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?

"1. Having children IS a job- if I don't look after my children, the state has to pay someone to do it (a foster carer, an orphanage, etc), and if I don't do it full time, again the state pays 70% of someone doing it for me "

??? Think you're generalising a bit there. God I wish I got 70% of my childcare costs paid

peppapighastakenovermylife

Yes that was what I was saying- Im also thinking is it robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Ok, now I am lost. Who is peter and who is paul?

Peppa - exactly. This daft proposal works on the premise that one section of the population , ie those in real jobs, doing work to the required standard, within a specified timeframe in return for a wage, will prop up the other section who will stay at home, not have to complete tasks to any required standard within a timeframe, and ...erm, earning a wage.

La la land

Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Oh it just a turn of phrase not literal men

Meaning
To take from one merely to give to another; to discharge one debt by incurring another.

www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rob-peter-to-pay-paul.html

Yes, I know that. What I meant is in your analogy what does paul represent and what does peter represent? i.e. taken from whom and given to whom?

But I already explained it some posts ago

I.e

My DH gets taxed £100 more pa to cover this proposol (PAUL)
If I am SAHP I get £100 for this role (PETER)

The goverment has taken from Paul to give to Peter

So its pointless exercise all in all

My orginal post was;

Cocoflower Fri 10-Jun-11 17:38:53
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

Ah, yes. And of course once the government has covered its overheadcosts there will only be £60 to give to you (peter).

What I think is the government should just reduce the amount they take from paul in the first place, aloowing paul to better pay for childcare. Perhaps a tax break for everyone who has children, and let the Peter and Paul decide for themselves how best to provide care for their children and bring money in to support themselves.

So if there is to be (or needs to be an answer at all) then it should lie with reducing what we take from parents in the first place and not increasing or giving any payment?

Yes, because then you don't lose part of it in government beaurocratic waste.

Gosh did it really take 30 pages for it finally to sink in that it is an utterly pointless proposal which would not increase peoples self esteem, choices, or financial well being.

Scary

But would the tax reduction only apply for families where both parents work or would it also be for where one works and one stays at home?

Tax reduction would be for workers, obviously. If you're not paying tax, how can your tax possibly be reduced?

30 pages to sink in?

It took 30 pages for someone to say (which was me) ultimately its only robbing Peter to Paul!

No one said nowt about self esteem, choices etc at all

And now Stix is saying yes there should be help but in reduction- she is not saying its totally ridiculous to help at all!

This is called a debate- this how laws and policies are made not just plucked out of thin air

I don't think stix is saying that SAHP should be helped out financially over and above working parents at all. The issue of tax reduction is about helping us all.

I didnt say she was saying they should be helped above and over though at all!

Well I personally would like to see all childcare as tax deductible.

1. Scrap the voucher scheme because it comes with pension penalties and is only available to those whose employers choose to participate and because it lease out the self employed.
2. Make all childcare tax deductible. All of it! So, if I make £40k and spend 25k on childcare, then I should be taxed as if I only made £15k that year. Childcare is afterall an expense I pay for the sole purpose of going to work.

It would be taken from the eaqrner's paycheck. But since SAHP's live off of the other person's paycheck it would help them too. And it would make childcare more affordable for those who want to go back to work but can't because the cost of childcare is prohibitive.

If we looked at it in monetary terms, how would it work?
Say agreement is that the payment is £100pw.

If your parents look after your children for a day a week so you can go shopping/have a break, do you still get the full money, or do you have to give it to them?
If your child goes to nursery 2 mornings a week, do you have to declare it and then only get £80pw.
If you work 2 days a week, do you get £60?
If you work 5 days a week in 4 days what on earth would you get then?
Do you still get the £100pw if your DCs are in ft education, and if so, does someone who works school hours only also get the money?
If you work 3 days a week, but put your DC in nursery for the other 2 days so you can go to gym/shopping etc do you still get £40 or nothing?
If you are a SAHM and your DP only works 4 days a week, do you still get the full £100?

It would be an administrative nightmare!

(Plus, in what way does the govt pay for 70% of childcare!?! I get a SMALL saving off the TAX I PAY through CC vouchers and that's it.)

lease=leaves

But your op is about helping SAHP! you are implying that stix is agreeing with your original premise that somehow, it might be helpful to pay SAHP a wage. Stix is saying (along with loads of the rest of us !) that this makes no sense, but that what DOES make sense is to reduce the tax burden on all workers.
See the difference?

Redhotpokers - absolutely.

And you know. I'm also starting to wonder whether this 70% of your childcare paid for is part of the problem.

Several posters have assumed that everyone gets it. We never had a single penny of ours paid for until our children turned 3. I guess if you genuinely live in a bubble where all working parents get massive handouts for their childcare fees , then perhaps you really do believe theres a big money tree producing limitless funds....

Never said stix said should be paying a wage!

My real life words were;

" there should be help but in reduction"

Good, im glad you agree that help should be there but for ALL parents, probably in the form of tax reduction, which would help working parents and spouses of working parents, which is in contrast to your op which raises discussion about the daft proposition of paying a wage to SAHP only.

Phew- good to reach a sensible agreement!

I dont see the op as daft or even a proposition

I see is at a platform to springboard what has been a very interesting discussion from a netural standpoint.