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?

I'm the same hambo our household only gets child benefit and I am a SAHM while my husband works.
My last post was only intended to suggest that if it could be argued that SAHP were contributing to society it could also be argued that they are using services that they are not contributing towards as tax is on an individual and not a family or household basis.
Of course, this could be said about many members of society and not just SAHP.

but the OP reads as though there is no value in being a SAHP unless there is a financial incentive attached.

Not at all! We all know the intangiable benefits of the role, the debate if you will is should we go as far to place a monetary value on the role and if not, why not?

Cocoflower i do not think this sentence was anti SAHP 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...^

SAHP make a huge benefit to society if they brought up a well educated, well mannered and hard working child into a succesful adult. But realisticly how many SAHP manage this?

As it stands the SAHP all ready gets assistance from the goverment but does use up resources that are not paying for. I.E NHS, Police, Fire, Schools etc.

Society should not pay people to have kids. If you pay SAHP A Salary for performing a life choice then you would then have to pay all Working parents. then we cannot discriminate against people who cannoty have kids, gay couples, so we would have to pay them. then everyday household costs would have to go up along with taxes etc. It is a un workable, mad suggestion.

At the end of the day, you choose to have kids, you hold the responsibility in his/her up keep not the goverment.

I'm with BimiboNo5

No there should not be monetary value in it. The government already provides help to families - some say it is enough, some say it's not.

Until we see carers (and in my mind, young carers) being supported properly - financially, emotionally etc this would be bottom of the list of things to change.

SAHP make a huge benefit to society if they brought up a well educated, well mannered and hard working child into a succesful adult. But realisticly how many SAHP manage this?

Im sure many! Many of the mothers at dc school dont work and are excellent parents, well educated, well spoken, give their children the best cart them to many extra cirricular activities,provide good food etc

Many of my aunties are SAHP and my cousins are now training to be dentists, vets, midwifes, biomedical scientists and so on.

Its almost like some people think SAHP equals lowly memember of society! Why?

At the same time though Cocoflower, many WOHP are excellent parents, well educated, well spoken, give their children good food etc.

bimbo I am not sure why you have addressed that post to me?

Thats a moot point though as the children of many WOHP's have sucessful jobs/morals etc. Most of my friends who have good jobs and nice houses etc had working parents.

I think the government should and does support families with children already. Single mothers are classed as carers and supported to stay at home and raise the children as they don't have a second parent who can go out to work to bring in money.

All this 'don't have children if you cannot afford them' is nonsense and morally wrong. People are entitled to a family whether they can or cannot afford it. Having children isn't and never will be the preserve of the middle classes.

I think what the op is proposing is happening now to a certain extent (this includes other forms of caring) but to expect the government to pay sahp anymore than they do already i.e giving money to a stay at home parent when the other parent is working and therefore providing a liveable income isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Geekcool

Of course! I have been a WOHP,now working from home self-employed myself and I would say I was pretty ok!

But there seems to be an image of SAHPS as someone with 9 kids on benefits. At lot of women a love and respect greatly are SAHPS and are nothing like this and its unfair.

Cocoflower - No one is de - valueing the work that SAHP are doing. Just that it is not a career choice. Do you not see this????

If you pay a SAHP for being a parent then you undervalue the work of a Working Parent if you do not pay them the same amount. No one wants to work if they do not have too.

Now the impact in this would be everyone would have loads of kids and not work. then the country would grind to a halt as no one has an incentive to work.

CoCo why do you belive we should pay a salary to SAHP? and how can you justify a salary of not just £70k but £30k?

I would have liked my personal tax allowance to have been passed to my DH when I was a SAHM

I think the point of this "thought exercise" is to see whether SAHP is valued, to look at the response to the idea and see what people say.

WOHP are considered as valuable in our society. Working for money is what our society values as a good thing.

SAHP are not valued. "Women's work" generally is not valued. People just expect it to happen, and if someone else is paid to do it they are not paid very much.

That's my take on it anyway.

Nobody is 'entitled' to have kids they cant support anymore than I am entitled to buy a house and not keep up the repayments on the mortgage. This is the problem- too much self entitlement from people in this day and age. Do what you want to do and what is best for your family but when you start expecting the state to pick up the tab for this you lose my backing to do so.

Stop all but the wealthy procreating?

Our society would be fucked.

But like someone else said being a SAHP is 'valued' only by your own family and maybe your circle of friends- its NOT valued by society as a whole because it doesnt help contribute to the economy and its a matter of choice to do so!

Who said anything about the 'wealthy'? We certainly weren't wealthy when we started our family but we had enough to get by and not need to be supported by the government.

The rational for introducing this would be that by having a SAHP, then the life chances of children would be increased. If this were to be examined I would bet that this is not true and that the life chances and achievements of children with SAHP are worse than those with working parents.

I really don't understand the "24/7, no holidays, hardest job" agrument. I don't know anyone (SAHM or WOHM) who is 'working' 24/7. Yes all parents (ALL parents including SAHM and WOHM and fathers) have 24/7 responsibility but that's quite a bit different.

Of course there are times when it's really tough, but imo the toughest times were iin the middle of the night - and that would apply equally to SAHM and WOHM.

Nonsense thread, don't know why I'm responding.

Cocoflower - some people do think that being a SAHP equals being a lowly member of society and there is a connection with your feminism thread from the other day. Feminism is about choice - the rights of women and men to have the same choices. If I choose to stay at home (provided my family can afford it) that should be fine and if I choose to work that should be fine as well. The fact that some people see staying at home as being of lesser value shows that there is some way to go!

SQ I dont think anyone has said bringing up children is not valued -its just the idea that only SAHP bring up children that is being questioned here.
The reality is that ALL parents whether they are SAHP, WOHP Full/partime bring up their own children (obviously not absent parents).
WOHP either share care of DC( as my DP and I did) or pay for childcare while they are WOH. Thats it- childcare for X hours a day.
Im baffled as to why SAHP think only they cook,clean, launder,help with homework,discipline,love,make decisions and do all the other things deemed "bringing up children"
I tend to think of myself as "a parent" rather than SAHP or WOHP.

No one wants to work if they do not have too.

I dont think thats true at all. Many people work for more than money.

I always would work or study myself.

Its a shame people are turning this into a WOHP vs SAHP argument.
Conversley if a payment like this really exsisted perhaps a lot of WOHP who would rather give it up would be grateful for an option?

Workable/ moral/ the right thing or not or not how many wouldnt be grateful for the option at least?

Not paid - the country is kept going by volunteers, fundraisers, etc etc etc. However feel SAHP and everyone else should not be penialised for their "lifestyle choice" and by choice I include those who do it from choice which can be out of necessity too.