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?

morethanpotatoprints sorry I have to agree with callmemrs that you are naive in the value of paid work. What you get paid has nothing to do with whether your work is valuable to society, or how skilled it is at all. It's about how much money you generate for your employer. It's about billable hours. There are a lot of jobs that are very very valuable but don't earn much. Nurses, teachers, care home workers, social workers. On the other hand, bankers earn a lot because they earn their companies lots. Will anyone think an investment bankers work is more worthwhile than a nurse?

Who do you bill for your SAHM duties? How much income (in cash) does it generate for your household?

Actually you are billing your husband in money you saved in childcare. If you look at it another way.

Another one?

How about if you and your DH start thinking about your tax being used to pay for your tax credits instead of being all resentful about the fact that a working mum may benefit somewhere along the line.

In terms of paying a SAHP a salary you have got to be kidding. If you get one then I want a part-time one. And the ability to peer review your targets and achievements. Let's see your time sheets

Oh it gets better. You want minimum wage for full time hours to stay at home with your kids.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that would be? Have you any concept of the implications of that proposal?

Deluded

minimum wage is what other childcarers get and they are usually caring for a lot more children at the same time and doing all the things you have listed.

Yes let's pay all SAHM a full time wage to stay at home?
Who shall pay for that?
The government?
The tax payers?
Oh, so that would be the WOHM then?

I'm sorry, but this is laughable! If your DH's earnings are low enough for you to get tax credits, then he is probably taking more out of the pot than he is putting in, and he is not subsidising the cost of childcare for anyone.

Why on earth do you think anyone should pay you for looking after your children? You chose to have kids, they are your responsibility. I guess you could bill your DH for his share of the childcare costs, but why would anyone else contribute to this?

This thread is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

OP seems to have no idea about how financial reward systems work, the distinction between SAHP and stuff that everyone has to do, the differences between being employed and staying at home (benefits and disadvantages both), etc.

I'm still shaking my head at some people thinking that "they" (the government) should be paying for XYZ, without realising that "they" are drawing on a finite pot of money - paid for by people who are economically active and paying tax revenue! ARGH. Unless I'm mistaken and there's a magic pot of gold that keeps filling up without anyone having to work for it!

Got to page 3 of this thread and it's really ridiculous. OP is in cloud land receiving CTC and WTC. And she and her DH are resenting the fact they are subsidising working mums. I can only conclude he's very low paid and have no idea how tax credits work.

If you are a higher paid worker, you don't get any tax credits. Should I be angry that I'm working to pay tax to let the OP to stay at home?

I don't think the OP is as ridiculous as you all seem to. I think actually what's happening on this thread is that some people are arguing from one political ideology and some from another. There was a 'wages for housework' campaign in the 70s, started by Selma James (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_James). It's associated with Marxist feminism and, in a more diluted form, with socialism, where you aren't all competing in an open market, but there is a fairly high level of government intervention in work and wages.

Many of the people disagreeing with the OP and calling her ridiculous are talking in hard capitalist free market terms. They feel they are paid for skills they have that the market currently demands, and that those the market doesn't demand aren't paid for. Why should anyone pay for something that's not valued by the free market, seems to be the basic gist.

You're never going to reconcile these two viewpoints, I think. Either you think people should get paid according to value in a capitalist marketplace (sod you nurses, carers etc., bring on the derivative traders) or you think that whole system is mistaken and there should be much heavier government regulation to ensure that the nurses and carers aren't bailing out investment bankers through their taxes, and that work that has little capitalist cache, but is actually socially useful, should be rewarded accordingly. I'm with the OP, but in our current economic system the objectors are right, the objectors are right, there is no way to fund it.

And although the conservatives nominally support the nuclear family, in practice they'd rather have the two sets of taxes they get from the working parent and the professional child carer.

I understand the point that philbee makes but we are based in the economic situation that currently exists and paying full time minimum wage for someone to stay at home with their own children can not work.

If that was the case when I was 16 then I'd have made no effort at all to pass any exams, go to uni, train for a career or anything like that. I'd have seen having a baby as a career choice and an economic option. Why on earth would I have thought about taking a minimum wage job when I could have the same money to stay at home?

I go back to a point I made on another thread. In an ideal world there would be a childcare allowance payable to everyone with children of appropriate ages. This could be used to pay for childcare or to be retained by a SAHM.

Would anyone have a problem with that? I doubt it.

Philbee I take your point although the socialist regimes historically have been the ones hugely supporting and encouraging women to go out to work. In the Easter block (I did my dissertation on this!) 80% of women went out to work as there was free childcare funded by the state - when the Berlin wall came down the figure plummeted to about 35%.

It was very similar in Mussolini fascism which was initially based on democratic socialism....women were encouraged out to work and the state took care of the children.

What I am trying to say is that it is not just capitalism that encourages the idea of women going out to work.

Eastern block not Easter block!!!!

I reckon i should be paid as follows:

Cleaner £50 p.w
Nursery £50 per day
Chef £50 per day
Chauffeur £25 per day
Psychiatrist £250 per hour (I'm private obvs)
Child entertainer £150 for every 2 hours
Night watchman £15 per hour from 8-6

I'm clearly being facetious, but I can't take a thread about being paid for the personal choice regarding children's upbringing seriously.

There is a false premise in all of these type of threads - an assumption that what a SAHP (or a WOHP) does in terms of cleaning, cooking etc is similar to professional commercial childcare, and is entirely done for the children. As far as my expereince goes, most SAHP who are 'working' 16 hours a day, are doing more than just caring for the child, they are also cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, paying bills, driving to the supermarket etc etc for the adult members of the household. I don't see anything taking that into account and apportioning costs. Or are you suggesting that since these activities have an intrinsic value then all people should be paid to do them, irrespective of whether they have children or not?

Well WOHPs are also cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing, paying bills, driving to the supermarket etc on top of their work, so the only difference between them and the SAHP is the childcare element isn't it?

Jins- precisely. Just imagine:
"when you become an adult, you can give birth to a child, and get paid a wage to stay at home and not work. As long as the child is not abused or neglected, that wage will continue. You can structure your day as you

Oops- "structure your day as you please. No one will check up on how clean your house is, what you cool for dinner or how many loads of laundry you washed. If you're ten minutes late for playgroup, no one will give you a rollicking. In fact if you don't want to go to playgroup and feel like curling up on the sofa and having a pyjama day, that's fine too".

I mean seriously- who would actually choose to work at getting qualifications and push themselves to manage a challenging career, if this was on offer?

I wonder how you get fired or be made redundant as a SAHP?

callmemrs - How about a peer review system to measure performance :)

Or maybe not just peers. Introduce a team of MIL's to go round with a checklist :)

Philbee. Thank you for the realisation that my thoughts aren't so ridiculous and yes I take others comments about it not being viable in the present climate. However, I can remember a time when only one parent worked and the wage was enough to allow the other parent to stay at home if they wished. Even when I worked bdc's I was anti corporate capitalism opting to work for myself, apart from my clients satisfaction my work wasn't monitored by anybody. I guess its each to their own view. I also believe in playing the system for financial gain, I have never done anything illegally and never claimed anything to which I am not entitled to, this is the price that I put on being a sahp.

Jins at the MILs with clipboards. Just let me know in advance when they are coming so I can get rid of the greggs paper bags, fruitshoots and empty pom wrappers some naice biscuits in