling-say plonking their kids in front of the TV except when shouting at them-get the same as a more 'ideal' parent? And do we really want the state tying benefit to performance of parental duties?

Basically, it would seem to me that the only reason to pay would be to make it clear that society believes children should be brought up by a parent staying at 'home' with them. And unless you're willing to argue that, I don't see it's justifiable. In particular, because it creates pressure for women (let's be honest despite admirably neutral OP) to stop work.

I knew we'd done this http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1078237-Should-women-carers-be-paid-for-caring-for-their-own-kids

The link doesnt work- can you try again?!

Thought it was just my crap internet. Trying again.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1078237-Should-women-carers-be-paid-for-caring-for-their-own-kids?

Have now (for my sins and at expense of evening or weekend time-DP will not be chuffed) read the thread. have two 'questions':

1. Does anyone really think it would change behaviour at all? Most SAHPs I meet are either supported by partners or savings (in which case the stipend would not be for essentials) or have so little earning power relative to childcare that it would mean a lack of essentials to go back to work (and their essentials costs are thus supported anyway). It's hard to see a universal payment as anything but a means of giving more money to those households who are comparatively well off. In between sit unwilling working parents who make a little bit more. I, for instance, earn about 250 pounds per month more than the cost of childcare. That's critical to our income-we have only made ends meet by running up debts over pre-school years, Just, out of a very unEnglish interest, how many people reading this thread would have stayed at home for payment, and what would it have had to have been?

1. So much of this is about household income, but in many ways it's the knock-on effects which are so damaging to the carer. 'Paying' people to look after pre-school kids (or are we talking all kids here) doesn't necessarily grant them any greater independence-it just adds to their household income and in (marginal?) cases gives them choice. But women are slammed for career advancement later, for long-term security, and forced to tie themselves to that household and that man if they care for long periods. Isn't another option to think not about payment, but about, for instance, the state continuing NI contributions, reforming labour law (as Bonsoir) says in ways which cost, but are about ensuring a female carer's long-term independence and choices, not just her immediate financial situation or her household income?

AND to (refreshingly!) get back to the point of the thread...

Agree totally with your posts adela. Despite the 27 or so pages of posts, no one has yet been able to explain what the payment would be for. If its a recognition for having children, pay it to all parents. If it's payment for the 'job' of raising children and running a home- pay it to all parents - we all do it. If it's for the physical task of being the one changing nappies etc - pay it to all parents, same rate- and then working parents could choose to use it as a contribution towards the nanny or childminder (nb: this would be totally different to any tax credits, free nursery care etc as it wouldn't be means tested - it would be equal pay for all)

The bottom line is, there can be no logical reason to pay such a 'wage' to some parents simply because they don't combine parenting and work, while ignoring the parents who do.

And the whole idea is bonkers anyway and will never happen. Amen!

The other option is to make working partners pay-to explicitly transfer money from his (excuse generalisation) to her bank account to pay for the work, giving her self-employed status and some control, and a fallback should the relationship break down.

Can't help feeling there'd be a lot more appreciation, and pressure for decent childcare, flexible working and wages which covered childcare, if every parent who acted as 'wage earner' in such a set up was forced to see 'their' money vanishing each month.

Ouch, don't like the sound of that! It would be forcing All sorts of beaurocracy onto what should be a personal agreement between parents, if they want one partner to stay at home. I don't see how the 'self employed' partner would feel more valued just by the other partner being enforced to pay her a nominal 'wage'. And what about when the working partner comes home and maybe takes over the tea bath and bedtime routine, leaving the SAHP to put their feet up? Or when the working partner takes the kids out for a day at the weekend. ? Does the SAHP then have to pay back a proportionate amount, out of the money paid by the working partner, as they have now taken over the 'job'!! All of this just points to the fact that having children is a personal decision between two people- and therefore they should support those Children.

Sorry, I saw the problems after I'd posted, and 'make' was stated too hard to make a point, but the point is there is a disparity between a woman who stays at home and one who doesn't in terms of her reliance on a partner.

A SAHM sacrifices not just income but independence. She isn't paying NI, isn't 'working' or 'seeking work' and, when the nice chap paying decides he'd rather have someone whose abs and arse are toned from the gym rather than softplay, whose tan is from sun-baked beaches rather than than the remnants of pasta sauce, and who just seems so lovely and carefree, has to resort to a divorce court, which usually forces him to recognise some of her contribution on an ad personam basis.

I think if there was a point it would be that (a) it should be possible to 'work' for money as an unregistered childcarer in your own home if only caring for your own children (and maybe claim childcare vouchers?) but more importantly in the light of this thread, that it seems a bit rich to ask the state to pay an allowance for childcare, if you aren't essentially willing to ask your own partner to recognise that formally by giving you ringfenced cash for the work you do to help him 'work'.