Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

823 replies

Cocoflower · 08/06/2011 12:10

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?

OP posts:
lynehamrose · 10/06/2011 21:09

I'm sure you don't see it as daft - you wrote it!
But on balance, reading through the thread, its clear that a large majority see straight away that while there is a good case for reducing taxes generally in the UK, and for making childcare tax deductible - blimey- why on earth isn't it- its a direct expense incurred through one's job- the idea of taxing workers to pay for people who choose to he at home instead of working is a non starter.

lynehamrose · 10/06/2011 21:10

BE at home!

scottishmummy · 10/06/2011 21:13

coco,you have a v selective memory and unique spin on posts
"No one said nowt about self esteem, choices etc at all" - errr you did
"Possible Pros -* To elevate the status and the own self-worth of the SAHP"

when i refuted this as woolly you said
"Wooly?I think thats rather dismissive of people on here who struggle with their own self-worth in being a SAHP and rather insensitive to them."

clearly you do link low self worth and sahp

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 21:19

Talk about talking quotes out of context!

OP posts:
scottishmummy · 10/06/2011 21:20

what all the right words just not in order that suits you?

lynehamrose · 10/06/2011 21:22

Lol scottishmummy- nowt about self esteem.... Apart from the bits about self esteem!

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 21:28

Nah.

Its of context rendering your point futile. Your trying to make out I ndenied saying xyz by using out of context quotes

Of course some people who are SAHPS may have low self worth- maybe due to the role or had it anyway.

There is a whole support thread on here hence threelittleducks post remember?

Whats your point? Im dont get it sorry?

OP posts:
scottishmummy · 10/06/2011 21:30

au contraire,you do get the point.and are being obtuse

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 21:35

Oh do keep up:

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
Add message | Report | Message poster Strix Fri 10-Jun-11 18:07:02
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.
Add message | Report | Message poster Cocoflower Fri 10-Jun-11 18:11:36
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?
Add message | Report | Message poster Strix Fri 10-Jun-11 18:13:33
Yes, because then you don't lose part of it in government beaurocratic waste.
Add message | Report | Message poster lynehamrose Fri 10-Jun-11 18:13:57
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
Add message | Report | Message poster Cocoflower Fri 10-Jun-11 18:15:01
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?
Add message | Report | Message poster lynehamrose Fri 10-Jun-11 18:17:37
Tax reduction would be for workers, obviously. If you're not paying tax, how can your tax possibly be reduced?
Add message | Report | Message poster Cocoflower Fri 10-Jun-11 18:18:12
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

___

Quite clearly we were talking about robbing Peter to pay Paul

There was no comment on self esteem but someone just threw it in there no idea why

That is using something in context.

Sigh

OP posts:
Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 21:36

Ie "oh so its not about self esteem"

" Er,we didnt say anything about it not being self esteem"

HTH

OP posts:
scottishmummy · 10/06/2011 21:38

you back peddle so much sparks come out your arse

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 21:42

Back peddle? Do you even know what that means? That means going back on something you said. I quite clearly said "yes self esteem issues can effvct SAHM" about er, 1 post ago

Do you not understand what back peddling means then?

Why would I even need to?

You still dont understand about using things in context do you?

Not rocket science!

OP posts:
scottishmummy · 10/06/2011 21:45

and you prevaricate so much you dont hold consistent opinion
and deny and agree to suit your posts

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 21:51

Of course I dont have a consistent opinion!

I am making my mind up still as I stated all along. I dont stand on either 'side'.

Thats what debates are for- so help shape people thinking that may evolve.

You can be fully aware of opposing opinions and even see merit.

Surely when you did your essays this is how you did them? Have to include and critque person A and person B neuturally and then with the best evidence available to you make a conclusion

OP posts:
AdelaofBlois · 10/06/2011 21:53

At the risk of returning to what may or may not be a debate, doesn't this really come down to which inequality you think worthy of tackling?

If you think, as many here seem to do, that the inequality is between support for carers in paid employment and those not, then you would favour a 'wage'. Problem is that reward for choice implies that that choice is approved of above the other option-which hacks a lot of people of, and raises questions about monitoring 'quality'.

If you think it's about the inequality between households with children and without, then you can take lots of views, from a universal credit or payment (which did exist...) to help reward or pay for childcare. Which is good, obviously.

But some of us are worried about the long-term inequality between carers, whether working or not working, and non-carers including those in the same household. This was, after all, the driving force behind the original feminist stress on this-when the women they were concerned with were forced into caring roles at great damage to their future. I don't see taxing one member of a couple to give money to the other is robbing Peter to pay Paul-it's giving whichever is the carer some money to spend as they see fit-which may well be to support the family, but need not be. And in those terms the proposal is about what might be a good way of using money to minimise the effects on carers who drop out of the workplace, or who work less, or who take lower paid more flexible jobs in the first place against those, including their partners, who benefit from and take equal parts in their decisions. And, given carers tend to be women, that's also a real issue.

I'm not really trying to state which is the key inequality, just saying I find it somewhat upsetting that what was once a key plank of a programme designed to promote women carers became over 30 pages predominantly a divisive idea which sets women carers against each other. There are better battles to fight, inside and outside our relationships, surely?

goodasgold · 10/06/2011 21:54

If you think that giving a state handout would create a higher status for sahp I think that you are wrong. State handouts do not increase status.

AdelaofBlois · 10/06/2011 21:57

PS: The pro-con, conclusion way of writing an essay is not a recommended strategy, if nay of you are writing essays at the moment. It's a bit A-levelly, get you a 2.1, but confine your own thought somewhat too. Have an opinion based on evidence, relate it to what others have said, but argue it yourself consistently and throughout.
End of pompous tutorial.

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 22:03

Yet for that opinion to be 'based on evidence' you would need to read the evidence first.

OP posts:
lynehamrose · 10/06/2011 22:09

Crikey, if you're going to assert that 'nowt' has been said about something, its got bog all to do with context. You are saying it has not been said.
When it clearly has!
Arguing that black is white now... Lol

AdelaofBlois · 10/06/2011 22:12

Reading what other people have said to reach an evidence based conclusion is not 'critiquing person A, person B, reaching coinclusion', its doing all that in advance and then formulating your own conclusion, citing the evidence to support it, and dealing with why opposing cases might not work. It shows you are thinking, not just critiquing others....

But is anyone writing an essay?

working9while5 · 10/06/2011 22:13

I simply can't understand why this discussion has to become so polarised, again and again, with everyone screeching about judginess while clearly pursuing their own judgey agenda. And if posters say they're not playing judge, well the Crown Prosecution wannabes on here will seek high and low for evidence that they are, in fact judging: "I'll be judge, I'll be jury, said cunning old Fury, I'll try the whole cause and condemn you to death!".

I don't get what's to be gained from turning a discussion into some sort of cat and mouse game where the main thrust of someone's point is ignored so some sort of strange subtext can be sought out. It's a pain in the arse. This topic is one that a lot of women are interested in and particularly interested at key points of transition because it represents, whatever they choose, a major decision in their adult lives. And often many adult decisions as most women chop and change what they are doing throughout the childbearing years. It is worthy of discussion and it is not "scary" that everyone doesn't agree on the solution to some of the problems and compromises that women face on the first sodding page.

AdeleofBlois, your contributions have really added to this thread and have been really interesting to read. I can see what you are saying and would particularly be concerned about the propensity for a state payment to be used as a stick to beat women with and make the choice to work hard and more potentially guilt-laden than it often is already. I can't think of any good reason for a state payment for sahps, though I do
think there is potentially an issue with state subsidisation of childcare supporting some women's/family's choice but not others, though I say this as one who takes my childcare vouchers gladly and would be loath to be without them..

As a working parent, I think that ideally there would be room for us to have value for all sorts of parental choices - to be able to see the benefits of being a sahp while being a wohp without needing to "match" up to it by saying that being a sahp is "easier" or a "luxury" or that we interact more intensively etc.. but I don't think money is the route to that.

This extract from "Maternal Desire" by Daphne de Marneffe sums it up for me at the moment as I am in my life right now:
The way that accomplishments are measured and rewarded, and their relationship to how our society structures work, means that many mothers experience themselves at the intersection of two completing and somewhat mutually exclusive reward system. This can produce painful conflict, not least because it is hard to do two things well... When we interrupt our participation in a process, either at work or with our child, with a litany of doubts and concerns - "Should I really be doing this? Is this the best use of my time?" we drain our experience of pleasure, cohesion and depth. Some mothers feel that this level of conflict, particularly as it realtes to their work and motherin groles, is a constant companion, detracting from the rewards of either role....

As mothers we should give ourselves the room, the dignity, to discover what we think and what we want. Each of us must think through the issues for herself so that the life we live is a personal creation rather than a resigned-to reality.

I'd love to have the chance to discuss and think through what it is I think and want in my own life in terms of whether I choose to continue to work, increase my working hours or stay as I am without needing to be defensive but AIBU is, for obvious reasons, never going to be it. I wonder where would be a good place to talk about all of this stuff on MN without needing to be in AIBU-mode? Confused

Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 22:13

You are just not grasping it

We were talking about how reduction not payment was maybe the solution

Someone said "oh so you decided this is NOT to do with self esteem now"

And I said "No one mentioned it is NOT to do with self esteem (the issue was not even being talked about reduction was all that was)"

That is not the same as saying "That was never said ever at all"

Please,please tell me you get it now

This is getting rather tedious

OP posts:
Cocoflower · 10/06/2011 22:15

Adela we are only saying the same thing. Anyway this is not about essays.

My point was someone said "oh your not sticking to one view point" so explained academically that is valid especially if that is why someone started a thread.

Thats all!

OP posts:
lynehamrose · 10/06/2011 22:17

We all got it pages ago! Chill! Payment is a ludicrous and unworkable idea- raised as a discussion point in the op and roundly dismissed for various sound reasons by about page 2!

working9while5 · 10/06/2011 22:20

That's a bit disingenuous lynehamrose. Why are we all still here if it was all done and dusted by about page 2??