Putting a value on sahm/d

[morethanpotatoprints]

As conservatives historically support the nuclear family and the role of parenting as raising children, how much money/ wage should a sahp receive.

Before the lynch mob arrive here saying nothing, bear in mind that at present some do receive some money in terms of WTC/FTC. and other benefits if low income.

What price do we put on the role and what amount/ standard of living would allow a wahp to leave work if they wanted to?

Callmemrs. How can they do this whilst at work? I'm not suggesting they don't do it at all but that it is not their sole responsibility. All my families needs have been my sole responsibility. I don't need to convince myself of anything, I know I'm doing an amazing job and yes sahp's should be paid during a pre -determined work day. I think one poster suggested 9-5. Wohp are paid by employers for their skills. Sahp's should be paid for theirs. If the payment was for people to raise their own children(solely) how would wohp qualify, when they aren't at home? As I said before many wohp get subsidised childcare paid by the tax payer, I could argue why should they pay for wohp's childcare. If it's benefit to the community/society you suggest then surely sahp's are doing this by raising well socialised individuals ready to contribute to future society also their sole responsibility.

It is not only SAHPs that raise well socialised and adjusted citizens. WOHPs do that as well whilst hitting all your targets. Am I missing something?

Since the 'job' of raising children can be done by both SAHPs as well as WOHPs, by mothers as well as by fathers, if you are arguing that SAHPs deserve a day wage, then WOHPs and fathers deserve it too. Unless SAHPs are doing something special, which I cannot particularly see.

If YOU place a value on being at home for your children, that is your prerogative. I don't see why a taxpayer should subsidise you for doing something you want to do. Nobody forced you to have children or to stay at home, same way nobody owes any of us a living.

Much of the needs of a workforce can be met by targeted immigration policies. Productive citizens do not necessarily have to be homegrown.

If SAHPs deserve a day wage, then WOHPs deserve a day wage AND a BONUS on top of that by achieving what SAHPs do whilst at the same time delegating and outsourcing aspects of the role (and creating a job for another person who provides childcare, cleaning services) and paying into the tax coffers both on their own wage and through the job they generate.

Have I mentioned good role model?

WOHP are paid by their employers for their skills, as you say.
So I ask once again: WHO do you propose pays the people who want to not work and stay home for THEIR skills?

You seem to feel that just because someone has a skill, 'someone' - not sure who, some bottomless purse perhaps!- ought to pay them for it.

I am very skilled at gardening. I love it and spend hours tending my garden and do it well. Do you propose that I should be paid for this? And if so, who should pay me??

If I choose to utilise those skills to run a gardening business that's a different matter. And of course I would then need to market my skills, find and retain clients and deliver what they wanted to keep them happy.

I have also proved quite skilled at bringing up well educated and socialised children (while working!). Oh and I've always paid for my own childcare costs too.

More than -

But what about part time workers...?

I work school hours (term time only), so I don't use after school care - should I also be paid for looking after my children? After all, I would challenge you to name a single thing a SAHP of a school aged child does which I cannot do...

Or do you propose that SAHP of school aged children get paid less, because they only work 'part time'?

Sahp do not "provide childcare". They look after the children they chose to have. There is value in being a sahp, but not in terms of a salary. It's personal choice.

I still dont know where the OP is planning to get all this cash from.

Also, my employer pays me to do some work he/she wants doing.

It's not in anyone else's interests for me to be a SAHM on my off days, so I shouldnt expect to be paid.

If anyone does pay me, it would have to be the government, on behalf of the taxpayer (because let's not forget that the government cannot raise money any other way)

However, society doesnt benefit from me staying at home with my child. In fact, arguably, society benefits from me working, because then I create a job through paid childcare.

.......or actually I could charge DS. I'll take it out of his inheritance . user pays and all that

Reallife is absolutely correct.
Looking at it completely objectively, its in society's interests for parents to work. They are then contributing economically as well as raising capable and well adjusted children who will be the economic contributors of tomorrow.

If you want to stay at home you are not doing a better job of raising your children or looking after your home. Neither are you doing worse. You are just doing the same job of it- but without working.

This argument is going nowhere because the op genuinely seems ro think that just because a SAHM is doing 'tasks' she should be paid between the hours of, say, 9 to 5. There is no logic applied here- it just seems to be a case of 'I want to stay home and I keep pretty busy, therefore 'someone' ought to pay me a wage for it!!

I keep busy at weekends. I sometimes clean, cook, do things with the kids etc. So I should get paid for that, yes???
I ask for the final time (because I don't think I'll get an intelligent answer) by WHOM?

I don't think my employer will want to pay me for weekends! The tax payer?! You're having a laugh yeah? All I can say is- if this is a serious suggestion, then we'd all probably stop working so we could be paid a wage for doing as we like. So who would be the mugs who'd have to still work to pay for everyone else to stay home?

I have yet to see an intelligent answer from yourself. Your employer must be one of the most reasonable person alive to allow you to take children to work whilst you care for them and do all the things you do with them. As I said I wasn't suggesting you didn't do these things at all, just obviously scaled down compared to a sahp who has more hours available to do this. I disagree that children of wohp will be more valuable to society, or that wohp are more so. Also as stated before sahp's pay tax to allow government to subsidise childcare I just think it's time for a level playing field. wohp's are only valuable to their employers / future society as sahp's are valuable to their families and the future society. Also this happens already as one poster suggested in form of tax credit so perhaps you don't know about real life after all. It would be good if it were a set wage though perhaps as suggested, the minimum wage.

Well, I feel I GET PAID for being a SAHM, even of school age children.

I get paid this way;

• As I take on all responsibility for anything to with the children or the home (and garden), my DH can pursue a career that pays well. He needs to travel and at times works late. He can never do school pick ups or drop offs, and is often away for a week or two. He could not do this kind of job (and earn that kind of money) if there was not a person at home doing al this stuff. Therefore, as we see it, the money he earns is ours. And it goes into our joint bank account, and we have an equal say over how to spend it. So in a way, I feel I do get paid. If we were to both work and share kids/home-stuff we would be financially worse off.

If I would go to work (am looking atm actually) I would need a nanny/cm and holiday clubs as well as emergency care (somehow) if one of the kids is sick. So replacing me would cost money.

I would NEVER expect the government to fund our lifestyle choice.

Lol you are being totally ridiculous now!! sahp don't pay tax! Also- I never said the children of WOHP are more valuable to society. I said WOHP are economically more valuable. Children of both WOHP and SAHP are EQUALLY intrinsically valuable, and WOHP invest just as much in their children as SAHP and those children turn out equally well.

Op I think you just have a massive chip on your shoulder and want paying for something which you just want to do anyway!

Chandon, I see your point. We too work the same way, I value what I do but know many sahp's who feel financially and personally under valued. My original post asked what value we put on sahp's and I think with a recognised wage not only would it allow parents greater choice in work/ not working but would allow sahp's to contribute towards the economy by paying tax. Hence, society recognising their contribution to economy and future generation. If you receive FTC/WTC you are already getting paid to be a sahp funded by the government, so I don't see there would be much difference really. I am lucky and receive more than I would take home from working but I know some people are not as fortunate and the system could be fairer. I also asked how much money would be fair and what other parents would do if given the opportunity

WTC aren't payment for being a SAHP lol

Callmemrs. We get it and I'm a sahp. I thought most couples would if they met the requirements?

Your husband may get it if he's low waged OP. you don't get working tax credits because you don't work!

All I know it's paid straight into my bank account every month along with FTC both as individual payments and in my name. They provide me with enough not to have to work, hence making our family better off financially. This was my point all along, all parents should be given the choice. It's about creating fairness, and I don't think the system is fair. Working parents would object to funding a sahp so why should a sahp fund childcare for some of those who work. We all chose to have our children working or not.

I think you need to do some basic homework about finances. WTC are paid to people on low incomes. You do not get it because you are a SAHP!

'I said WOHP are economically more valuable'

Not in every case. In some cases SAHP may enable the WOHP to take a better paid job where more tax is paid than when both were earning a lower wage. Also, in many cases family members provide care for free; in some cases this may involve a granparent giving up their waged job to do this (I know of a few). Also, many second earners are part time or low paid and some don't even pay tax. Some get more help towards childcare and tax credits than they earn. So the point is it isn't better in every case economically.

Maybe not, but it allows me to sah, the result is the same so is the finance. I did my homework before deciding whether to wah or sah. Whats your point exactly?

My point is that there is no logical reason to pay people a 'wage' to stay home. In your case it sounds like you want to stay home, your dh is on a low income with top ups and you can't earn enough to pay for good childcare anyway. Which is fine! But you seem determined to try to insist that you're somehow doing something amazing and incredible over and above what WOHP do. and that someone- still not sure who- should pay you a wage for it!!!

We all do the things that we need to do for our children because we have unconditional love for them . We want to nurture and raise them in a way we see fit . I had a child , and spend time with her because I love her. As do parents, whether SAHP and WOHP. Paying a wage for the time that you are lucky enough to spend with your child is like putting a price on love. If you believe you require a wage to spend time with a child you choose to have , I would wonder why you had one .

I agree arctic. I think it's a very strange mentality as well as being economically unviable. And it's not just the emotional aspect- its all the other things like laundry, cooking, driving which the op seems to think people should be paid to do- but interestingly according to her they should only get paid for those things if they don't work. If they are capable and organised enough to fit them into their working week they apparently have to just do them for nothing lol

On the contrary, to refer to my original post I wanted to know what amount of wage a sahp would be considered appropriate for some parents to feel able to choose whether to work or not. I don't think as a sahp I am better than anyone else, nor in fact that wahm parents are either. The fair playing field I discussed was as stated not to put a price on having children. Of course a sahp has more hours to spend raising a child/ren unless as previously said a person can be in 2 places at once. If a sahp sees working hours bringing up children as a job of work in my view they should be paid. In addition callmemrs what makes you think I can't afford good childcare why would I need it when I can provide it myself. Capability and organisation are not an issue I'm talking about hours of work. Unless your children are up till midnight how can you provide the same hours of care if you are working full time.

I see laundry, cooking and gardening as a job of work op . Would you like to pay me for them? How do you propose to do that? Oh- you'll have to get a job to pay tax to pay me!

Can you still not see the flaw of your argument? Who goes to work to pay the wages of the people who stay home ( and are already staying home anyway, unpaid, Because it's a choice they've made!)

Btw I assumed you don't earn enough to pay childcare as you have mentioned several times that you couldnt afford to work.