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?

That was actually first question in my op....?

Hence this is a debate.

Am I seeing things? Has someone come onto mumsnet and said that staying at home with one's children is 'doing nothing to help themselves to build the life they want' ??!!

I love it when a poster I have never met tells me what Im thinking as they know best!

coco, you have not answered my question about your sourse of confusion. Please could you do so in your next post?

Plus it lovely when someone comes on to say nothing useful, but personally attack someone....

And has the audacity to call me a wind-up!

Dear, dear, dear me.

Just out of interest how much do you think they should get paid?

My source of confusion? Explain?

Oh, coco, please adress the issues here. Spinning round with your tongue flapping without rhyme or reason isn't helping your cause.

To what were you referring when you said "Hmm.... not convinced,sorry"?

Good point, Issy.

I have spent 29 pages addressing the issue!

What a daft, daft thing to say.

What's my cause? You do understand this is a debate not my opinion yah?

So your cause is to have an intelligent debate... yes?

Im not convinced you were not implying SAHPS "did nothing".

Sorry, got a bit carried away.

To backtrack, let's say this was to be treated as a 'job'. If so, what is it paid at? It's a job in a low paid sector (public), in a low-paid area of that sector (caring, especially since associated with women), which demands very low entry qualifications (having had a fuck and been (un)lucky enough to conceive), and which many people are willing to do for free. That's how to assess what it should be paid at-not by totting up hours spent against costs to get someone else to do it. And it's tiny, probably a lot less than 10k, but take that as a starting point (since some nursery nurses earn about 12k). And let's assume Eric Pickles bursts and is full of taxable oil so that it can all be paid for.

Except it isn't close to a living wage, so the poorest still need benefits, yet it's still a lot of money for those who would stay at home anyway-a huge cost that changes little for these groups.

And then there are groups for whom its jolly pleasant, and genuinely allows more of them to stay at home (accepting too the odd premise that this is a general good and worth paying for). Except, again, it isn't what a woman (and it will be women...) would be earning anyway, so she is still worse off and more dependent on her partner or the state than if she worked for someone ele. The only way it could ever not be is if carers were paid the equivalent of their potential earnings minus half childcare costs. Which would mean varying the amount according to previous earnings, not the 'job' itself.

Basically, it's not a way out of the trap set by caring roles, it could never be so practically or in any other way-it would be a crumb tossed to the womenfolk in memory of dear old Mummy, designed to prevent social mobility and enshrine the current imbalances. Hence Cameron / Middleton vagueries.

Oh... well I did explain it. Which part did you not comprehend? I said it in the context of helping people who couldn't go to work because the cost of childcare was prohibitive. So, I'm willing to talk about how the state to contribute to helping them back to work. But I oppose the sate giving them money to enable them to stay home and do nothing towards that goal of getting back to work.

Is that clearer?

And another train of thought- if the working partner was taxed more to pay for this, so the non-working would get a 'payment' would in the end they be no better of at all?

Yet what if the goal is to contribute to the family unit; not outside employment? Thus you are saying if the goal is not to enter the job market they are 'doing nothing'?

But all the ephod can better support their children if our taxes go down not up.

apologies for "ephod". Tried the new app on my ipod and spell check did a naughty thing. Back to the pc.

But having outside employment is one form of contributing to the family unit.

by the way ephod was WOHP.

Well said - AdelaofBlois.

Assuming that within one family everyone suddenly took advantage and stayed home.

And they got 12k for it (nursery nurse wage)

Then surely everyone else would have to be taxed around 12k more? So effectively you would end up in the same position anyway?

Yes Stix I another con is are we just taking with one hand and giving with the other if this ever exsisted?

Of course outside employment is contributing if my DH didnt we wouldnt be able to live-but for many famalies having a SAHP is also a huge contribution also even if not in added income