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?

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

SAHP have a definite value to their families but I don't think they have a defineable value to society as such. From an economic perspective, WOHP contribute to both adding members to society and funding their upbringing, contributing to the job market through childcare perhaps, and also paying taxes to fund other things.

It's not that SAHP doesn't have any value, it's just that that value is perhaps less visible than the contributions of parents who also work.

I think the idea of paying SAHP to bring up their children is ludicrous and completely unworkable - in this time and any other. Just imagine the mayhem...

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

wolfhound... What if you applied and didn't get the job, someone else did?

[LolaRennt]

Oh also while I disagree with paying people to look after their own children, I do think it would be nice if people didn't comment on SAHP so nastily. I have seen some truly nasty spite about SAHP, actually the worst of which on mumsnet.

I am a sahp, I like it, I enjoy it. I offer the best care for my child. That isn't to say people should be sahp (no is it disparaging people who choose to woh), it just means in my personal situation, I don't believe a nursery or a nanny could provide care as well as I can. I don't want to be paid for it, but I don't want to be looked down at for not having a proper job.

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

Ooh yes...actually. If the government start paying parents to bring up their own children surely the government would be able to dictate what and how that parent brings them up?

[BimboNo5]

The same could be said about WOHP as I mentioned examples of in my last post....

[hambo]

Bimbo - most threads I see are the opposite of your observation - how odd.

[wikolite]

YABU why would the Government want to incentivise people staying out of the labour market and being economically inactive.

[Cocoflower]

This reduces care to a transaction, OP.


Thats an intresting point, but then again care as a transaction exsists to certain extent- I had to pay a nursery and childminder etc.

I see what your saying though- rather than care of our own children being natural it would be viewed as something we may feel is an accountable position and becomes a something of politics and redtape ;and even control.
A good point.

[atswimtwolengths]

There are children in every school who are neglected (at home), ill fed and poorly clothed.

Do you think their parents are worth £70,000 per year?

[atswimtwolengths]

The thing that always pisses me off is that people factor in the cost of washing your clothes and reading to your child, as though those were things you wouldn't normally do.

It's an absolutely ridiculous idea. People should have children when they can afford to.

[Laquitar]

How is it 50K-70K?
Childcare doesn't cost 70K. As for housekeeping, no i don't think people should get paid to hoover their house or to take the rubbish out.

Carers on the other hand should have more support imo.

[LolaRennt]

Also, do you not think it would encourage certain people who really aren't cut out for stay at home parenting to stay at home and parent? I think by not paying, you encourage only people who really want to be home all day with their children to do so.

[SardineQueen]

A lot of people have said that having children is a choice made by a person/couple and nothing to do with society.

Do people really think that having children is not valuable to society?

If everyone stopped, would that really be OK? I think it would be a disaster wouldn't it?

In countries with low birth rates people ar incentivised to have children.

I don;t think it makes sense to say that having children is a personal choice with no impact at all for anyone else.

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Paying a nursery and childminder, OP - you were therefore employing them and there was a contract between you. You could make certain demands of them. How would you feel about being employed to care for your own children, and being obliged to care for them in the manner your employer demanded? Wouldn't that put some distance between you and you feelings, between yo and your children?

Beware the law of unintended consequences, Cocoflower - always the easiest law to fall foul of!

[freshprincess]

'SAHP do what WOHP do? That isn't possibel! They are physically bringing up their children. If the WOHP was a nanny then yes, they would be doing the same....'

I work full time - and I'm also physically bringing up my children. I take them to school, I cook for them, clean up after them, wash their clothes, chauffeur them around, do homework, play with them etc etc etc. The only parts of their day that I'm not involved is teaching them school and the 2 hours my MIL spends with them when she picks them up from school. Cooking, cleaning the house, washing blah, I do all that too.

TBH if someone was to pay me £30-£70k to not go out to work and be a SAHP I'd bite their hand off. DH would too. And we both really enjoy our jobs.

[Teachermumof3]

Would you get anyone working if they could get paid to stay at home instead?

Am not sure I'd fancy having to get up at 6.30 to get to school if I didn't have to!

[SardineQueen]

"How is it 50K-70K?
Childcare doesn't cost 70K. As for housekeeping, no i don't think people should get paid to hoover their house or to take the rubbish out."

On call 24/7/365 for a start...

[missinglalaland]

I don't expect to be paid to be a SAHM. On the other hand, I think it is shabby that my husband gets no tax allowance for dependents. In many countries income is taxed on a per family basis rather than individual. I think this properly takes into account the sharing and teamwork that happen within a family that cannot be economically quantified.

For me personally, if I went back to work, I would net out very little after taxes, commuting, childcare, and a little spent on professional clothes. The fact that the government would subsidise me to do it because it values me in the work force so highly, makes me see the flip-side. Which is, that it does not value me caring for my own children!? How odd.

[sausagesandmarmelade]

Let's face it...there are varying degrees of SAHP

Some who are brilliant....spend the day caring for and stimulating their child, thinking up interesting and different things to do with them...who educate them and who produce healthy nutritious meals for them every day and who also effectively manage the running of the home (while the other parent is away).

Then there are other crap parents....who get up at 10.00am (say for the sake of argument), stick the telly on, laze around all day...give their kids junk food...and don't give a toss about stimulating their child or giving them a good day.

You could argue that often working parents provide more for their child...a better standard of living, the opportunity to go to good nurseries where they can interact with other children of the same age...and the funding to pay for things like swimming and other activities and an enhanced diet.
And...a lot of working parents also benefit from their sense of contribution to society and their family income...and in what they provide.

I admire and commend parents who do the best for their child...whether working or not working....but as tax payers we are paying ENOUGH ALREADY!

[catwhiskers10]

It would apparently cost 70k if you paid someone to do every household chore a SAHP does that includes washing, ironing, DIY, cooking, cleaning etc as well as Childcare.
If SAHP were being paid as much to do all of these things then it would make sense for WOHP to be paid the going rate for doing their household chores as well.
This bill for the taxpayer just keeps getting bigger!

[Cocoflower]

I think, I may be wrong WOHP are taking this offensively as they might think Im saying they are not worth as much as a parent- I apologise if thats how it read.
What if there was a payment available to any parent then working or not?

I think anyone wether SAHP or WOHP should also recognise any housework you do of course adds value to your family, because if you didnt do then you would need to pay cleaners, ironing people etc and its all adding to the fuctioning of your home

[BimboNo5]

But a SAHP is NOT worth any more to society- thats not being nasty or belittling anybody but why should the government 'value' someone for not working any more than they do if they work?

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

sardinequeen - see my previous post. Most WOHP are on call between the hours of 5pm and 8 am say and are still on call during work hours if something goes wrong.

[coccyx]

why????
your children your responsibility.
Lets keep handouts for those who really need it.
Why do we need to pay people for having more children, world not exactly underpopulated is it
Ridiculous

[BimboNo5]

We get tax credits and child benefit that we wouldn't get if we didnt have children.