Should Stay-at-Home Parents Get Paid? | Good Morning Britain

Should parents who spend their time at home taking care of their children be paid as if they are working a full-time job? Faryal Makhdoom, wife of boxer Amir Khan, agrees that parents should be rewarded for their efforts while former Sugababe Amelle Berrabah says it undermines family values.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyDplOPSoG4

No, they should not be paid even tho they probably should be. As a country we simply cannot afford it. 

So for the foreseeable future, raising your own kids will continue being purely a labour of love.

No.

But the parent who is working should be paid enough to support a small family - you know, like they used to.

Definitely not.
I was a stay at home mum for the first 11 years of my sons life, my OH supported us, and thats the way it should be.

I would go as far as stopping child benefit at 2 children.....if you cant afford children without relying on the state to bring them up.....dont have them.

Definitely not.
I was a stay at home mum for the first 11 years of my sons life, my OH supported us, and thats the way it should be.

I would go as far as stopping child benefit at 2 children.....if you cant afford children without relying on the state to bring them up.....dont have them.

+1

Syl wrote:Definitely not.
I was a stay at home mum for the first 11 years of my sons life, my OH supported us, and thats the way it should be.

I would go as far as stopping child benefit at 2 children.....if you cant afford children without relying on the state to bring them up.....dont have them.

I agree. But I do think that all full time employment should make it possible for whichever parent to afford to support the other.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:Definitely not.
I was a stay at home mum for the first 11 years of my sons life, my OH supported us, and thats the way it should be.

I would go as far as stopping child benefit at 2 children.....if you cant afford children without relying on the state to bring them up.....dont have them.

I agree. But I do think that all full time employment should make it possible for whichever parent to afford to support the other.

It was two people in one household working which put up house prices in the first place.

If you raise wages so much that one salary supports two people completely, some companies would go out of business.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:Definitely not.
I was a stay at home mum for the first 11 years of my sons life, my OH supported us, and thats the way it should be.

I would go as far as stopping child benefit at 2 children.....if you cant afford children without relying on the state to bring them up.....dont have them.

I agree. But I do think that all full time employment should make it possible for whichever parent to afford to support the other.

I agree with you too, and if a person is made redundant or is unable to work through health more should be done to help financially.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:Definitely not.
I was a stay at home mum for the first 11 years of my sons life, my OH supported us, and thats the way it should be.

I would go as far as stopping child benefit at 2 children.....if you cant afford children without relying on the state to bring them up.....dont have them.

I agree. But I do think that all full time employment should make it possible for whichever parent to afford to support the other.

It was two people in one household working which put up house prices in the first place.

If you raise wages so much that one salary supports two people completely, some companies would go out of business.

It's a mess that never should have been allowed to get to this point

I know it's complicated, but the simplistic view is to have the children you can afford and dont live beyond your means.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was two people in one household working which put up house prices in the first place.

If you raise wages so much that one salary supports two people completely, some companies would go out of business.

It's a mess that never should have been allowed to get to this point

I agree but I don't know how anyone could have stopped it. The alternatives are putting a cap on house prices, banning financial institutions from giving out mortgages based on two incomes, or banning married women with children from getting jobs. I can't see any of that happening.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was two people in one household working which put up house prices in the first place.

If you raise wages so much that one salary supports two people completely, some companies would go out of business.

It's a mess that never should have been allowed to get to this point

I agree but I don't know how anyone could have stopped it. The alternatives are putting a cap on house prices, banning financial institutions from giving out mortgages based on two incomes, or banning married women with children from getting jobs. I can't see any of that happening.

I think the major rise in women's equality (an absolute positive, btw) and women entering the workplace in large numbers, was something that impacted these things largely. Of course if there's a massive increase in the work force then prices will rise and wages will fall. What should really have happened is it stopped mattering 'which' parent worked; what happened was it became expected for BOTH parents to work in working class households. Which is kind of unfortunate.

But yes, we cannot rewrite history, and it would take decades to repair now (though not impossible). Capping house prices would be one option, though that would inevitably have economic consequences. I'm not economist anyway, so no real ideas on how to fix this - though I'm sure there are those who do

Breakdown in families has a lot to do with it too imo.
Whereas a family lived in one house, mum, dad, kids...now everytime a couple break up now they need two places...supply and demand, the cost of houses, flats, etc rise.

Children used to to live at home until they married and even then took a few years to get into the housing market, having to rent rooms in a house or live with relatives, I know a few people in my generation who didn't marry for whatever reason and remained with their parents their whole life. Now young singletons are buying houses, obviously not a bad thing from their point of view they'll need a house at some time but it does impact on houses available. They may as well get them while they can, can't see the prices coming down anytime soon.

Pre Thatcher it wasn't as common for people to buy houses anyway, they rented for life, council houses were handed down not sold off.
Unfortunately when they were sold off in Thatchers era in many areas they were not replaced.

Problem was Syl, the money from the sale of Council Houses was supposed to be used to build more for rent, but councils used this to top up their own coffers and use it for their own purposes !

House and land prices rose sharply through the 1980s and '90s because people kept on bidding the prices up and up...

Exacerbated by governments twisting taxation benefits for investors to such a degree that investors began pushing many potential "owner occupiers" out of the market.

There is no outright or absolute shortage of land (as yet..) --  what there is, is a shortage of 'affordable' blocks and units in those more 'desirable' areas where too many people want to live..


As for "flat" and low wage growth over the past three decades, those problems began with Reagan and Thatcher's failed idiotic 'trickle down" core bullshit lies of the 1980's, and worsened during the 1990s/early noughties as our 'corporatist' governments allowed big businesses to formulate their wages, labour and faux "economic growth" policies for them..

Eventually resulting in the current global putsch to bring every country's business tax rate to 15% or less;  allied with their lying "austerity" policies to reduce gov't spending...      

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree but I don't know how anyone could have stopped it. The alternatives are putting a cap on house prices, banning financial institutions from giving out mortgages based on two incomes, or banning married women with children from getting jobs. I can't see any of that happening.

I think the major rise in women's equality (an absolute positive, btw) and women entering the workplace in large numbers, was something that impacted these things largely. Of course if there's a massive increase in the work force then prices will rise and wages will fall. What should really have happened is it stopped mattering 'which' parent worked; what happened was it became expected for BOTH parents to work in working class households. Which is kind of unfortunate.

But yes, we cannot rewrite history, and it would take decades to repair now (though not impossible). Capping house prices would be one option, though that would inevitably have economic consequences. I'm not economist anyway, so no real ideas on how to fix this - though I'm sure there are those who do

I don't think it became expected for both parents to work, I think they both decided to work - more money, not being stuck at home, etc.

I think the house prices and rents should be capped but I'm really not sure how it can be done.

nicko wrote:Problem was Syl, the money from the sale of Council Houses was supposed to be used to build more for rent, but councils used this to top up their own coffers and use it for their own purposes  !

It was a scandal really selling off all the council houses and not fulfilling the promise to build more.
Private landlords made a killing, more people needed benifits to live, and lot's of people who did buy privately ended up in dire need when mortgages went through the roof, many ended up not being able to afford the payments, were forced to sell and ended up in negative equity.

Ahhhh....the good old Thatcher years.