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?

[sausagesandmarmelade]

Dotty....

There are always people who deserve to be financially supported...the welfare system was designed for people like that. However...the absent parent should be made to face up to his responsibilities too..and to contribute towards his childs upbringing.

[EricNorthmansMistress]

That's what jobs are for. Or should the govt pay to support our children and we keep our wages for pin money?

Those who want to be SAHPs but don't have a partner who works do get paid by the government in the form of income support, HB and tax credits.

[catwhiskers10]

I'm not sure of the situation now but 10 or so years ago full time carers were paid £38 a week from the government if they cared for someone at least 8 hours a day for at least 5 days a week. A pittance.

I dont see what value SAHP have in society as a whole.
Do many people get the recognition they deserve in the jobs they do outside the home? Most are just a number who can be easily replaced if they leave.

[Cocoflower]

Some very passionate opinions on here!

But playing devils advocate if you like....

a SAHP could argue they are adding to society by raising future generations? But a counter argument could be but the WOHP is too..

I certainly think its an intresting idea even if I conclude its ridiculos by the end of this thread, its still very thought provoking none the less!

[pointissima]

Ridiculous idea.

A stay at home parent is effectively paid, by being supported by the non stay at home parent. Where there is no wage earning parent, the taxpayer already pays.

Government funding should be for things which are necessary and which cannot otherwise be funded. Here, no such solution is required.

If the taxpayer funded all home childcare, the taxpayer would be quite reasonable in requiring certain standards to be maintained and monitored: a real nanny state.

[Teachermumof3]

I certainly think its an intresting idea

I really don't think it is.

I ask again; how much do you think you should be paid?

[Cocoflower]

I dont see what value SAHP have in society as a whole.

I do find that a little sad to be honest. I personally have always worked or studied since having dc, but if I hadnt and wasa SAHM and someone said that to me I would be very upset tbh :(

[MollysChamber]

pointissima Well put. And I'm a SAHP.

[sausagesandmarmelade]

a SAHP could argue they are adding to society by raising future generations?

Oh and they do...and it's an argument I've heard in real life from a woman who has had 9 kids with her not working husband...and they've depended on benefits throughout.

It's galling....to those like myself who carry out a hard day's graft every day...and have a 3rd of their pay taken off in taxes already...to even suggest that what we should be paying even more for the choices of those who want children.

[Cocoflower]

Of course it is intresting or this thread would have no replies!

I have no idea how much anyone should be paid- if at all!

As I said as someone self-employed it currently wouldnt effect me anyway IYSWIM

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

I'd be popping out babies left, right and centre if I got £30k p/a for getting out of doing a proper job being a SAHP.

I think that should act as a stern warning that the OP's proposal is a dreadful idea

[Cocoflower]

Sorry thats to teachersmummy

[CurrySpice]

While I think the role of SAHPs is very valid and worthwhile, I think YABVU to expect the government (ie us) to pay them for their life choices.

Carers on the other hand, I might think differently about.

And of course it affects you OP - you pay tax I assume?

[Idefixx]

I agree, there is an argument to recognise the benefit to society financially. I would go one step further (this is really going to get me flamed here) - the money you get could depend on how "worthwhile" a citizen you bring up. Thus stopping people to have children just to get their hands on free money.
Let's face it - pensions will have to be paid by future generations brought up today, generating tax income for the government later. Why not reward people for it? Supposedly, children benefit from having parents around in the early years. Well then, make it worth their while to put their careers on hold (and sometimes saying good bye to them after you took a 5 year break)
In the meantime, I would be happy if the money I pay my nanny would be tax deductible from my net income (like any other employer's personnel cost lowering their profit). That would be a start...
Or like France, where you get an income tax reduction for every child you bring up. Voila, massive incentive to work and contribute to the GDP while still bringing up a family. Why not here?

[KarenHL]

I'm not convinced SAHPs should be paid. However, I would agree that society and government generally see them and their work as valueless - largely because it is unseen and unpaid. We live in a society where only what is paid for and materially tangible is valued.
However, it would be very useful if the government continued minimum pension payments for all full-time SAHPs, regardless of the childs' age. I am not talking about parents who choose to stay at home once their children are in school - don't think that would be fair as those parents have the option of pt work, but parents who cannot go out to work because their children (for whatever reason, eg illness/SN) are not in school.

[Fiddledee]

What does society gain for being a SAHP? None your children may or may not benefit from having a SAHP.

You go out to work you pay tax, you pay a nursery they pay tax (corporation tax from the nursery and income tax from the nursery nurse). Government and society is all better off if all parents work.

If there were statistics saying that crime would be reduced 50% if children were brought up by SAHMs then maybe society would be interested - but thats not going to happen as its not true.

I'm a SAHM we can afford it but its a lifestyle choice and all the benefits accrue to me and my family.

[hambo]

I am a SAHM. I made my choices and that is what I do. I have never felt so undervalued in my life. And when the gov told us they were taking our child benefit, I was very upest. Not because of the money but because that made me feel that I existed and was a viable person who was doing a job.

I now work part time from home and have seen my confidence return, purely through the fact that I earn some money.

I don't think that the gov should pay me to look after my children, but I do feel the decision I made, to stay at home, is looked down on by many people, and the majority these being other mothers.

[Idefixx]

Fiddledee - isn't that exactly what the Daily Mail is arguing with some bogus statistics?

[catwhiskers10]

It would be another system which would end up being abused by many. SAHP having as many children as possible to avoid going back to work who then grow up to be more SAHP getting £30-70'000 a year each for bringing up their own children.
It's laughable.
I think the government do well providing child benefit for every child and tax credits and help with Childcare for those on a lower income.

[Fiddledee]

I have never read the Daily Mail!

[WhereYouLeftIt]

"Its about should the work of the SAHP be recognised and rewarded?"

You seem to be saying that recognition and reward exist only in financial terms. This reduces care to a transaction, OP.

Let's compare that to e.g. the change in education, the introduction of tuition fees for university. A lot has been written on how this has changed how students regard their education, made them more willing to complain about things (rightly or no) and to feel that they have 'bought' a degree; how departments are restructured to accommodate the profit motive; how better 'quality' universities will charge higher fees. So, if being a SAHP was paid (we'll not worry here about by who) this would undoubtedly change the nature of being a SAHP. Would your hormonal teenagers throw it back at you that you don't really care about them you're just doing it for the money? Could your 'pay' be docked if your work was not up to scratch/undone? Would you be subject to inspection by the Education Department in the same way as childminders? Would your children envy their friends because their SAHP seemed 'better value'? How would it affect the SAHP? Could it reduce their motivation to find fulfilling work? Would they subconsciously discourage their children from moving out, because then they'd be made redundant (and might have difficulty re-entering the wider job market)?

I truly believe we evolved as a co-operative, caring, social creature; that family structure, be it nuclear family, extended family, clan etc. is the arrangement that we instinctively view as best providing that fluid mix of carers and cared for throughout our lifespan. Paid-for care, outside this family-like structure, I believe originated to accommodate those without a family who were capable of providing care.

[LolaRennt]

a SAHP could argue they are adding to society by raising future generations? But a counter argument could be but the WOHP is too..

If being a sahp becomes a real job, it would only create more sahp. They would then then have more children, raise more SAHP, and eventually you would have a society that could not run effectivly and not enough tax money to pay the sahp. I love the idea of being a sahp, but one day I got to get back to work. And I realise and thank god for the people who do go out to work, doctore, nurses, teachers

[BimboNo5]

I dont look down on anyone who is a SAHM- how odd to think people think like this! In fact the majority of threads feature ridiculous comments that slate working mothers such as 'dont bring up their own kids' and 'missing their childs firsts'. If you feel 'looked down on' its more than likely your own insecurities. Paying someone to do a family role is absurd and wouldnt do anything to make you feel more valued if thats the way you think.

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

But surely even if we say SAHP's are working 'full time' at bringing their children up then we need to make this payment pro rata?

I personally work full time and am away from my children 8 til 4 four days a week (I work at home in the evenings). So that is 32 hours I am supposedly not bringing my children up.

However there are 168 hours in a week. I a with them the rest of the time.

Then I have 6 weeks holiday a year. So out of a possible 8760 hours of the year I am 'not being a parent' for 1472 of them.

So that is 16% of their year. Therefore I would like 84% of what the SAHP gets please.

Oh and money towards my childcare.

Really must get back to work now although what I would get paid for this and from who I dont know as I am working from home and my DC's are asleep.

Would be confusing to work out wouldnt it...

[wolfhound]

I think that if the government paid SAHP then - as for any paid job - the following conditions would have to be in place. :-

1. Applying and getting the job. We would have to demonstrate our capabilities, qualifications etc. and be accepted on the SAHP career track.
   
2. Being monitored and evaluated. Annual appraisals, checks.
   
3. Legal rules and guidelines. We would have to show that we keep up with these.
   
4. Ongoing training and development. We would need to attend training courses and show that we are up to date with the latest changes.
   

And so on. I imagine a vast number of SAHP would hate to be confined and monitored in this way, but it would be ridiculous to just pay out to anyone who has a child and doesn't work outside the home - no paid employment works that way. And it might have a bad effect on society if we're all bringing up our children in a 'government approved and monitored' manner. Scary, actually.