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?

Ormiran

Its the fact SAHP get no payment at all and is the message that they are worthless, its about enabling everyone (even you and ANY WOHP) to have more choice about working outside/in the home etc

So extend so the argument to WOHPS too, why not?

I've got to go look after my own children (nap times over), so this will have to be my last post. Don't cheer too wildly

I can't see paying SAHP a salary beyond the maternity/paternity leave we already have.

I do however think that caring for young children is a very labour/resource intense thing to do which is fundamental and necessary to any society. At the moment we seem to recognise and support this through the tax system when a family "outsources" a portion of it to outside paid carers. We give no recognition of this when a family decides to "keep it in house."

Therefore I would strongly support a transferable tax allowance between partners.

Do people really see having children= zero value.

How will society continue if no-one reproduced? Who would be your doctor in your old age?

Also where has the 70k payment is from a study that valued the worth- not a propsed payment for the SAHP!

Not receiving payment does not equate to being worthless, just as being paid does not equal being valued!

Coco if someone handed me my salary 40k to stay at home -yes I probably would say thanks and do it .However I live in real world and realise that is unlikely !

Cocoflower - you may not of directly said it but you have implied it in all your posts. you are certainly not on the fence.

I agree that if you want to stay at home and bring you your children then there should be adaqute support to do this but you should not be given a salary. that is just mad.

Same again, if you want to stay at home but cannot afford it do not have kids or work or save or work from home, self employment. infact there are lots of options that do not expect the tax payer to support your life choice by giving you a free salary for the same function of what working couples do.

Ormirian I don't think anyone is saying you do need to be with your child 24/7 to be a good parent.

However if you go to work someone has to look after your child and is usually paid to do so.

The discussion is about whether the parent who chooses not to work should be financially rewarded as a childminder or nursery worker would be.

At least that's my interpretation.

It's got nothing to do with criticising working parents.

And no I don't think a financial reward is appropriate.

But some people may feel society is telling them they are worthless by getting no payment as a SAHP? Is this ever true?

Coco, how about viewing it a different way. The £70k a year goes towards your children's education and health care and you don't get charged for those services?

What lala said.

We need a transferrable tax allowance to end the lunacy of the current preferential treatment of dual income households.

Cocoflower - same argument you have just used. What will happen if everyone left work to bring up thier kids. what will happen with taxes, resources etc???

Ormirian said "And what if a SAHP wasn't doing a good enough job - for example they fed their DC a bad diet, smoked in the same room as them, failed to support them in school? Would they get a pay cut?"

Isn't that the crux of the matter? We regard childrearing and family life as our personal business, to be paid to do something for which there is no structure or enforceable standards (except in extreme circumstances) just seems wrong. I think I do a good job, so does my husband because we are both happy with things. If I were paid would I have to be inspected, is some terrifying "how clean is your house" person going to come over with their scary clipboards and tut at my loo rim?

"a SAHP could argue they are adding to society by raising future generations?" - so is there going to be some kind of test to make sure that only those who are satisfactorily raising the future generation get the money ?

Anyway its not that ineresting an argument because it isn;t EVER going to happen, because no society however finaancially stable could afford it above what we are currently paying in child benefit, tax credit income support etc and becasue government financial help is there to provide money when you need it not as some kind of social engineering in valuing people.

Its why nurses don't get paid more than bankers - because no government I know enforces "value" as a policy for monetary reward (whether form Govt or not).

I am currently a SAHP by choice (kinda) and have been a WOHP and a non working non-parent and a working non-parent. The governments role IMVHO is not to decide whether what I am doing with my time is more worthy than someone else and reward me accordingly but to help me when I am in ned. I could easily argue that my time spent volunteering for a homeless womens shelter before I had children was a great deal more useful to the country than the very lovely time I have (by choice) with my DS.

Sorry bronze, I didsn't mean to offend. what i was thinking of when I typed that was tax money, hence why I then said they would not be paying in tax money but would be getting lots paid back to them in a take take situation. i know that there are sahps who do voluntary work, that's good, there are also wohp who do as well.

MrSpoc

Have you read my posts? What is it you think I do exactly?

Also if your wife was offered money for her work as SAHM I assume you would turn this down?

It's not the lack of financial reward that would makes me feel undervalued as a SAHP it's the attitude of others, although not something I come across much in RL.

Offering a salary would just make the people that resent SAHP for whatever reason resent them even more. It would probably make the situation worse.

Coco society are not saying SAHP are worthless. I would tell the person who felt this that they need to sit down and have a talk with their working partner as to why they are not supporting them. they do not need a salary if they do got to work and earn one.

"Is this ever true?" - ys of course it is - being a parent doesn;t confer value or worth on you As someone said earlier, some poeple make a shit job of being parents.

If your child is removed for neglect would you get compensated financially for the loss of income - maybe redundancy pay?

Coco by that token then WOHP should be paid twice then -the salary they earn as WOHP and for bringing up their DC .Minus their childcare costs of course .

Coco...if you are trying to have an intelligent debate then at least do the posters a courtesy by reading their comments properly.

If you read my posts you will see that I am NOT anti SAHP.....but totally against taxpayers having to fork out more than they do already to the parents.

Coco as i said if I or everyone else in society was given £70k to stay at home i would. Its free money. this does not make it right.

I have read your posts and i understand you work from home (wild punt but id guess a SAHP).

All your post still lean towards pro salary for SAHP and not on the fence as you keep saying.

Gosh if ever there was any question as to whether people in society value children, and looking after them, then they need look no further than this thread! Astounding opinions being put forward.

The gist from many sides seems to be

That looking after your own children isn't work
That children are of no value to society
That having children is a fundamentally selfish act, by individuals or couples, that is usually a drain on society
That a person who is at home looking after children is not just not working, but is a large drain on society
That children themselves are a large drain on society

The natural consequence of all this is that people in the UK should stop having children immediately, and we will become a wealthy society of productive individuals, and have to pay less tax and everything will be rosy. Oh wait...

I have a small bussiness.
Im actually putting across the other trains of thought, the other side of the debate if you will.
I like look at things from all angles especially in something Im not decided on.