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?

[IslaValargeone]

While I do agree that the role of the sahm is generally looked down on, not least because it is assumed everyone sticks the kids in front of CBeebies and has jolly ups at coffee mornings; I don't think for one minute it should be paid for by the government. I am a sahm, financially it hasn't been a smooth ride and we only have one child, but I'd be bloody mortified at an already overstretched system paying people who made a choice, when there are people who have had no choice to leave their jobs to look after sick kids/disabled family members or parents with Alzheimers for example.

[bronze]

Coco I saw someone on another thread suggest a block payment. WOHp parents could use it for childcare etc and sahp could use it towards the lost earnings by being at home.
Is this what you are thinking?

[Cocoflower]

I realise right now it would be totally unworkable due to the mess of the economy

But I did ask even in the future (assuming we are in a healthy economy) would it still be a no-no?

It is a hypothetical debate as things stand right now

[Cocoflower]

I didnt see that thread bronze do you have link?

[VenetiaLanyon]

If you didn't take care of your own children then you'd have to pay someone else to do it for you; the State. would not pay for it, therefore you're not saving the public purse any money by staying at home, and shouldn't be compensated as such.

Different case for other types of carers, who are actively saving the govt. money by looking after people who otherwise would need to be provided for by the State.

[sausagesandmarmelade]

But I did ask even in the future (assuming we are in a healthy economy) would it still be a no-no?

Yes....
Because you are singling out a group of perfectly able people and rewarding them for their choices.

So why not also reward the countless millions who get up every day...go to work, pay their taxes and contribute to the economy. Pay them the same amount...

Pointless and ridiculous!

[MrSpoc]

The role of a SAHP is very valuable to society if it is done right. But who is to say what is right or wrong? How would we monitor this.

The role of a SAHP should be valued and appreciated by the working partner not society. You should not be paid for a basic life function / choice. It is not a career choice.

The idea of paying people to just have kids is rediculous. Just another excuse for lazy dole spongers to milk the system. Instead of having 3 - 4 kids people will have 8 - 9 putting a further strain on all resources, NHS, Housing, Carbon Foot Print, Food Stocks Etc.

[Laquitar]

What about childless working couples who go home and cook or turn the w/m on? Should they get paid because if they hired someone to do the cooking and washing it would cost money?

Actually couples should get paid for having sex . Well, there are people who pay for sex aren't there?

[ooohyouareawfulbutilikeyou]

If you choose to have children then you should be able to support them financially...not expect the Government to use tax payers money to do it.

absolutely, parents already get way more than their fair share of handouts

[bronze]

soory I think it ws one of the ones about that poor kids program but I have no idea where.

[catwhiskers10]

It could be said that SAHP are costing the country more by not working as they are using public services (eg NHS) which they are not paying tax towards.

[hambo]

My friend had her child in Aus and received a block payment of $5000 aus.

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

SardineQueen... Oh definitely. Having children impacts everybody. Some impact positively and some negatively.

If you incentivise people to have children then surely the incentives should be set so that useful citizens are going to be produced rather than a stream of children who will grow up to drain the economy rather than work in it.

I'm firmly of the view that financial benefits should be provided where they're needed, and only where they're needed - maybe there would be proper financial support available then for the elderly and disabled, the vulnerable members of society.

[SardineQueen]

"If you didn't take care of your own children then you'd have to pay someone else to do it for you; the State. would not pay for it,"

yes they would

Taking children into care, fostering them costs a bomb. In upfront costs as well as related costs linked to outcomes for children in those situations.

if you don;t take care if your children damn right the state does it.

[Cocoflower]

^Yes....
Because you are singling out a group of perfectly able people and rewarding them for their choices.

So why not also reward the countless millions who get up every day...go to work, pay their taxes and contribute to the economy. Pay them the same amount...^

But your first sentence could apply to people working.
The second paragraph comes across a little anti SAHP but hopefully I am wrong.

[SardineQueen]

My personal take on the OP is that it is an interesting thought exercise, but not a practical thing that would ever happen.

it is certainly true that caring for children/looking after the home/all that stuff is sorely undervalued in our society and ideas like this serve to make people think about it.

If I had to change something it would be access to high quality free or heavily subsidused childcare for everybody, as they have elsewhere in europe.

[hambo]

Catwhiskers - I believe some working people get working tax credits, money towards nursery etc...My family get no credits, we get no benefits and my husband pays tax, more than enough to cover me and more besides. I am certainly not costing the country anything. I am sure this applies to many SAHP.

[Cocoflower]

My personal take on the OP is that it is an interesting thought exercise,

Definitly what I intended it to be! Im not sure either way myself but I think it fasinating how who do or dont value SAHP's

[shudaville]

Of course not, looking after your children or making provision for someone else to look after them is an obligation that you accept when you have a child/children.
Even if it were a good idea with the countries current fiscal position it wouldn't be affordable anyway

[SardineQueen]

This thread shows a lot of "not valuing" going on.

I find it fascinating how people insist that bringing up children is of no benefit to society whatsoever

The DM and it's ilk have done a thorough job.

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

Are you making a list? How do you know who does or doesn't value SAHP's and whether somebody is one or not?

When I typed my post it was in relation to the economic prospect of your OP, not my personal views on whether SAHP's are useful or not. Be more clear.

[Cocoflower]

It could be said that SAHP are costing the country more by not working as they are using public services (eg NHS) which they are not paying tax towards

A lot of SAHP I know had very good careers (doctors, scientists etc) prior to children and DP are very high earners (and the SAHP supports the partner in their career). Therefore they either have, or in a round about way still contributing.

[GeekCool]

I haven't read the full thread, but the OP reads as though there is no value in being a SAHP unless there is a financial incentive attached.

I do not see that at all. Being a parent isn't a job.

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

Would that be 'fluffy valuing' or 'financial valuing'? Two very different things.

... and not all of us read the daily rags, or ever would.

[BimboNo5]

SQ- working parents bring children up too. SAHP's are NO MORE worthy than those who work- can you really not see that?