Why does childcare cost so much in Ireland?

422nd

I love how it's a crime to make a profit these days.

josip

422nd wrote: »

I love how it's a crime to make a profit these days.

Not a crime to make a profit per se, but if profit is prioritised ahead of child safety then it may very well be a crime.

wolfpawnat

422nd wrote: »

I love how it's a crime to make a profit these days.

No it is not and it is to be encouraged. But it is damaging to the economy if it is too high because it keeps parents from returning to work.

Also, if health and safety is breached, it becomes a legal minefield.

josip

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Also, if health and safety is breached, it becomes a legal minefield.

Legal minefield wouldn't have been my first concern for health and safety breaches.
Things like children loosing fingers would surely be of greater concern than say, having to deal with the solicitors.

wolfpawnat

josip wrote: »

Legal minefield wouldn't have been my first concern for health and safety breaches.
Things like children loosing fingers would surely be of greater concern than say, having to deal with the solicitors.

Of course, but since the post I was replying to was about "is it a crime to make a profit" what profit would be made would be shelled out double time on court and compensation fees.

My old concern would ever be, the welfare. Less hands means more work, means more slipping through the cracks. Everything from unchanged nappies, to getting onto furniture and falling, etc.

Dravokivich

Bog Standard User wrote: »

no creche fees and 5 families per group get free child care

Mam/Dad A minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on monday
Mam/Dad B minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on tuesday
Mam/Dad C minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on wednesday
Mam/Dad D minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on thursday
Mam/Dad E minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on friday

Although, that also equates to a possible week of wages each month. Granted it's less than paying for childcare over all, but it'll require 4/5 days off a month, which I really don't think is managable in the long term.

Bog Standard User

Dravokivich wrote: »

Although, that also equates to a possible week of wages each month. Granted it's less than paying for childcare over all, but it'll require 4/5 days off a month, which I really don't think is managable in the long term.

not really.... there is 7 days in a week

if you make the group of 7 families with at least two of the parents working weekends and off weekdays it could work

also if you have more than 1 child the savings are alot more

Dravokivich

Bog Standard User wrote: »

not really.... there is 7 days in a week

if you make the group of 7 families with at least two of the parents working weekends and off weekdays it could work

also if you have more than 1 child the savings are alot more

Weekends would rarely come into it, as the need for childcare is predominantly with the working week being Monday to Friday. Also, by saying hard to manage, I meant as not many places of employment would facilitate such a thing.

tin79

Bog Standard User wrote: »

not really.... there is 7 days in a week

if you make the group of 7 families with at least two of the parents working weekends and off weekdays it could work

also if you have more than 1 child the savings are alot more

That's honestly one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever read, even for AH its pretty spectacular.

seamus

tin79 wrote: »

That's honestly one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever read, even for AH its pretty spectacular.

To be fair, it's not that bad, you can see where he's coming from.

But the logistical nightmare of finding 7 families for whom this arrangement would work, is the very reason why people have to pay for childcare.

How many parents have 7 friends for whom this arrangement could work, and that they trust to properly look after their children? When one employer decides to change someone's hours, or someone has a funeral to attend at the time they're supposed to be minding children, everyone's plans are thrown into turmoil.

gg2

Trigger Happy wrote: »

It is horses for courses.
In the case I quoted the reasons I would not want to leave my child are the following.
She was caring for her elderly parent in the same house. It is hard enough to care for a number of children but to add an elderly parent on top leads me to wonder if the kids get the attention they need.
She was un insured which worries me should anything happen to one of the kids.
She is not paying tax which I do not like.
I would need to coincide my holidays with hers.
If she got sick then I would need to take time off work.
She has no qualifications, how would I know that my child was getting properly cared for and his development needs met etc.

These are the reasons I would not use the woman for my childcare and why I prefer using a crèche. As I said, other parents feel different and so be it.

Sorry, what I see in your post is that a parent who allows a person like this to care for a child must not be in their right minds.
I understand the tax element, its a major gripe for all of us, however I could be completely wrong in this, but there is some exemptions in place. However we all know this type of work is abused when it comes to tax.
All I'm saying is that the majority of women doing this kind of work have been doing it years and have a reputation for the care they give the children they are looking after, to suggest their parents are not "in their right minds" is completely wrong. A person could have all sorts of qualifications in childcare but could treat a child appallingly in their home, I find it hard to imagine a parent would not cop on to that right away though.

Menas

gg2 wrote: »

Sorry, what I see in your post is that a parent who allows a person like this to care for a child must not be in their right minds.
I understand the tax element, its a major gripe for all of us, however I could be completely wrong in this, but there is some exemptions in place. However we all know this type of work is abused when it comes to tax.
All I'm saying is that the majority of women doing this kind of work have been doing it years and have a reputation for the care they give the children they are looking after, to suggest their parents are not "in their right minds" is completely wrong. A person could have all sorts of qualifications in childcare but could treat a child appallingly in their home, I find it hard to imagine a parent would not cop on to that right away though.

Point taken!

Cienciano

Funny reading the earlier posts in the thread where people think minding kids is easy! Bless

gemini_girl

Bog Standard User wrote: »

child clubs might be an answer

if a number of parents created a group where each parent must mind the group's kids for 1 working day there there would be no charge.

the parent who earns the least could try getting 1 day off during the week to mind the group's children
if 5 parents were involved then each parent would be required to work one day minding all the kids

they can still work a 5 day week if the other parent is willing to mind their own kids on a saturday or sunday

no creche fees and 5 families per group get free child care

Mam/Dad A minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on monday
Mam/Dad B minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on tuesday
Mam/Dad C minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on wednesday
Mam/Dad D minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on thursday
Mam/Dad E minds kids for Mam A, B, C, D, E on friday

Are you saying that these children should have a different minder every single day??? How is that the best possible care for small developing children???

astrofool

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, it's not that bad, you can see where he's coming from.

But the logistical nightmare of finding 7 families for whom this arrangement would work, is the very reason why people have to pay for childcare.

How many parents have 7 friends for whom this arrangement could work, and that they trust to properly look after their children? When one employer decides to change someone's hours, or someone has a funeral to attend at the time they're supposed to be minding children, everyone's plans are thrown into turmoil.

Ah now, it's a complete heap of sh*te, it's basically a barter system, how about the parents work those single days, and collectively pay a professional minder to do the same thing....

Tombo2001

WhiteTiger wrote: »

I dont do all my housework when my kids are at home (3 yrs & 5 yrs). They are involved in the meal prep etc but I get up before them in the morning to do housework & the rest gets done after they go to bed at 7pm. At the week end they get 1 hour of tv & thats when the hoovering is done as that cant be done after bed. The rest of the time we mostly play apart from meals where they love to wash veg etc for me. I dont know any parent who can do loads of house work with small kids, sure they cant be let unsupervised during activities etc not when they are small anyway

Not trying to be smart, but kids do play on their own sometimes.

Doesn't mean they are not supervised, just means you don't have to be giving them all of your attention all of the time.

Tombo2001

tin79 wrote: »

That's honestly one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever read, even for AH its pretty spectacular.

The old Christmas spirit hasn't hit yet obviously......

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

pwurple wrote: »

It takes an estimated 125k to raise a child from baby to adulthood these days.

How many kids in your family? 2? 3? Let me know when you've 375k in cash handy ready to go. Oh yeah, and you must still be under age 35 as well, you know, for fertility, risk of birth defects etc.

What's your political slogan... children are for lotto winners only?

My slogan is have children if you can afford them otherwise you're just being selfish.

Dravokivich

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My slogan is have children if you can afford them otherwise you're just being selfish.

My slogan is think of a better slogan.

pwurple

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My slogan is have children if you can afford them otherwise you're just being selfish.

How loaded were your parents?

gemini_girl

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Not trying to be smart, but kids do play on their own sometimes.

Doesn't mean they are not supervised, just means you don't have to be giving them all of your attention all of the time.

Oh I agree absolutely. The cup of tea I usually get to drink hot is when the boys throw on the rain gear & head out the back for 30 mins. I can sit by the back door watching but get to drink my tea too (most of the time!) My youngest is just turned 3 so he still needs constant suervision though

gemini_girl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My slogan is have children if you can afford them otherwise you're just being selfish.

That just doesnt make sense. My husband was working full time when we decided to have our children. Then he lost his job the day our 2nd son was due. You cant always see into the future & know whats going to happen