Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Putting a value on sahm/d

97 replies

morethanpotatoprints · 13/03/2012 21:25

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?

OP posts:

blueshoes · 15/03/2012 12:32

"If a sahp sees working hours bringing up children as a job of work in my view they should be paid."

This is the crux of the matter on which we fundamentally disagree.

It is NOT work (whether you do it during working hours or outside - what an artificial distinction!) and SAHPs should not be paid. If you are right, by having children, you are creating 'work' for yourself and then expect others to pay you to do it. Cloud cuckoo land comes to mind. Where is this money going to magic itself from?

Why should SAHPs be paid when they don't add value over and above what other parents who multitask and do economically productive work outside the home do, on top of parenting.

Your skills are valuable to your family, but not particularly to society as a whole. So I am afraid I cannot see why society should support your choice.

blueshoes · 15/03/2012 12:39

potato, you want to have children, you want to raise them as a SAHP. Now you want others (who also have children of their own and who go out to work, missing out on time with their children, as you are at pains to point out) to pay taxes so you can be paid a wage to do this.

That is one massive sense of entitlement.

callmemrs · 15/03/2012 12:42

And if we're saying that well brought up, successful and emotionally well adjusted children are of benefit to society (which of course they are) then pay all the WOHP who raise children like that too. Of course, you've also got to consider that some children ARE a burden in society through problems of being badly brought up- but they may have had SAHP so how do you square that one?!

Original poster

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2012 12:51

Blueshoes, I'm not saying wahp are missing out on time but that some sahp's including myself see bringing up children as their work during normal working day hours, so by definition provide childcare for longer than a wahm parent working full time. Do you not think that it should be fairer for those who do not want to work to be able to sah if they so choose. Also why is a wahp more entitled to money from the tax payer to provide childcare for them while they work. I know all don't receive this but many do. Yes we all decide to have children but not all to work. You could argue that wahp can afford their own childcare why should sahp's pay for them?

OP posts:

blueshoes · 15/03/2012 12:58

SAHPs are not paying for the childcare of WOHPs because SAHPs don't pay taxes!

I don't receive a bean from the govt for my childcare. If low earners get help in the form of CTC towards childcare, then long may it continue because as a society we need to encourage parents to continue to be economically productive units, even after children come on the scene.

I don't see any societal benefit for parity of treatment to be extended to SAHPs. It is not quid pro quo. I don't support choice for parents to SAHP because I don't see any special benefit to society to encourage it. On the contrary, I see every reason not to incentivise procreation with monetary rewards.

blueshoes · 15/03/2012 13:04

I also see every reason not to incentivise parents to drop out of the workforce through monetary rewards.

That must be an own goal. Shooting yourself in the foot, almost. Sorry.

Original poster

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2012 13:07

Sahp's are paying for childcare for wahp's indirectly if they have a partner. My dh pays it through his tax and really doesn't like the fact. IYO wahp's are a bonus to society, I don't agree I'm afraid. Well no more so than a sahp anyway and doubt my children would.

OP posts:

blueshoes · 15/03/2012 13:18

You and your dh take a shortsighted view of paying for WOHP's childcare. That is only for the first few years when the child is young. In return you get a parent who is also a taxpayer not just for those first few years but for the rest of that parent's economic life.

Once a parent drops out of the workforce for more than a few years, it is often the end of that person's career. Society loses that parent's marketable and economically productive skills. Goodbye to high skilled jobs, hello low paid jobs. What a waste of education and training and all that taxpayers' money that went into it.

callmemrs · 15/03/2012 13:50

No op, you are not paying tax; your dh is. You are two separate entities. He would still pay tax if you didn't have kids and you weren't at home.

Tbh your posts now are coming across as resentful and determined to do some weird kind of 'oneupmanship' at the same time! No WOHP has claimed that they are better. Indeed, I have said categorically that I don't think my childwhereren are any better, or any worse, for the fact that dh and me work. You however seem to want to claim that SAHP are providing some kind of extra thing which WOHP don't! You stay home. Other women pay for childcare and work, but still do all the cooking cleaning etc which you do, plus the outcomes for our children are the same. My children may have spent some of their time in nursery rather than at home, but as long as they are successful and well adjusted as adults, then you can't keep up this strange idea that SAHP are contributing something which WOHP arent

However, much as I love my job and find it an interesting and fulfilling complement to other aspects of my life such as being a mum, if you are going to offer me the same salary to stay home and plan my day as I please, then great, I'll stop working, sounds like a nice life. Youre happy to go out to work instead OP to finance it for me?! Lol

Original poster

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2012 14:03

Read my posts callmemrs I think you are the resentful one, I was merely asking a question initially. Because our views differ it doesn't make you right, nor me for that matter. I have never claimed to be providing any extra thing as you put it. Just stated I treat it as my job whilst others work.

OP posts:

callmemrs · 15/03/2012 14:08

If choosing to do something were the criteria for defining something as a paid job, then great, I'll stay home all day and do my garden and you pay me, yes?

Dragonwoman · 15/03/2012 14:28

Although I don't expect to be paid a wage by the govt for SAH, there is a monetary value to it, which we calculated when I lost my job & the life insurance that came with it.

We calculated that if anything happened to me, my DH would need as a minimum a full-time nanny and also a cleaner to come in a couple of times a week in order for him to continue working the hours he does. We worked out the cost of this per annum, multiplied it by the number of years he would need it & insured my life for that amount. It was quite a large sum! A nanny who would sometimes sleep over was the cheapest option as we have 3 children including one pre-schooler and DH sometimes works irregular hours.

So I know what I'm worth...

callmemrs · 15/03/2012 14:40

Yes- such monetary calculations are done for insurance purposes. It doesn't mean anyone should pay you a wage though!

callmemrs · 15/03/2012 14:41

Ps I also have life insurance which would cover my earnings if I were to die. It doesn't mean I get paid twice over!

Dragonwoman · 15/03/2012 14:44

No you don't get paid twice over, but the wages you earn will contribute towards childcare and household costs that you wouldn't have if not working. So your insurance would cover those costs by replacing your wages.

Dragonwoman · 15/03/2012 14:51

I guess what I am trying to say is that when I SAH I am worth X amount to my DH. If I were not here he would need to find that money. So part of his wage is indirectly 'earned' by me. If I were the hired help, that is what he would have to pay.

I am not suggesting that I am worth paying by anyone else other than DH though for SAH. (And no in reality I am not his employee!)

jellybeans · 15/03/2012 15:07

Good point Dragonwoman. My situation is simelar.

callmemrs · 15/03/2012 15:33

Ah right I ah I see. In which case the same applies for WOHP as both parents contribute to childcare costs, plus doing the cleaning, cooking etc (however its divvied up between them)

Still doesn't make sense that youd pay someone a wage just for being at home though

blueshoes · 15/03/2012 16:26

Of course SAHP is valuable to their family. It therefore follows there will be a cost to replacing it and is an insurable interest. In the same way, a WOHP is valuable to the family in terms of their earnings and other tasks they contribute.

This is however neither here nor there as to whether SAHPs deserve a wage. (Dragonwoman, I appreciate you are not arguing that you should be paid).

Original poster

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2012 18:38

Dragonwoman -Thank you for your response to part of my original question as to what price we put on the role of parenting. I too appreciate you are not arguing that you should be paid.

OP posts:

jelliebelly · 15/03/2012 19:06

If your dh is miffed that his tax contributes in some way to wohp who on earth pays the WTC/CTC that you receive??

And who would pay the wages to sahp?

FWIW I earn £50k per annum so that's how much I would need the govt to pay me to stay at home

Original poster

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2012 20:58

Jelliebelly WTC/CTC that some people receive including myself is not a wage and could be increased to include an element for a sahp.
Is the £50k you earn the amount that you think would be appropriate then? I wouldn't suggest such a high amount. I know some wahp's who would only need a small top up to allow them to sah as they don't earn alot and to give them the choice.

OP posts:

hairytaleofnewyork · 15/03/2012 23:43

"sahp are paying for childcare for wahp's indirectly if they have a partner. My dh pays it through his tax and really doesn't like the fact. "

No, the person actually paying the tax is, not the sahp who does not earn so does not pay tax.

MummytoKatie · 17/03/2012 03:36

There is already a value to SAH. In our lives it is £38 per day per child for a pre-schooler. That is dd's nursery cost.

On Wednesdays and Fridays I SAH with her and so we don't pay it.

If we had more children the value would be greater but the work would be harder. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Out of interest if you take the value of Wtc and Ctc off your h's tax bill how much tax is he actually paying? How does that compare to the services you as a family receive? Personally both myself and dh are higher rate tax payers but I suspect that in the 3 years since we conceived her our tax has barely covered our medical bills.

In which case I don't think your h can really complain about paying tax to cover other people's childcare.....

MummytoKatie · 17/03/2012 03:38

Ps in case anyone hasn't noticed I seem to be doing shift work tonight. Do I get an unsociable hours payment?

Flip

1 2 3 4