Making the best of the situation..

tails_naf

I've recently thought of something that could solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop.

- There are a lot of people unemployed, but not so many jobs.
- There are a lot of people up to their eyeballs in debt, trying to work through it.
- The cost of childcare is prohibitive if you have one child, not to mind 2.
- Single mothers may fall into all 3 of the above, making it especially hard on them.

A person on the radio this morning said that after paying for the creche for 2 kids, they have 400 euro left a month from one wage, and why don't we have public child care like some other countries?

Well Why not?

We could pay to train some of the single mothers (or other unemployed) to work in state run, non-profit creches. Say 3 months training, and 5 people are overseen by long-term creche workers.

- This would provide employment, at probably say 1.5x the dole.
- Single mothers could work there, where their children would be taken care of for free.
- Cheaper child-care for working parents, allowing them some financial relief.


I think it makes perfect sense - instead of paying people money who can't work, due to circumstances - and others who can't realistically work due to the cost of childcare - why not solve both in one go?

Cill Dara Abu

Here's a better solution. Don't have children if you can't afford to mind them.

Delancey

OP has a point , having been to Sweden I can say that a huge number of females are employed there in the state-supported ' Childcare Industry '.
Don't think such a plan is affordable here though....

Ana36

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Here's a better solution. Don't have children if you can't afford to mind them.

does that apply to the men too?

Many hard working single parents (men and women) have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their spouse may have died or Daddy (or Mammy) just decided they'd had enough playing " Happy Families"

What would you like these people to do with their children?....give them back?

Cill Dara Abu

Ana36 wrote: »

does that apply to the men too?

Many hard working single parents (men and women) have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their spouse may have died or Daddy (or Mammy) just decided they'd had enough playing " Happy Families"

What would you like these people to do with their children?....give them back?

It certainly does.

Don't care not my problem.

Ana36

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Here's a better solution. Don't have children if you can't afford to mind them.

does that apply to the men too?

Many hard working single parents (men and women) have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their spouse may have died or Daddy (or Mammy) just decided they'd had enough playing " Happy Families"

What would you like these people to do with their children?....give them back?

The Swedish system is fantastic however the Sweds pay high taxes that go towards excellent services such as these....our high taxes go to bailing out the banks! There's the problem.

I think that even if schools could set up affordable after-school services, this may go a long way in aiding single parents to go back to work.

Scofflaw

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Ana36 wrote: »

does that apply to the men too?

Many hard working single parents (men and women) have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their spouse may have died or Daddy (or Mammy) just decided they'd had enough playing " Happy Families"

What would you like these people to do with their children?....give them back?

It certainly does.

Don't care not my problem.

If you're not going to bother, don't bother. Next piece of sub-trolling smart-assery earns you an instant ticket out of the forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The_Honeybadger

Would love to see something like this done to make childcare more affordable, myself and my wife have two kids and I work full time, she does one day a week at the moment and hints have been dropped to her at work that there is a full time position there for her but we have decided against it because of the ludicrous childcare costs that that would involve, I would guess that this is the case for many couples up and down the country. I doubt any single mother could justify working full time unless they had free childcare via a family member.

View

tails_naf wrote: »

I've recently thought of something that could solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop.

- There are a lot of people unemployed, but not so many jobs.
- There are a lot of people up to their eyeballs in debt, trying to work through it.
- The cost of childcare is prohibitive if you have one child, not to mind 2.
- Single mothers may fall into all 3 of the above, making it especially hard on them.

A person on the radio this morning said that after paying for the creche for 2 kids, they have 400 euro left a month from one wage, and why don't we have public child care like some other countries?

Well Why not?

The reason is largely because the public have never voted for the idea. Labour did push this back in the '02 election, if I remember correctly, but the voters largely ignored it - the PD/FF pitch of "low taxes, low taxes, low taxes" was preferred instead.

noxqs

I sincerely doubt Ireland is ready for "The Scandinavian Model". It means high taxes and a functional government/public sector. Their model is very good and works well for them. But I do believe the culture, work ethics and mindset is different there.

They pay a high tax but they demand and get value for money there. Their politicians have known to resign after small budget overruns and unpaid parking tickets. The public sector workers are paid below private sector wages.

Well; It's a good idea and I fully support public childcare but I don't want to experiment with my tax dollars before I trust the politicians here to be able to finish even small projects without hemorrhaging money and not delivering.

I think public childcare is the corner stone of a healthy economy to make women/men available on the job market while encouraging young couples to get more children. The last thing a country need is an aging population.

RichardAnd

I don't see how this idea as you present it would do much for us. Child care provides a good number of jobs for people as it is, if you under cut that with what I suspect you intend would be free child-care, then you would only be putting more people out of work. The state tinkers far too much with the economy and the jobs market as it is.

Ana36

mickeyk wrote: »

Would love to see something like this done to make childcare more affordable, myself and my wife have two kids and I work full time, she does one day a week at the moment and hints have been dropped to her at work that there is a full time position there for her but we have decided against it because of the ludicrous childcare costs that that would involve, I would guess that this is the case for many couples up and down the country. I doubt any single mother could justify working full time unless they had free childcare via a family member.

I know this may not have anything to do with this thread so feel free to move it mods!
Just a little tip if you are looking for childcare for your 2 children, you might be as well off looking for a childminder as opposed to a creche as you can pay by the hour at the hours that suit you. Check out schooldays.ie for lots of childminders in different counties. Good luck!

fliball123

Ana36 wrote: »

I know this may not have anything to do with this thread so feel free to move it mods!
Just a little tip if you are looking for childcare for your 2 children, you might be as well off looking for a childminder as opposed to a creche as you can pay by the hour at the hours that suit you. Check out schooldays.ie for lots of childminders in different counties. Good luck!

There may have to be some kind of gov supplimenet for childcare in the future..but on your point about a childminder...I would be weary of this..They usually are not insured and are not qualified at least in a creche or other business set up to mind kids they by law need to be insured..I think I would rather pay that bit more for a qualified person to look after my children and if something happens to them then you will not be out of pocket

tenchi-fan

Delancey wrote: »

OP has a point , having been to Sweden I can say that a huge number of females are employed there in the state-supported ' Childcare Industry '.
Don't think such a plan is affordable here though....

There's a lot of opposition to state childcare.

It forces both partners into working, paying high tax so they can spend even less time with their kids.

Why don't a group of families needing cheap childcare form a not for profit childcare group, where they take it in turns to mind each other's kids and they could administer it a lot cheaply than the government-run creches.

noxqs

It forces both partners into working

Welcome to 2011.

Most other western countries have been doing this for 50 years now. The idea that a woman has to stay at home to mind kids is quite frankly embarrassing in this day and age.

I don't have the links on hand right now (but I can google them in a second) but there are studies done that kids benefit from socializing at an early age with other kids - so there is really no reason not to make childcare more accessible.

And speaking of economy - two incomes are better than one. If the state could use money wisely - this would be a good return on investment.

tails_naf

tenchi-fan wrote: »

There's a lot of opposition to state childcare.

It forces both partners into working, paying high tax so they can spend even less time with their kids.

Why don't a group of families needing cheap childcare form a not for profit childcare group, where they take it in turns to mind each other's kids and they could administer it a lot cheaply than the government-run creches.

Hold on a second. You are the second person to say this would cause an increase in taxes. In fact, I was thinking that this could actually be at least tax neutral, if not even a saving.

As it stands - govt pay out a lot in SW, especially to single mothers.
If instead a single mother is offered 1.5x her SW allowance, but 0.75 is actually from the govt, and the other 0.75 is from the childcare fee paid by the parents.

This means a reduced tax burden on the govt (i.e. taxpayers), reduced childcare costs for the single worker, or two worker families, and more money for the single mother employed in the state run childcare.

Why did you think this has to mean more taxes?

Also, by no means is this intended to force people into working, the whole idea is to give people more money in their pocket who already are in the situation where they are using childcare.

It's win-win as far as I can see...

jimmycrackcorm

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Here's a better solution. Don't have children if you can't afford to mind them.

By the same measure, if you don't have a job to pay for a roof over your head then you should be living in a cardboard box by the roadside.

The op raises a very good point that it is wasteful to be handing out social welfare without considering the absolute waste in peoples ability to contribute back to the community.

tenchi-fan

tails_naf wrote: »

This means a reduced tax burden on the govt (i.e. taxpayers), reduced childcare costs for the single worker, or two worker families, and more money for the single mother employed in the state run childcare.

Why did you think this has to mean more taxes?

Also, by no means is this intended to force people into working, the whole idea is to give people more money in their pocket who already are in the situation where they are using childcare.

It's win-win as far as I can see...

Consider this.

X is a female worker earning €10k per year. Tax €2k. She claims one parent family supplement, rent allowance and has medical cards. She has 4 kids which she shoves into state childcare. Net cost to the economy: (€20k).
Y is a single employee without kids earning €30k. Tax €15k. Net contribution to the economy: €15k.
Z is a unionised, public sector childcare worker. She earns €60k. Tax €25k. Net cost to the economy: (€35k).

Total Net cost of harebrained scheme to economy: €40k. Borrow it from the IMF.

Yep, win-win. For X and Z, the only beneficiaries in a ridiculous, left-wing welfare state. The real loser is Y, your typical private sector employee who picks up the tab for social welfare and public sector pay.

tenchi-fan

tails_naf wrote: »

This means a reduced tax burden on the govt (i.e. taxpayers), reduced childcare costs for the single worker, or two worker families, and more money for the single mother employed in the state run childcare.

Why did you think this has to mean more taxes?

Also, by no means is this intended to force people into working, the whole idea is to give people more money in their pocket who already are in the situation where they are using childcare.

It's win-win as far as I can see...

Consider this.

X is a female worker earning €10k per year. Tax €2k. She claims one parent family supplement, rent allowance and has medical cards. She has 4 kids which she shoves into state childcare. Net cost to the economy: (€10k).
Y is a single employee without kids earning €30k. Tax €15k. Net contribution to the economy: €15k.
Z is a unionised, public sector childcare worker. She earns €60k. Tax €25k. Net cost to the economy: (€35k).

Total Net cost of harebrained scheme to economy: €30k. Borrow it from the IMF.

Yep, win-win. For X and Z, the only beneficiaries in a ridiculous, left-wing welfare state. The real loser is Y, your typical private sector employee who picks up the tab for social welfare and public sector pay.

Chuck Stone

The ideas in the OP made me think of the GDR.

Crèches


As almost all East German parents (85%) worked outside of the home, there was a significant need for adequate childcare services. East German crèches [Kinderkrippe] were for children up to age three. Crèches often were next to the Kindergarten-building. There was even a time for young GDR women to serve or volunteer in crèches in order to bring their own children up well.


Kindergartens

Unlike West Germany, East Germany accomplished a large-scale education reform and introduced a dense network of high-standard education facilities, especially kindergartens. A unique characteristic of East German kindergartens was the strong educational background of these institutions, even compared to today's kindergartens in Germany. Children from age three to six learned to interact with other children, got used to a stable daily routine and were introduced to the idea of learning. The children stayed together in the same group with the same group educator during the three years. The groups were called the little group (kleine Gruppe) for the young children of the age of three, the middle group (mittlere Gruppe) for the children of the age of four and the big group (große Gruppe) for the older children of the age of five.


Two times a day there were lesson-like pre school activities (Beschäftigungen) which all children had to participate in. These activities were planned by the group educator and lasted 20 minutes in the little group, 25 minutes in the middle group and 30 minutes in the big group. The contents of the activities were regulated nationwide by a uniform teaching plan and included German language and speech, children's literature, mathematics, introducation to the socialistic life (visiting factories, traffic education, cultural life, introduction to important professions), introduction to natural and scientific phenomena (weather, seasons, sky, stars, rocks etc.), music, sports, artistic and constructive handicrafts and esteeming pieces of art.


There was no teaching of reading, writing or arithmetics, but the fundamental conceptions were taught to develop intellectual and motoric abilities. For instance, introduction to set theory within the numbers up to 10, counting up to 20, handling of quantities, crafting and motoric exercises to prepare the handwriting, the handling of pencils, scissors, fabrics and glue, and other skills.

Children were also encouraged to take an active role in the running of their kindergartens. Children often served each other meals and helped keep the kindergarten clean and tidy.

There were no fees charged for the full-day care in kindergartens and there were enough places for 94% to 99% of East German children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_East_Germany#Cr.C3.A8ches

It actually sounds quite functional.

tails_naf

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Consider this.

X is a female worker earning €10k per year. Tax €2k. She claims one parent family supplement, rent allowance and has medical cards. She has 4 kids which she shoves into state childcare. Net cost to the economy: (€20k).
Y is a single employee without kids earning €30k. Tax €15k. Net contribution to the economy: €15k.
Z is a unionised, public sector childcare worker. She earns €60k. Tax €25k. Net cost to the economy: (€35k).

Total Net cost of harebrained scheme to economy: €40k. Borrow it from the IMF.

Yep, win-win. For X and Z, the only beneficiaries in a ridiculous, left-wing welfare state. The real loser is Y, your typical private sector employee who picks up the tab for social welfare and public sector pay.

Alright, but I have a problem with pretty much all of your figures as you don't give the before and after cost comparison. My point is I think this could be less costly than what we have now.

Situation before:
1 singe mother, not working as she can't afford childcare.
All benefits from the state (rent, dole, etc)
I'll assume this is a total of 20k cost to state

3-4 other single people/couples - each with 1-3 kids.
1 is also a single mother also cannot work as can't afford childcare
Cost to state 20k

3 are families where both parents work.
Make average of 4k combined a month before tax, say 3k after. Childcare takes almost 450 euro per child - so with 2 children they have 2k left for everything a month - i.e. 1400 mortgage, etc.


After:
1 single mother now works in state run care. 10k of her income comes from state. 16k comes from fees, and there is a 4:1 ratio, non profit. -> each child she minds costs 4k/year, or 330/month to the parents of the child.
cost to state -10k, her income now is 26k

1 other single mother can now afford to work (maybe part time)
cost to state has reduced, say 15k

3 other families now have 120euro more per child per month, their tax rate does not change


So in summary:
State Coffers:
Before: -20k, -20k, +12k, +12k, +12k = -4k
After: -10k, -15k, +12k, +12k, +12k = +11k

So the state is also 15k better off, and everyone has more in their pocket.

that's what I mean by win win.
btw - saying that child day-care workers would be paid 60k weakens your argument, no matter how nice your use of colours was!

tenchi-fan

tails_naf wrote: »

After:
1 single mother now works in state run care. 10k of her income comes from state. 16k comes from fees, and there is a 4:1 ratio, non profit. -> each child she minds costs 4k/year, or 330/month to the parents of the child.
cost to state -10k, her income now is 26k

This is the bull**** part. no need for this nonsense. Let women (or men) "volunteer" to mind their own and each others kids as a sort of co-operative, and keep the welfare state out of it.

tails_naf

tenchi-fan wrote: »

This is the bull**** part. no need for this nonsense. Let women (or men) "volunteer" to mind their own and each others kids as a sort of co-operative, and keep the welfare state out of it.

That will never happen. Incentive is the only sure fire way to make something work.

myrak

tails_naf wrote: »

Hold on a second. You are the second person to say this would cause an increase in taxes. In fact, I was thinking that this could actually be at least tax neutral, if not even a saving.

As it stands - govt pay out a lot in SW, especially to single mothers.
If instead a single mother is offered 1.5x her SW allowance, but 0.75 is actually from the govt, and the other 0.75 is from the childcare fee paid by the parents.

This means a reduced tax burden on the govt (i.e. taxpayers), reduced childcare costs for the single worker, or two worker families, and more money for the single mother employed in the state run childcare.

Why did you think this has to mean more taxes?

Also, by no means is this intended to force people into working, the whole idea is to give people more money in their pocket who already are in the situation where they are using childcare.

It's win-win as far as I can see...

Parents value THEIR work at far more than 1.5x the dole but reckon that those 'single parents' providing a childcare service are worth just peanuts. No mention of the insurance, facilities and standards now demanded and the matter of highly paid regulators and inspectors that would be required.

tails_naf

myrak wrote: »

Parents value THEIR work at far more than 1.5x the dole but reckon that those 'single parents' providing a childcare service are worth just peanuts. No mention of the insurance, facilities and standards now demanded and the matter of highly paid regulators and inspectors that would be required.

26k is peanuts? 6k extra is welcome to anyone is it not?
In the example above, I had the parents bringing in 30k each, by the way - so please read before you make some summary judgement on how people value themselves so much higher.

In fairness there are a lot of family where both parents have to work to make ends meet - its hard enough to decide to let your kids be taken care of by others all day, but then to be hit with such huge childcare costs, so you only have an extra 100 euro at the end of the week from one salary - it must be soul destroying. These people should be supported because they are doing this to live up to their financial responsibilities. And a lot of people have found themselves in very difficult times - people making sacrifices to work their way out of the debt are to be supported, instead of letting them slip deeper into a poverty trap and ending up on welfare themselves!

jackiebaron

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Here's a better solution. Don't have children if you can't afford to mind them.

What if you already have them and then they cut your wages? Burn the kid then?

jackiebaron

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

Ana36 wrote: »

does that apply to the men too?

Many hard working single parents (men and women) have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, their spouse may have died or Daddy (or Mammy) just decided they'd had enough playing " Happy Families"

What would you like these people to do with their children?....give them back?

It certainly does.

Don't care not my problem.

Jaysus but you're hard as nails, you are, boyo! How do I get to be like you?