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?

Ditto, sm. You are reading ire into what I write, but it's not there really. I think it's genuinely funny, to be honest, that you don't see the irony in your own words.

I see a hell of a lot of pent up ire in your posts. Rattles flying left right and centre. You don't. There we go. In the nature of a discursive forum, according to you, we are really talking to ourselves so your ire is your own, dear.

if it comforts you to think that
then you're right.thats your subjective opinion.bang on the money

This started with you saying "god you sound jaded and bit bulgy eyed ssd" followed by some sort of tutorial on hissy fits and rattles suggests that you are a bit in need of comfort yourself.

I suppose it's hilarious when you do the put-downs but evidence that the poor soul on the end of the screen can't hack your mean, mean words if they challenge them.

Free world, as you say, but I've not much interest in giving you whatever thrill you seem to get out of closing down each and every discussion on this, even though of course you have nothing invested at all in putting down the choices of others. I'm glad it's working for you but I've had enough, thanks.

oh do keep up
the not like old days/mean girls premise was trotted out
supposedly its all

"mud slinging and general bitchiness as the same old posters throw their weight around and try to trip up anyone who doesn't post in agreement with them, rendering the discussion into farce"

a point made verbosely.and fair enough.but really bit much to assert maligned out upon.but hey ho others are mud slinging and bitching

you post
others mudsling
thanks for clarifying that

Erm, that wasn't my post but have it out with me anyway, because I agree with some of the sentiment.

You are essentially just saying exactly what I said to you - when you post it's fun yet everyone else is full of ire, apparently you see me as doing the same. We've covered this very point. Clarified and agreed, you said it was bang on the money I believe. Time for bed, as I said.

Night night, mudslinger, drumbeater or whatever else you may be. I am off to dream of hugging a tree or banging on a tambourine or something like that (even though I work and believe in pensions for women and the need to maintain a career and all those things you do, just also in the fact that there is an emotional side to this whole debate too that doesn't need to be dealt with by calling people bulgy eyed or woolly or tree huggers or whatever).

It's so much easier when you deal in absolutes and stereotypes. I was just giving it a go to see if it might be fun. It's actually pretty boring, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to experience that. Sweet dreams.

and youre adopting faux put upon
only telling it as it is,but gosh just cant because it so not fair

Cocoflower,

It sounds like you have already made your opinion clear, theres no for and against in your debate.
Yes some SAHM/ SAHD do a great job in bringing their children up, some dont. The ones that do yes its great but in terms of the government paying parents as in wages its ridiculous. Your not an employee for your own children your their mum/dad. You have the choice to decide whether you want children or not its not compulsory. What is compulsory is that we need money to live on so a job to many people is not something we can have the choice over.

If your a good mum thats brilliant you should get that recognition and reward from your husband, family, friends and children but they are not going to start handing out awards.

The simple fact of the matter is that how much a job is paid is determined by some combination of the workers ability, skill, and willingness to perform the job. It is almost never a reflection of the societal value of the job.

Investment bankers earn more than teachers. Is the investment banker doing anything more important than the teacher? Probably not. But the investment banker earns a lot more because there are far more people able and willing to become good teachers than good investment bankers. In this particular example, there is a very significant lifestyle choice that influences whether someone chooses to become one or the other.

Doctors earn more than nurses. Both play a rather important role in healthcare (and you probably see the nurse a lot more than you see the doctor), but the doctor earns more because s/he has invested many more years earning qualifications and building up specialised knowledge (with a personal financial / time investment to do so in anticipation of future financial reward) that many people simply are not willing to sacrifice or have the intellectual aptitude to undertake.

Any monkey can become a parent. You just need to have a functioning reproductive system and a partner (or sperm donor / surrogate). You don't need to have any special skills or knowledge, and you don't even have to be especially good at it. You don't need financial incentive, because people are choosing to have babies on an every day basis without any form of compensation, even when they already can't afford to have more kids. And in fact, many people invest quite a bit of money into becoming a parent (IVF etc) because IT'S WHAT THEY WANT IN LIFE. It makes them happy.

Of courses, there will always be the odd person who chooses to become doctors, investment bankers, teachers etc (even on a volunteer basis) because it fulfills them rather than because of the financial incentive. But if we relied on this inherent desire alone, we would not have enough people needed to do the work. And if we could rely on this, you can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't be paid as much as they are today.

I love my job. In fact I adore it. I get so much satisfaction from it. Yet if you slashed my salary in half or took it away entirely, I could easily find better ways of entertaining myself. Spending more time with my kids would be one of them.

working9while5, jesus don't get into a debate with scottishmummy, you'd have more sense talking to a 2 year old

Thank you transatlantic - a very clear post which sums up what paid work is, and how it operates.

given the govt is investing millions in trying to get people off benefits into work,is not likely govt will pay sahp to do what they already do for no payment. sahp is a lifestyle choice not a vocational calling. in a climate of public sector cuts govt wont pay sahp, no point its not required

I think being a mother (whether that's SAHM or WOHM) can feel very vocational scottishmummy - just as vocational as being a teacher or early years practitioner which I've also been.
But I take your point that increased financial support for SAHP's is perhaps unlikely in the present climate.

I agree juggling that being a parent can feel like a vocation- for both mum and dad. It feels like a natural, fulfilling thing to do, to have children. We don't do it to be paid, in fact we all do it KNOWING there will be less money to go round. Even if you are one of those people who returns to work getting child care completely or almost free, either through tax credits or using relatives, you are still going to have more costs than if you remain child free- fact. But none of this presents a reason for paying parents - and in fact specifically paying SAHP, who by definition are often (not always, but often) better off than working parents to be able to afford the relative luxury of one parent not working. And yes, I realise some parents give up work because they cannot command a high enough wage to cover childcare. But for a lot of parents it is a choice- they want to stop working, or cut down on working- which is fine, but why should other people who do work, pay for that choice ? Also, many women choose to remain at home, or in very part time work beyond the point at which childcare DOES become affordable - ie even if a mum cannot cover childcare between the ages of 1 and 3, it may well become affordable with the free hours, or when the child starts school. But not every mum rushes straight back into full time work then. Again- nothing wrong with that if she can afford it- but it's a strange notion to think workers should fund it

I have been hoping there might be some responses to transatlantics post from anyone who still might think the idea of paying SAHP is valid and workable- because I think s/he sums the situation up very well.

The bottom line is : WHY and HOW?

Erm no, having a child and raising them is a choice with responsibility. Is this.post for real???

No, being a stay at home parent is a lifestyle choice and not one that should be funded by the government. Obviously it is different if you are a single parent. But if your OH works then they are the one that should be funding you.

Maybe if it were to become a thing, then it should be no more than what carers for disabled children/partners get... which is about £80 a week.

Why has someone resurrected a post from 2011?!

What?? Having a child is a responsibity you work towards to take care of yourselves, not a job that should be paid for.

Goodness, can you imagine the amount of funding needed for any parent, no one would work.

As a feminist - yes, SAHPs should be paid. As a pragmatist - you are going to have to change the whole way society views SAHPs and work and money. We can’t afford it with the current system - so we would have to remake the world. Exciting times.

I don't know, but they've done it again!

And the answer is, obviously, still no.😂😂

Oh wow, a 2011 post. My eldest was just a baby then. So funny that the same poster has now resurrected it twice.

Every parent is on call 24/7?!

Ugh zombie thread! Didn't realise!!

No. You shouldn’t be paid. You have children for yourself. Let’s not pretend it’s some kind of altruistic act.