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?

AdamSchic I presume that Woman B has no children to be looked after. As is the case in real life when a woman works at a nursery or as a nanny.

There is no such thing as a "widget factory" it is the classic hypothetical example used in economic models to make things simpler and easier to understand.

I dont think "the all people would give up work" is true at all! So many, many threads on here with people saying they dont enjoy being SAHP, its not for them many feeling depressed and isolated

Especially if SAHP only paid a fraction of what their employed work paid

Of course. Give money to people to add to the planet's massive problem of overpopulation. What a great idea.

missinglalaland nails it.

And the system at the moment encourages exactly that.

Suppose my neighbour and I both registered as childminders and then paid each other to look after the other's kids. My partners could use childcare vouchers to avoid a few grand in tax, and I'd set the childminding income against my tax free allowance. Hey presto, we are a few grand a year better off.

Transferrable tax allowances between parents would remove this particular absurdity.

I think people are paid something for looking after their children in a way, via Child Benefit, which is universal. It might be nice to give all carer's, including SAHP's, an increased benefit as some sort of appreciation for all they give. The carer's allowance definitely needs improving from what I've heard from a close friend looking after his partner.
But can the country afford it ATM ?
I think it would be a nice gesture if SAHP's had free prescriptions though, as you can be quite broke (as a SAHP), and paying when you're ill should only be for those that can definitely afford it. Just because you're married to someone in work, doesn't always mean much comes your way. Same with unemployment benefits etc. - I feel there is a case for treating people more as individuals than as couples.
Basically I do agree the system could do with modernising, and being looked at with fresh eyes, especially with women's welfare in mind.

bronze, sounds like it was a voluntary child minding situation. Dave Cam would love you, big society and all that and no he wouldn't want to pay you for it.

I think the question is what does a SAHP give back to society that a WOHP doesn't. Some working parents run childrens activities in the evenings, some don't, just the same as SAHP's.

YABVU.
This country is broke, we can't afford to do this and shouldn't regardless.

What about WOHP, do they get a payment for being a parent too?

"I would like to see the role valued more"

Yes, so would I. The role of a parent is vitally important and should be more highly valued. but you don't need to be with the child 24 hrs a day to be a good parent.

Coco if we all had a choice then 99% would not work. Working is a neccesity that most of society do not enjoy. I am saying this as an MD of my own company. If I had enough money to retire then I would and i think that I would speak for 99% of society.

Now please explain why you feel the tax payer should pay a SAHP a salary for looking after their own kids?

Adamschic? It was a bogstandard (well actually very good) playgroup. Playgroups are charities and as such need to be run like one. The parents pay for the childcare which is done by trained professionals. I have absolutely no idea what you mean

MrsBethel Yes! Transferable tax allowances, that's what I wanted to say but didn't know how to.

I knew that about the 'widgets' btw was just making a joke about the deliberate decline in manufacturing in the UK.

what does a SAHP give back to society that a WOHP doesn't.

Is the problem with this thread that people taking immediate offence becuase they are not a SAHP and think this is attack because they are WOHP?

Really not whats its about....

And I was replying to the fact that sahps give nothing to society. I don't deny that wohps can too but that doesn't negate what I said. sahps can give to society and very often do

Can I have some money for not having children & saving the country hundreds of thousands on healthcare & education? Cheers.

coco - it's not that I feel you are attacking WOHPs directly but there is an assumption in your OP that there is some extra merit in being a SAHP that neesd to be encouraged financially. Otherwise what would be the point?

Ormirian
Brilliant post !

Sorry adamschic, not always easy to pick up on dry humour in situations like this (I need to read actual faces, tone of voice!)

Now please explain why you feel the tax payer should pay a SAHP a salary for looking after their own kids?

Mr Spoc I havent once said they should! I think its a very thought provoking point hence I wanted to post to see what others thought.

I guess the reasons for would be to give all parents who might even be WOHP right now as we speak the choice to raise their children rather than pay someone else if they want to, to show that we do value the work, to help practically etc

Whilst I see this I can see the arguments agaisnt it so Im still sadly on the fence and yes it hurts....

Coco it is an attack on WOHP by stealth because if you want to pay £70k to a SAHP for normal child rearing activities then you need to give the same to the working partner.

I support my familty while my wife is a SAHP, she does an amazing job but she should not have a wage as it is a life choice.

Orm hits the nail on the head (as usual!)

"I knew that about the 'widgets' btw was just making a joke about the deliberate decline in manufacturing in the UK."

I just assumed economists were nuts about those things in beer cans that make it go all frothy.

Missing, not problem.

Bronze I thought you meant that you were working voluntarily with a playgroup, which was the only childcare in the village bar one. I see you were on the comittee. My mistake.

Cocoflower. You're not doing anyone a favour by having kids so why would you get paid for it? You do your sums, work out whether you can afford them, have them then fund them yourself. Obv.

Hammy, only if you opt out of your state pension, since my children won't want to fund it.

Some of us pay for education and healthcare twice over, by paying taxes AND fees towards the private sector, since the government is not capable to provide a decent service in some areas.
Don't get me started....