Should we as a State provide public funded childcare?

nesf

Should we provide free childcare to parents who want it in the form of Government run creches and so forth? Initially this seems to me to be quite a leftist proposal (i.e. more services) but when you get down to it this is far more centrist than that because the goal surely is to make it easier for the second (or only in some cases) parent to join the workforce. Yes we would pay for this with our taxes but this would be a far better way to spend public money than things like the payment for single payments (don't give them money, give them services that make it viable for them to get a job). Obviously right now we're not really in a position to do this but in the medium term should we follow the example of some of our EU colleagues and provide free childcare?

FlutterinBantam

Initially I would have said no, but after reading your post,would maybe not be as unsustainable as I thought.

The idea of services instead of money handouts is worth more study.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

State funded childcare, if run properly with the necessary safety precautions, could only be a good thing. Many children in this country are left with no after-school supervision whatsoever. Gangs of kids roam the streets with nothing to do, inevitably resulting in antisocial behavior.

State run after-school activities could open up new opportunities for these kids through education, sports and arts programs, as well as creating a safe environment for kids to socialize. This could also serve to protect children at risk from abuse or neglect in the home, whether from parents, siblings, or other family members.

For me personally, employment possibilities for lone parents would be a secondary issue but still an excellent incentive to create public-funded childcare.

Edit: The State could even subsidize the program by charging a nominal fee for the care provided. I don't think 20-25 euros a week per child would be asking too much. It would still be a fraction of what parents are currently forced to pay. Of course, welfare recipients and students could be granted assistance with fees.

ei.sdraob

Yes i would be in favour of state run creches/preschool


but on the other hand reduce child allowance payments and various other payments to parents


if the children can be put in creches with professionals, then that frees up time for the parents to do productive work

Sleepy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it's largely on staff and insurance. Premiums are high and staff levels must adhere to a strict ratio in order for the insurance to be valid. The staff themselves are very poorly paid (a little over minimum) so there's not much to be saved on that front. Making savings would require changing the ratios of minders to children and thus the safety of the children...

gerry28

The state could subsidise lower paid families and unemployed people re-entering the work force.

It wouldn't have to be state creches just pay part of the cost to entice people of benefits and back to work.

nesf

Free childcare doesn't necessarily mean State run childcare. It could be run by private enterprise with the State paying for it and the State running inspections similar to how the Dutch Health system works for hospitals.

aurelius79

Sleepy wrote: »

I think it's largely on staff and insurance. Premiums are high and staff levels must adhere to a strict ratio in order for the insurance to be valid. The staff themselves are very poorly paid (a little over minimum) so there's not much to be saved on that front. Making savings would require changing the ratios of minders to children and thus the safety of the children...

Private insurance is a racket. You pay some private firm hundreds or thousands of euros a year and for what? If you ever do need the insurance money, your premiums rise and you end up paying for everything plus premiums anyway. Insurance should be offered by the government to fund state pensions. The private pension scam that took place in this country is absolutely unacceptable.

Child care employees should be paid by the State. They are essentially health care workers after all. Carers should also be paid by the State as health care workers but that's another issue.

When you consider the millions upon millions the State has spent in the last ten years, it's a wonder why we don't have adequate and accessible child care in this country. And this covers every aspect of public social care, not just couples with young children.

Joey the lips

Yes I think we should. Why because it gets more people out working. However where i see the problem might be in the type of jobs. For example with the majority of people working low paid jobs how will the govt bring in tax to pay for this service. Then again if you only allow it to people earning a certain amount will this be fair...No.

So yes I think it would be a great idea. If even for say the first 2 kids or say only 2 kids at a time from one family.

S-Murph

nesf wrote: »

but when you get down to it this is far more centrist than that because the goal surely is to make it easier for the second (or only in some cases) parent to join the workforce. Yes we would pay for this with our taxes but this would be a far better way to spend public money than things like the payment for single payments (don't give them money, give them services that make it viable for them to get a job). Obviously right now we're not really in a position to do this but in the medium term should we follow the example of some of our EU colleagues and provide free childcare?

Except when there are no jobs!

People cant join the workforce when the jobs are not there, its that simple.

So for those in this situation with your proposal implemented, what are they left with, a creche place while they struggle to feed and clothe their children. Lone parents are one of the most vulnerable people in ireland. Giving them a creche place wont solve that any time soon.

Soldie

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes I think we should. Why because it gets more people out working. However where i see the problem might be in the type of jobs. For example with the majority of people working low paid jobs how will the govt bring in tax to pay for this service.

Perhaps the government could pay the crèche staff higher wages so that there's more tax money coming in from them. The government could then use that tax money to fund the service. Foolproof!

Joey the lips

Soldie wrote: »

Perhaps the government could pay the crèche staff higher wages so that there's more tax money coming in from them. The government could then use that tax money to fund the service. Foolproof!

that would make it worse. they are only getting back a percentage of what they are giving out.

wes

Yes, would very much agree with this. It would hopefully encourage more people into the work force, and is a far more sounder investment, than some of the crap the government spends out taxes on.

aurelius79

S-Murph wrote: »

Except when there are no jobs!

People cant join the workforce when the jobs are not there, its that simple.

So for those in this situation with your proposal implemented, what are they left with, a creche place while they struggle to feed and clothe their children. Lone parents are one of the most vulnerable people in ireland. Giving them a creche place wont solve that any time soon.

I'm sure even unemployed parents would appreciate a few hours away from the kids when they're stuck in the house all day. Two hours without the kids to do the shopping could mean the world to some. The children would benefit greatly from social interaction at a young age.

From where I see it, there are no disadvantages to public child care accessible to everyone.

Lollymcd

Would the extra tax needed to fund this only be levied on those with children???

S-Murph

aurelius79 wrote: »

From where I see it, there are no disadvantages to public child care accessible to everyone.

Your right. But when its at a cost of being able to clothe and feed your children, I dont think parents would choose a creche place. The more interaction with their parents the better. Thats been a problem for some time - ie parents leaving their kids in creches while they go to work and having little time for interaction.

Maybe giving parents a choice might solve this issue. Either a heavily subsidised creche place or maintain childrens allowance.

aurelius79

S-Murph wrote: »

Your right. But when its at a cost of being able to clothe and feed your children, I dont think parents would choose a creche place. The more interaction with their parents the better. Thats been a problem for some time - ie parents leaving their kids in creches while they go to work and having little time for interaction.

Maybe giving parents a choice might solve this issue. Either a heavily subsidised creche place or maintain childrens allowance.

I hate to be a downer but many parents don't actually want to spend time with their kids. If they did, they would. Wouldn't it be better for these kids to have them in a safe, educational environment? I'm not talking about boarding schools or anything, maybe 2-3 hours after school, one weekend a month, summer sports camps, etc. Childcare includes young adults too, not just toddlers.

S-Murph

aurelius79 wrote: »

I hate to be a downer but many parents don't actually want to spend time with their kids. If they did, they would.

But many do.

Wouldn't it be better for these kids to have them in a safe, educational environment?

When they are with their parents, they generally are safe.

I'm not talking about boarding schools or anything, maybe 2-3 hours after school, one weekend a month, summer sports camps, etc. Childcare includes young adults too, not just toddlers.

Lets not make big brushtrokes about what parents are or want.

I think parents should be given the option of extra income or a subsidised/free creche system.

The creche system wouldnt suit everyones financial situation and those who cannot gain employment.

We are in a recession afterall.!

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if the children can be put in creches with professionals, then that frees up time for the parents to do productive work

Are you serious ???

Surely if someone decides to have a child, the most "productive work" they can do is bring it up properly ?

I'd be against this, because I shouldn't be penalised with extra taxes for people who have decided to have kids.

If you can't afford them, or your lifestyle doesn't allow for them, then don't have them.

aurelius79

S-Murph wrote: »

Lets not make big brushtrokes about what parents are or want.

I think parents should be given the option of extra income or a subsidised/free creche system.

The creche system wouldnt suit everyones financial situation and those who cannot gain employment.

We are in a recession afterall.!

Sorry, I'm just so used to the U.S. where there are extracurricular activities from an early age. They were usually attached to the school so were free of charge for parents. I also spent a few summers with the YWCA and they were some of my best childhood memories. This country has a serious lack of basic infrastructure when you consider the millions that have been wasted.

nesf

S-Murph wrote: »

Except when there are no jobs!

People cant join the workforce when the jobs are not there, its that simple.

It's not a zero sum system, if more people are genuinely available for work then jobs will tend to be created to meet this demand over the medium term. But, yeah, like I said not something we could introduce now.

S-Murph

nesf wrote: »

It's not a zero sum system, if more people are genuinely available for work then jobs will tend to be created to meet this demand over the medium term. But, yeah, like I said not something we could introduce now.

Well would an option of reduced welfare payments for a creche place be viable in your view, as opposed to one or the other?

nesf

S-Murph wrote: »

Well would an option of reduced welfare payments for a creche place be viable in your view, as opposed to one or the other?

No. It would benefit those who want to get out of the welfare trap but only those and would fail to deal with people making a career out of drawing benefits. Mandatory childcare would be a better option to solve the latter.

Honestly, I don't think mandatory childcare would make it through the Dáil but optional might and even though optional doesn't deal with the welfare career person it would at least help people who want to get out of the trap get out of it. I think the single best way to help lone parents is to help them get back into the workforce and get out of the home. This would be far better than just giving them a straight payment.

S-Murph

nesf wrote: »

No. It would benefit those who want to get out of the welfare. Mandatory childcare would be a better option to solve the latter.

Honestly, I don't think mandatory childcare would make it through the Dáil but optional might and

I think the single best way to help lone parents is to help them get back into the workforce and get out of the home. This would be far better than just giving them a straight payment.

My biggest concern is that those unemployed, and in particular single parents, are some of the most vulnerable people in society. http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/factsheets/Factsheet_LoneParents.pdf

This problem is set to rise given the current economic climate. I think cutting their welfare would not be a good thing to do. If it were optional on the otherhand.

trap but only those and would fail to deal with people making a career out of drawing benefits.....even though optional doesn't deal with the welfare career person it would at least help people who want to get out of the trap get out of it.

To what extent are "career welfare recipients" a problem?

nesf

S-Murph wrote: »

My biggest concern is that those unemployed, and in particular single parents, are some of the most vulnerable people in society. http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/factsheets/Factsheet_LoneParents.pdf

This problem is set to rise given the current economic climate. I think cutting their welfare would not be a good thing to do. If it were optional on the otherhand.

Well, in this case you'd be cutting welfare but providing childcare (and presumably a meal for the kid) in exchange. I do agree that you'd have to be very careful about changes because you are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society in that you're talking about people for whom escaping the welfare trap is extremely difficult if they don't have a parent or something to provide free childcare for them.

S-Murph wrote: »

To what extent are "career welfare recipients" a problem?

The Single Family payment is one of the most abused payments from all accounts. Just too easy to claim that you don't have a partner living with you, proving that you do is very very difficult. As a scheme it's far too easily abused yet at the same time provides much needed help to people in difficult situations which makes it messy to sort out.

T runner

I think the country needs to be more family friendly.

It is a bit of a catch 22 at the moment. The law-makers-Our politicians work long family unfriendly hours (much of it trying to be re-elected). This means that if they have a family at all it is of a very traditional variety with one partner at home house keeping all day . Whatever their setup they tend to be under-experienced in child-raising issues. So they see necessary changes (including child care) only when they are lagging years behind everyone in Europe.

This is a major bottle-neck for the development of the country.
Having adequate family friendly systems means you will have a gretaer number and crucially type of people available for vital jobs including politics.

aurelius79

nesf wrote: »

This would be far better than just giving them a straight payment.

I think this is the single biggest problem with the Irish welfare system. Cash should not be given out as it is now. I think a food credit system should be introduced, responsibility for housing should be moved to the Dept. of Social Affairs and rents paid automatically from your social account, and monetary payments reduced to cover basic luxuries.

jimmycrackcorm

Lollymcd wrote: »

Would the extra tax needed to fund this only be levied on those with children???

Should taxes paid by working parents only be used for services for people with children?

View

If I recall correctly, Labour proposed such a scheme in the 2002 General election. The electorate did not vote for them in any noticeable (increased) numbers at the time. Therefore, it would seem, that at least then the electorate wasn't particularly interested in the concept.

Hence, the answer should be No unless the electorate suddenly have a change of mind on the issue.

narddog

No. The parents should be responsible. After all, it's their child. And that nonsense payment each month, childrens allowance, should be abolished.

nesf

View wrote: »

If I recall correctly, Labour proposed such a scheme in the 2002 General election. The electorate did not vote for them in any noticeable (increased) numbers at the time. Therefore, it would seem, that at least then the electorate wasn't particularly interested in the concept.

Hence, the answer should be No unless the electorate suddenly have a change of mind on the issue.

Dear God no! Just because one thing is part of a party's proposals and the electorate don't vote them in does not mean the electorate were voting against that particular proposal! Especially in cases where the election is against an incumbent that just presided over the first big phase of economic growth in a generation (I'm not saying that FF created it, just that they were in office when it happened).

Trouser_Press

I would love to get a dog - a big fecker of a thing, like a Red Setter or Labrador - but

(a) I couldn't afford one at the moment (initial cost of buying it, vet bills, food bills, etc)

and

(b) because I'm out working five days a week I wouldn't be able to look after it - and I sure as hell amn't going to dump him on my elderly mother.

Can anyone tell me why prospective parents don't think the same way when they're contemplating adding to the population?

What law says they must have children, even if they can't afford to have them or won't have the time to look after them?

Seriously, is dumping a baby/toddler in a creche - state-run or otherwise - from 7.0 in the morning til 7.0 in the evening, then grumpily collecting him/her, feeding him/her and depositing him/her in bed at 8.0 really the definition of an idyllic family life?

What was the point of even having this child in the first place??

So, no, the tax-payer should not fund these freaks parents.

nesf

Trouser_Press wrote: »

So, no, the tax-payer should not fund these freaks parents.

Quit trolling/flame baiting.

Heinrich

nesf wrote: »

Quit trolling/flame baiting.

I would tend to disagree with you on that, apart from his/her closing comment! You do need a licence for a dog and it does require a good deal of responsibility to actually own one. By the same token, having is child is a serious decision to make and carries it's own duties and commitments.

This "lone parent" tag seems to conjure up waves of sympathy. In this age of enlightenenment there are adequate measures for family planning, unlike in those dark days of "unmarried mothers" and the Sisters of Charity and the Magdalen Laundries.

It would be the choice of the lone parent whether she has a child or not. It is her decision and it should not be up to the collective to bear the financial responsibility for the offspring.

It is disingenuous to claim that there not not a great number of "career lone parents" availing of state benefits. While the standard taxpayer goes out to his now uncertain job there are people who do not have to worry about how their income arrives.

southsiderosie

aurelius79 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm just so used to the U.S. where there are extracurricular activities from an early age. They were usually attached to the school so were free of charge for parents. I also spent a few summers with the YWCA and they were some of my best childhood memories. This country has a serious lack of basic infrastructure when you consider the millions that have been wasted.

I completely agree with your earlier post that good after school programs (and early care) are needed, especially for older kids in situations where there is little parental supervision (say 3-6pm). The problem in the US though is that the level of extracurricular activities offered by a public school district is dependent on the wealth of the given area. And the only government pre-school program available for many poor families is Headstart; there is relatively little public support for child care (which was a big issue in the 1990s welfare reform bill). The availability of community resources also affects programs like the Boys & Girls Clubs or the YMCA; I spent two years in college working at an after-school YMCA program for inner-city kids in DC, and I spent about half of my measly check every month to buy basic supplies for my kids. The kids who are really poor - or who have absentee/****ty parents - are the ones who need the in-school aftercare and extracurricular programs the most, and unfortunately are the least likely to get them.

I can't say that I think all of the financial support that the Irish state gives to people with kids is a good idea, but I'm not an Irish taxpayer (my tax dollars are wasted in Iraq, rather than welfare :rolleyes:). But I do think expanding after-school and summer educational programs could certainly help with some of the youth hooliganism in urban areas. And maybe volunteering in after-school centers (van pickup, food prep, refereeing, etc) could be mandated as a condition of receiving certain kinds of state aid. There have also been interesting pilot programs in the US, linking the elderly to day care centers - the seniors read to the kids, or do art projects with them - it gives the seniors (many of whom are pretty lonely) something to do, and the kids get extra attention that they wouldn't have otherwise.

mikemac

Heinrich wrote: »

It would be the choice of the lone parent whether she has a child or not. It is her decision and it should not be up to the collective to bear the financial responsibility for the offspring.

It is disingenuous to claim that there not not a great number of "career lone parents" availing of state benefits. While the standard taxpayer goes out to his now uncertain job there are people who do not have to worry about how their income arrives.

Maybe but you've failed to mention widows and widowers and unmarried couples too.
For every road fatality in Ireland, if they are of a certain age it's pretty likely they died leaving a family behind.

Heinrich

mikemac wrote: »

Maybe but you've failed to mention widows and widowers and unmarried couples too.
For every road fatality in Ireland, if they are of a certain age it's pretty likely they died leaving a family behind.

I fully accept your comments. People die, leaving families bereft but we are not discussing those. The ones I refer to are the careerists. I don't understand your point re the unmarried couples... Maybe you could elaborate.

mickoneill30

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why prospective parents don't think the same way when they're contemplating adding to the population?

I'd say because a child is not the same as a dog.

Trouser_Press wrote: »

What law says they must have children, even if they can't afford to have them or won't have the time to look after them?

None.

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Seriously, is dumping a baby/toddler in a creche - state-run or otherwise - from 7.0 in the morning til 7.0 in the evening, then grumpily collecting him/her, feeding him/her and depositing him/her in bed at 8.0 really the definition of an idyllic family life?

Nope. Are you saying that the majority of couples in Ireland should not have kids? Is that your point? Because the majority of couples in Ireland need both partners to work. So the only people that should have kids are the rich or the unemployed. Would you like an Ireland where there are more people retiring than being born?
Having children does actually benefit a country. There are lots of goods and services that are consumed for children and when they become old enough they actually contribute to society. I'd say whatever amount of money my parents received from the government to assist in my upbringing has been paid back 10's or 100's of times over by what I've paid in tax since I joined the workforce.

Having both parents go out to work and leave their child in a creche is not idyllic. Ireland is not idyllic in case you haven't noticed.

Just for reference Trouser_Press what's your situation in life? I don't want to get personal. I'm 35, married and would like kids but we've waited this long because having kids would have been a problem financially earlier on in life. Now we're reasonably well off but both of us will still have to work if we have a child. Should I just give up any thoughts of having a child because it's not idyllic?

mikemac

Heinrich wrote: »

I fully accept your comments. People die, leaving families bereft but we are not discussing those. The ones I refer to are the careerists. I don't understand your point re the unmarried couples... Maybe you could elaborate.

Well I said widows, widowers but I had to include unmarried couples too, you know people who have a family and are together years.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with your point about teenagers and careerists on SW. I just thought to mention the above group as nobody else did on this thread

Lollymcd

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should taxes paid by working parents only be used for services for people with children?

Would it be possible to arrange this? Just joking there, but surely my tax contributions are already subsidising services for people with children? It probably sounds selfish but as a childless person how do I benifit from state provided childcare? Knowing I will be more or less alone in my "golden years" means I have to save accordinly (there will be no one to bail me out if I get something like alzeimers etc etc) why should I pay for someone elses insurance policy, for want of a better word? Children are a choice and also luxury, if you can't afford them, like everything else, you shouldn't have them.

Heinrich

Lollymcd wrote: »

Would it be possible to arrange this? Just joking there, but surely my tax contributions are already subsidising services for people with children? It probably sounds selfish but as a childless person how do I benifit from state provided childcare? Knowing I will be more or less alone in my "golden years" means I have to save accordinly (there will be no one to bail me out if I get something like alzeimers etc etc) why should I pay for someone elses insurance policy, for want of a better word? Children are a choice and also luxury, if you can't afford them, like everything else, you shouldn't have them.

Try this; you work all your life, pay your taxes, SW etc and then folks around here will tell you that the kiddies will be paying your pension when they grow up. Get the idea? You are paying for your pension and the freebie mindset is that the kids are needed to pay for what you have already paid.

There is a tree in Dublin Nort where all de munny for de social welfare grows.

Trouser_Press

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I'd say because a child is not the same as a dog.

I agree, completely. People make much more responsible decisions when it comes to getting a dog.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Are you saying that the majority of couples in Ireland should not have kids?

Um, no. I'm saying that the only people who should have children are those who can afford to have them (you know, mundane stuff - like having the time to look after them and having the money to feed and educate them).

mickoneill30 wrote: »

the majority of couples in Ireland need both partners to work.

Exactly! So these people wouldn't, on the whole, get a dog because they wouldn't have the time to look after it....yet they have no problem having kids

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Having children does actually benefit a country. There are lots of goods and services that are consumed for children and when they become old enough they actually contribute to society. I'd say whatever amount of money my parents received from the government to assist in my upbringing has been paid back 10's or 100's of times over by what I've paid in tax since I joined the workforce.

Sweet ****ing Jesus! So, kids are an investment of sorts? Like buying gold in the current economic climate? Your honour? I rest my case.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Having both parents go out to work and leave their child in a creche is not idyllic. Ireland is not idyllic in case you haven't noticed.

I've noticed that, Mick. And the least idyllic part of it is parents dumping children in creches/with the kids' Granny when (a) they can't afford children and (b) they don't have the time to look after them. It's depressing, but they think they can have it all - and the children are the victims of their selfishness and narcissism.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Now we're reasonably well off but both of us will still have to work if we have a child. Should I just give up any thoughts of having a child because it's not idyllic?

Well, if you can't afford or are not willing to look after your own child, preferring to dump it in a creche or on its granny, I would say no, parenthood is not for you. And don't get a puppy either. :rolleyes:

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

Free childcare doesn't necessarily mean State run childcare. It could be run by private enterprise with the State paying for it and the State running inspections similar to how the Dutch Health system works for hospitals.

What, a bit like the private nursing homes inspections ?
Would it be another tax shelter for the developers or other connected types ?

To trouser_press...
kids actually are an investment in the future or who do you hope pays taxes to cover services you will avail of when you are old ?
If we have less contributing adults (things that kids hopefully eventually grow up into) then we have less of a tax base to cover the older generations.

Since a lot of the posters round here want to contribute nothing towards the next generations, then I propose my kids contribute shag all towards their costs when they are old, decrepit and pissing in their incontinence pants.

Oh wait here comes the refrain about how they will pay for themselves and how they have already paid for these throughout their lives.
Yeah right your taxes have been put aside to pay for your incontinence nappies and the nursing home subvention :rolleyes:
Have they ever thought they have paid for what is being used today and not what will be used tomorrow ?

I as a parent am not asking anyone to rear my children, I and many others do it ourselves thank you very much.
But if anyone can't see how the high cost of childcare in this country has huge knock on affects then they are completly narrowminded.

Even if we don't avail of things we still contribute towards them, it is part of what a state should be about, although we have probably absorbed the US mentality of low taxes and screw those who want services.
Or would some people rather that they only contribute taxes towards things they avail of or use ?

PS to the poster who reckons that the most productive thing that a parent can do is stay at home and look after the kids, I will introduce you to a few women that will tar and feather you.
Should they also wear a burka and not have the vote ?

Manach

To disagree entirely with the above post, by jmayo, it is the government accounting schemes which do not allow workers to adequetly budget for their old age by spending taxpayer money as it arrives. If you think your children would be in a position not to contribute to this, then that is a tad eccentric.

spank_inferno

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the government should have nothing to do with providing childcare.

I know I'm in the minority in that opinion though.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

kids actually are an investment in the future or who do you hope pays taxes to cover services you will avail of when you are old ?
If we have less contributing adults (things that kids hopefully eventually grow up into) then we have less of a tax base to cover the older generations.

And while they are growing up how do we cover the cost of feeding, clothing them, educating them etc? Never mind the costs if they decide to turn to crime, drug or alcohol abuse, of god forbid have children themselves..

You're talking about increasing future tax incomes by having children now, but where does the cost come into it? Every decade the costs involved in raising children have increased dramatically. And we're not even talking about ages 0-18, we're really talking about 0-22/23 since its third level education is so encouraged.

So... considering the state of the Irish economy... the lack of existing and reasonable income for the state... Do you honestly think that we should be encouraging people to have children in an irresponsible manner? By saying irresponsible, I'm talking about being unable to support the costs themselves.

Since a lot of the posters round here want to contribute nothing towards the next generations, then I propose my kids contribute shag all towards their costs when they are old, decrepit and pissing in their incontinence pants.

hmm... I've been a taxpayer in this country since I started working part-time at 16 (never mind all those other taxes we get hit by), and then fulltime at 20. I've never been awarded any grants for education having to pay everything myself. In all likelihood, I've paid for the support of thousands of childrens lives over the last 16 years...

now.. how many years have you paid taxes on your wages? or do these taxes not count as contributing?

Oh wait here comes the refrain about how they will pay for themselves and how they have already paid for these throughout their lives.
Yeah right your taxes have been put aside to pay for your incontinence nappies and the nursing home subvention :rolleyes:
Have they ever thought they have paid for what is being used today and not what will be used tomorrow ?

Simply put, HUH?

I as a parent am not asking anyone to rear my children, I and many others do it ourselves thank you very much.
But if anyone can't see how the high cost of childcare in this country has huge knock on affects then they are completly narrowminded.

Word to the wise... we don't want to rear your children. We want you to do that yourself in a responsible manner. And I'm sure that you do just that. We also want you to be financially secure when entering the responsibility of raising any number of children. Perfectly reasonable, and not any standard we're not prepared to meet ourselves...

Even if we don't avail of things we still contribute towards them, it is part of what a state should be about, although we have probably absorbed the US mentality of low taxes and screw those who want services.
Or would some people rather that they only contribute taxes towards things they avail of or use ?

It doesn't matter. There are costs with running a country. Especially with running a small island country with very little real income and extremely high desires for a rich standard of living.

spank_inferno

jmayo wrote: »

But if anyone can't see how the high cost of childcare in this country has huge knock on affects then they are completly narrowminded.

Guess I'm being narrow-minded but I cant see what the "huge knock on affects" would be.

RedPlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

Word to the wise... we don't want to rear your children. We want you to do that yourself in a responsible manner.

Have you missed the OP?
The proposal was floated on the basis that by providing child care services, the parents are freed up for work and thus contributing to the economy.
Right now there are tons of people whom have children with not a care in the world as our SW system gives them more cash for every child they have.
The current system is supporting (encouraging?) this irresponsibility.

Flamed Diving

Just as a guess, I reckon crèches are expensive because of simple supply & demand reasons. This might to due to cartel-style reasons or because insurance companies limit the number of children a crèche can take. It would not be surprising to find that city crèches are more expensive than rural ones, for the same supply & demand reasons. It's a free market, if prices are so high, a rival crèche could steal consumers away by simply lowering the price. So there is probably more to it than "durr ribbing uz offf!".

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

Have you missed the OP?
The proposal was floated on the basis that by providing child care services, the parents are freed up for work and thus contributing to the economy.

There's a difference between deciding how people rear their children, and asking the parents to work in order to be financially responsible, and thus freeing up resources needed for the economy.