Indo today

Pawwed Rig

Saw headline on front of Indo that creche fees were being addressed by cabinet today. I didn't get to read the article and its not online. Has anyone any of the details? I won't get to buy it until 6 or 7.

lazygal

I wouldn't hold your breath OP! The cabinet was meeting today and one item for discussion was the possibility of helping parents out in terms of measures to ease the cost of childcare. This might include a second ECCE preschool year and some other measures. However, there is a strong 'women in the home' lobby who are very vocal and will cause a lot of hassle if there is tax relief on creche fees etc. This won't be introduced any time soon and it will most likely be an election sweetener rather than anything else.

Pawwed Rig

Who are the 'women in the home' lobby?

The indo have it as the main story on the front page! So is it just a non story to shift newspapers then?

eviltwin

They were talking about this on the radio this morning. It doesn't seem to have much detail, something about easing the burden on costs for childcare and more afterschool activities which of course will benefit all children not just those of working parents. I don't know what they actually plan on doing, if anything.

nikpmup

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/action-on-childcare-crisis-is-welcome-30902474.html

lazygal

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Who are the 'women in the home' lobby?

The indo have it as the main story on the front page! So is it just a non story to shift newspapers then?

There's a lobby group who have the time and inclination to lobby tds and senators on the position of women in the home in the constitution. They'll kick up over any tax breaks on child care. David Quinn of Iona has also opposed state subsidies for children care. I have two young children and I won't be planning on subsidies any time soon.

pwurple

1999 tax individualisation changes broke the family tax system.

There used to be a tax credit for children. This was effectively used as financial support for a parent staying at home, or for childcare if both worked. It was reasonably fair for both working parents, and stay at home parents. It's just messed up now.

(PS, not that I put any credence in what Iona says on financial matters, but they were pro child tax credits very recently!
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/stayathome-parents-suffer-in-tax-system-30653360.html )

lazygal

But not pro state supports for creche services fees or 'daycare' as David Quinn persists in calling them. I can't see the government offering anything more than a second preschool year for the moment.

pwurple

lazygal wrote: »

But not pro state supports for creche services fees or 'daycare' as David Quinn persists in calling them. I can't see the government offering anything more than a second preschool year for the moment.

Well, it's the worst option, in terms of fairness, I would have thought?

1) Support creche fees directly through subsidies
Helps families where both parents work only. Pisses SAHM's off.

2) Support tax credits for children, or creche-age children
Helps families where one or both families work.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

1) Support creche fees directly through subsidies
Helps families where both parents work only. Pisses SAHM's off.

2) Support tax credits for children, or creche-age children
Helps families where one or both families work.

Why would a SAHP need to worry about creche fees?

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why would a SAHP need to worry about creche fees?

Because their spouse is paying into a tax fund to support young children, yet they can't claim anything from that fund for their own children.

mushymoo

Not falling for this sort of article - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Pre election guff. Do not be fooled. Have it on record from Michael Noonan, James Reilly etc. in past months that these are not going to be considered/feasible/policy/invested in etc. so DO NOT BELIEVE it. Check out parliamentary questions put to them on the Oireachtas website for the facts rather than media/newspaper spin. Many reports and submissions over FIVE YEARS were put to them flagging this issue and they say year on year why they are shelving it or not even doing the sums, why it is not something they will do!!!

Shameless behaviour by Labour especially trying to tackle the jobseeker's figures and numbers of women unemployed, and they know so many families struggle with housing/rent and childcare when working. They are trying to ensure support from the middle classes and allay our concerns/fend off Opposition attacks on their behaviour to the poorest families before thousands more come off OPF next July. Read between the lines.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

Because their spouse is paying into a tax fund to support young children, yet they can't claim anything from that fund for their own children.

But they are a fulltime parent so don't pay creche? Sorry genuinely confused. I would love if we could afford to stay at home.

You pay alot of things to support other people that aren't your own

eviltwin

pwurple wrote: »

Because their spouse is paying into a tax fund to support young children, yet they can't claim anything from that fund for their own children.

That's the tax system. We all pay to cover subsidies that we may never use.

ETA it would be nice to see subsidies that actually help parents have the option of staying home with their kids too

mushymoo

AH HERE. Do not be fooled.

Well do not believe that suddenly Michael Noonan has changed his mind. since 2012 he has regularly responded to requests with a "no to tax credits etc." And just in Nov in a Dail debate on 5th November 2014 (google it as cannot link here) he said:

I have no plans to introduce a tax relief for parents to assist with childcare costs. To provide such a tax relief could be seen to unfairly discriminate against those individuals who stay at home and look after their children.

While wanting to encourage female participation in the workforce, equally we cannot say to individuals who stay at home that they are making a less valuable contribution to society.

In addition, tax relief is only of benefit to those in the tax net and it is estimated that in 2014, 39% of income earners will be exempt from income tax. It could also be argued that any tax relief would most likely be absorbed by childcare providers in the form of higher prices.

As the Deputy will appreciate, I receive numerous requests for the introduction of new tax reliefs and the extension of existing ones. In considering these, I must be mindful of the public finances and the many demands on the Exchequer given the current budgetary constraints. Tax reliefs, no matter how worthwhile in themselves, reduce the tax base and make general reform of the tax system that much more difficult.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But they are a fulltime parent so don't pay creche? Sorry genuinely confused. I would love if we could afford to stay at home.

You pay alot of things to support other people that aren't your own

Small changes in government policies can influence behaviour drastically. Remember the plastic bag tax? Absolutely tiny amount of money involved, but plastic bags are virtually wiped out in a few years because it makes more monetary sense to re-use.

If you subsidise families only where two parents are working, you disincentivise families where one parent works. They are not getting that subsidy, so there is an imbalance. When they do the sums to figure out whether one person can stay home or not, the difference in net income between two people working, and one person working has widened even further. So even less people would do it... just like less people use plastic bags.

I don't see what that would add to society, so it's not a policy I would support.

I would support a return to tax credit for small children, so ALL working families can either use the credit for supporting the parent staying at home doing the childcare, or using other childcare if they both work. Their choice.

ariana`

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But they are a fulltime parent so don't pay creche? Sorry genuinely confused. I would love if we could afford to stay at home.

You pay alot of things to support other people that aren't your own

You're right to be confused. In this country you get free/subsidised child-care (Community Creches) if you have 2 parents unemployed (ie. at home) or 1 parent unemployed and the other parent on a low income.

In most other countries in Europe you get free/subsidised child-care if both parents are out working.

As usual we seem to have this a bit a*seways :rolleyes:

eviltwin

ariana` wrote: »

You're right to be confused. In this country you get free/subsidised child-care (Community Creches) if you have 2 parents unemployed (ie. at home) or 1 parent unemployed and the other parent on a low income.

In most other countries in Europe you get free/subsidised child-care if both parents are out working.

As usual we seem to have this a bit a*seways :rolleyes:

That's to help people on welfare get back into education and work so they can get out of welfare. Its a good idea.

Pawwed Rig

I don't think the country has the money to be tossing around through universal un means tested benefits that FF/PD seemed to love. a tax relief at source could be provided where you avail of the services of a creche similar to health insurance.

pwurple wrote: »

If you subsidise families only where two parents are working, you disincentivise families where one parent works. They are not getting that subsidy, so there is an imbalance. When they do the sums to figure out whether one person can stay home or not, the difference in net income between two people working, and one person working has widened even further.

I don't understand how you disincentivise familes where only 1 parent works. They are still way ahead of the curve in so far as they get to stay at home and raise their child which imho is worth much more than a tax credit.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think the country has the money to be tossing around through universal un means tested benefits that FF/PD seemed to love. a tax relief at source could be provided where you avail of the services of a creche similar to health insurance.

If the country doesn't have the money to toss around, one could argue that families with two fully employed adults are the last ones on the list who should get anything whatsoever.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't understand how you disincentivise familes where only 1 parent works. They are still way ahead of the curve in so far as they get to stay at home and raise their child which imho is worth much more than a tax credit.

I'm not talking about sentimentality. I'm talking about cold, hard, tangible, measurable, cash. Sentimentality goes completely out the window when you are under pressure financially.

Have you been to china, anywhere in africa, south america, the philippines.... ? If so, you'll have seen how people make this decision very clearly in action. People all over the world leave their children with relatives to go find work thousands of miles away, or send them away because they can't find local childcare. They could "survive" at a subsistance level and spend more time with the children, or lose the time spent with them, and try to improve the children's future. That's the extreme end of it, but the same decision is made by families here. Will I miss some time with the children now, in order to gain a better future for them? Finances outweighs that non-tangible asset the vast majority of the time.

Making it more expensive to be a stay at home parent will obviously have an effect. I'd ask if that's an effect we want?

ariana`

eviltwin wrote: »

That's to help people on welfare get back into education and work so they can get out of welfare. Its a good idea.

That's fine if it's controlled in such a way as they only get the incentive if they are actually using the time that they have free from parenting for educational purposes or in the pursuit of meaningful employment. But as this would be a mega challenge to monitor this i imagine it's not being done and at least some are using it for less than desirable purposes which is frustrating and questionable to the tax paying parents.

Sligo1

pwurple wrote: »

Small changes in government policies can influence behaviour drastically. Remember the plastic bag tax? Absolutely tiny amount of money involved, but plastic bags are virtually wiped out in a few years because it makes more monetary sense to re-use.

If you subsidise families only where two parents are working, you disincentivise families where one parent works. They are not getting that subsidy, so there is an imbalance. When they do the sums to figure out whether one person can stay home or not, the difference in net income between two people working, and one person working has widened even further. So even less people would do it... just like less people use plastic bags.

I don't see what that would add to society, so it's not a policy I would support.

I would support a return to tax credit for small children, so ALL working families can either use the credit for supporting the parent staying at home doing the childcare, or using other childcare if they both work. Their choice.

Ever tried your hand at politics pwurple?? .

Sligo1

You articulate things very well .

Neyite

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think the country has the money to be tossing around through universal un means tested benefits that FF/PD seemed to love. a tax relief at source could be provided where you avail of the services of a creche similar to health insurance.


I don't understand how you disincentivise familes where only 1 parent works. They are still way ahead of the curve in so far as they get to stay at home and raise their child which imho is worth much more than a tax credit.

Two points that strike me: A tax relief at source to me is a bad idea. We had that with health insurance and all the insurance companies did was ramp up the premiums so that people were paying similar amounts anyway.

Creche's will do the same when they know you can claim tax relief, citing increases in operating costs etc. End result, you'll still be paying the guts of what you do now shortly. Another similar example is rent allowance - Landlords put up the rent knowing it gets subsidised. So rents stay high regardless. That's why a tax credit would suit better. It might cover one parent to work part time, or to stay at home entirely. The only drawback I can see with the tax credit system is that you cannot transfer unused credits unless married so that would need to change.

The other point is that there are many single adult families. So they cant opt to stay at home. To offer a benefit only to two-parent households is discriminatory to them.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

Have you been to china, anywhere in africa, south america, the philippines.... ? If so, you'll have seen how people make this decision very clearly in action. People all over the world leave their children with relatives to go find work thousands of miles away, or send them away because they can't find local childcare. They could "survive" at a subsistance level and spend more time with the children, or lose the time spent with them, and try to improve the children's future. That's the extreme end of it, but the same decision is made by families here. Will I miss some time with the children now, in order to gain a better future for them? Finances outweighs that non-tangible asset the vast majority of the time.

We don't need to compare ourselves with third world countries. If we were to do that then there would be no reason for discussion on any topic as it could always be worse.

pwurple wrote: »

Making it more expensive to be a stay at home parent will obviously have an effect. I'd ask if that's an effect we want?

It wouldn't be more expensive to stay at home, it would be cheaper to work though.

Pawwed Rig

Neyite wrote: »

Two points that strike me: A tax relief at source to me is a bad idea. We had that with health insurance and all the insurance companies did was ramp up the premiums so that people were paying similar amounts anyway.

Creche's will do the same when they know you can claim tax relief, citing increases in operating costs etc. End result, you'll still be paying the guts of what you do now shortly. Another similar example is rent allowance - Landlords put up the rent knowing it gets subsidised. So rents stay high regardless. That's why a tax credit would suit better. It might cover one parent to work part time, or to stay at home entirely. The only drawback I can see with the tax credit system is that you cannot transfer unused credits unless married so that would need to change.

I don't agree with any of that but it is another days discussion.

Neyite wrote: »

The other point is that there are many single adult families. So they cant opt to stay at home. To offer a benefit only to two-parent households is discriminatory to them.

I wouldn't personally only offer relief to two parent families. They should be able to claim a credit too.

eviltwin

We should be doing what we can to encourage parents to stay at home. Its not ideal that children spend their days in creche. One parent should be at home where possible. I would like to see help given to working families to allow them to do that. While I agree childcare is a huge cost it shouldn't be a priority.

Neyite

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't agree with any of that but it is another days discussion.

Fair enough. I've worked in the insurance industry, specifically health insurance and processing payments to hospitals, and I've seen it in action myself unfortunately. I'd love to believe it wouldn't happen, but the way that things work in this country...

If I'm currently paying 800 a month for a creche, and the government provide tax relief at source of, say, 100, the crèche already know that I can afford to pay 800, so they will simply put the fee up to 900, maybe over a period of time, but most will. Well, that's my theory anyway.

People will grumble initially, but when you find a good crèche where your child is familiar with his minders, is happy and has friends there, where its convenient to your commute, and there are no other suitable alternatives for the same money in the area, you'll likely stay put for the year or two until school going age.

It would be interesting to see what a poll might reveal - if you want I could add one to the thread - say, tax relief at source, tax credits, extra year of ECCE, or whatever other options might be suggested.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

We should be doing what we can to encourage parents to stay at home. Its not ideal that children spend their days in creche. One parent should be at home where possible. I would like to see help given to working families to allow them to do that. While I agree childcare is a huge cost it shouldn't be a priority.

Not everyone wants to stay home. I and my husband grew up with two working parents and we appreciate the benefits this gave us. Neither I or my husband have any inclination towards being stay at home parents, and I wouldn't want to be put under pressure to feel I had to stay home. I know I'm a better parent because I work outside the home and I don't know how parents stay home full time-I take my hat off to them because I don't think I would be able for it. A year of maternity leave was enough for me.

Neyite

eviltwin wrote: »

We should be doing what we can to encourage parents to stay at home. Its not ideal that children spend their days in creche. One parent should be at home where possible. I would like to see help given to working families to allow them to do that. While I agree childcare is a huge cost it shouldn't be a priority.

Even encouraging employers through tax breaks and incentives to be more flexible and family friendly would help greatly.

I feel that having maternity leave transferrable between partners would level the playing field for all employees and prevent women's careers stalling or stagnating. It would also discourage employers from discriminating when hiring women in their mid-twenties to late thirties. Yes yes, I know its illegal but it does happen, just the male is a better 'fit' for the company yanno. In a family where the mother is the primary earner this flexibility in leave-taking would be of huge benefit.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

Not everyone wants to stay home. I and my husband grew up with two working parents and we appreciate the benefits this gave us. Neither I or my husband have any inclination towards being stay at home parents, and I wouldn't want to be put under pressure to feel I had to stay home. I know I'm a better parent because I work outside the home and I don't know how parents stay home full time-I take my hat off to them because I don't think I would be able for it. A year of maternity leave was enough for me.

I know that but plenty do, plenty hate going into work but have no option. There is a lot of benefits to a child being at home so it makes sense to give those families the chance to do that. Its fine being at work if you are happy there and enjoy it, its hell when you just want to be with your child.

Its not about sahp vs wohp. Its a personal choice at the end of the day. I love being at home but I also need to work so I'm stuck doing part time. It means I can be here for the kids but I'd much rather not have to work at all.

seventeen sheep

eviltwin wrote: »

We should be doing what we can to encourage parents to stay at home. Its not ideal that children spend their days in creche. One parent should be at home where possible. I would like to see help given to working families to allow them to do that. While I agree childcare is a huge cost it shouldn't be a priority.

It's not ideal in some families that children spend their days in creche. In some families one parent should stay at home where possible.

In other families, where both parents are working, it's not suitable (or ideal) for one parent to quit their job. After all, they might only have made the decision to start a family on the basis that they can comfortable afford it. And some parents do actually enjoy having a working life outside of the home, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of this. Similarly, many children will be far better off in a creche than spending all their time at home (particularly with single children.)

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

Not everyone wants to stay home. I and my husband grew up with two working parents and we appreciate the benefits this gave us. Neither I or my husband have any inclination towards being stay at home parents, and I wouldn't want to be put under pressure to feel I had to stay home. I know I'm a better parent because I work outside the home and I don't know how parents stay home full time-I take my hat off to them because I don't think I would be able for it. A year of maternity leave was enough for me.

Most women I've spoken to would prefer a balanced approach, myself included. Getting out and conversing with adults, keeping CPD and skills updated but having the option to work from home more, or reduce their working week a bit so that the crèche hours aren't as long for young children.

eviltwin

seventeen sheep wrote: »

It's not ideal in some families that children spend their days in creche. In some families one parent should stay at home where possible.

In other families, where both parents are working, it's not suitable (or ideal) for one parent to quit their job. After all, they might only have made the decision to start a family on the basis that they can comfortable afford it. And some parents do actually enjoy having a working life outside of the home, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of this. Similarly, many children will be far better off in a creche than spending all their time at home (particularly with single children.)

I can't imagine there are many families out there putting their kids into creche for 8am so they can be in work for 9 and not getting them until 6 or 7 find that ideal. I was on that hamster wheel for years and its not living.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't imagine there are many families out there putting their kids into creche for 8am so they can be in work for 9 and not getting them until 6 or 7 find that ideal. I was on that hamster wheel for years and its not living.

But the point is that once you create an incentive to stay at home this can become an expectation, like how the marriage bar which strictly speaking only applied to civil servants became standard in lots of other places. Just because you don't see why parents do x or y doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for doing it. Maybe they're building up a business so they can pay for private schools or university fees in the future so they trade off the time now.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It wouldn't be more expensive to stay at home, it would be cheaper to work though.

You don't see how that's the same thing?



Let's run some numbers... I've used the deloitte tax calculator for 2015.

Current situation
Couple A, both working, two children in creche. (assuming creche~1200 per month)
Gross earnings - 80k.
Monthly Net Income €5,086.00
Monthly Net Income less Creche €3,886.00


Couple B, one working, same earning power as couple A, but one stays at home.
Gross earnings - 55k.
Monthly Net Income €3,443.00

Difference between couple A and couple B currently = 443 euro per month extra for couple A. Couple B decides it's not worth it for spouse to go to work for 443 euro, happy to stay at home.


Proposed situation with a creche subsidy of 300 euro per month per child... I've picked that number from the air
Couple A, both working, two children in creche. (assuming creche~1200 per month, subsidy = 600)
Gross earnings - 80k.
Monthly Net Income €5,086.00
Monthly Net Income less Creche €4,486.00

Couple B, one working, one at home, all the same.
Gross Earnings 55k.
Monthly Net Income €3,443.00


Difference between couple A and couple B with a subsidy in place = 1043 euro per month extra for couple A. Couple B thinks... wow, that's a lot of money there, harder for us to justify staying at home.


With subsidy, there is a net loss of 1043 euro a month for the stay at home parent family, instead of the previous net loss of 443 euro.



I want us all to have a relatively equal choice between both working, or staying at home. Without the government intervening in shoving us one way or another.

lazygal

Neyite wrote: »

Most women I've spoken to would prefer a balanced approach, myself included. Getting out and conversing with adults, keeping CPD and skills updated but having the option to work from home more, or reduce their working week a bit so that the crèche hours aren't as long for young children.

But loads of people would prefer a more balanced approach to work that has nothing to do with having children-maybe they have to care for a family member or want to work on personal projects. Between maternity leave and parental leave, there's a fair amount there already. I'm not saying the system is perfect, because it isn't, but just because you might prefer X or Y doesn't mean the government has to make it so. I look on working while my children are young as an investment in me and my family. It has its drawbacks but the benefits outweigh them for me, and this is only a short time out of a long working life, especially given the shifting retirement age.

pwurple

Sligo1 wrote: »

Ever tried your hand at politics pwurple?? .

Thanks Sligo1, but no chance! I'd be bald from tearing my hair out.

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

But loads of people would prefer a more balanced approach to work that has nothing to do with having children-maybe they have to care for a family member or want to work on personal projects. Between maternity leave and parental leave, there's a fair amount there already. I'm not saying the system is perfect, because it isn't, but just because you might prefer X or Y doesn't mean the government has to make it so. I look on working while my children are young as an investment in me and my family. It has its drawbacks but the benefits outweigh them for me, and this is only a short time out of a long working life, especially given the shifting retirement age.

I was speaking for myself. I agree that there should be more flexibility in relation to all types of family requirements. The area of caring for our elderly and disabled I'd also welcome wholeheartedly. But this thread is about childcare specifically.

Pawwed Rig

Neyite wrote: »

Even encouraging employers through tax breaks and incentives to be more flexible and family friendly would help greatly.

I feel that having maternity leave transferrable between partners would level the playing field for all employees and prevent women's careers stalling or stagnating. It would also discourage employers from discriminating when hiring women in their mid-twenties to late thirties. Yes yes, I know its illegal but it does happen, just the male is a better 'fit' for the company yanno. In a family where the mother is the primary earner this flexibility in leave-taking would be of huge benefit.

I've been banging this drum for years. Where maternity leave is transferable it would reduce the perceived risk involved for an employer of hiring a woman along with allowing for (what imo) the basic rights of a father to spend time with his child. It is a win win for a family but there would have to be an obligatory portion for each or else employers would be putting alot of pressure on people not to take their entitlements.

There is no reason for maternity leave to be the sole domain of the woman other than the sexist assumption that man = provider and woman = carer.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

You don't see how that's the same thing?

I do, I was highlighting more that it depends on how you look at it

According to a recent Growing Up in Ireland report, just 27% of children being cared for outside the home are in crèches.
The remainder in care are minded by relatives or minders.

This sounds like a pre election sweetener alright.

ariana`

Neyite wrote: »

Two points that strike me: A tax relief at source to me is a bad idea. We had that with health insurance and all the insurance companies did was ramp up the premiums so that people were paying similar amounts anyway.

Creche's will do the same when they know you can claim tax relief, citing increases in operating costs etc. End result, you'll still be paying the guts of what you do now shortly. Another similar example is rent allowance - Landlords put up the rent knowing it gets subsidised. So rents stay high regardless. That's why a tax credit would suit better. It might cover one parent to work part time, or to stay at home entirely. The only drawback I can see with the tax credit system is that you cannot transfer unused credits unless married so that would need to change.

The other point is that there are many single adult families. So they cant opt to stay at home. To offer a benefit only to two-parent households is discriminatory to them.

It's unfortunate but service providers will always try to make more if there's more money to be made! There's talks of 2nd free pre-school year but for example my experience of the free pre-school year in my kids' creche

My expectation was they would deduct the amount they were given from the Dept from my weekly fee and charge me the remainder.

But instead they deducted the 3 hours (15 hours weekly) from the number of hours my child spent there and charged me an hourly rate for the remaining hours.

So ok my fees went down but not by nearly as much as i expected and so while a 2nd ECCE year would still be a help, it wouldn't be as big a help as the Dept. intends because the service provider can twist it to benefit themselves.

pwurple

ariana` wrote: »

It's unfortunate but service providers will always try to make more if there's more money to be made! There's talks of 2nd free pre-school year but for example my experience of the free pre-school year in my kids' creche

My expectation was they would deduct the amount they were given from the Dept from my weekly fee and charge me the remainder.

But instead they deducted the 3 hours (15 hours weekly) from the number of hours my child spent there and charged me an hourly rate for the remaining hours.

So ok my fees went down but not by nearly as much as i expected and so while a 2nd ECCE year would still be a help, it wouldn't be as big a help as the Dept. intends because the service provider can twist it to benefit themselves.

That's bloody cheeky. Mine took it off the monthly amount.

ariana`

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no reason for maternity leave to be the sole domain of the woman other than the sexist assumption that man = provider and woman = carer.

I suppose it is because the woman carried the child and is also recovering herself for part of the maternity leave. And women traditionally would be needed to be on hand to feed the baby. But I agree this is out of date now. There should be a period e.g. the first 6-8wks that the woman must take but after this it should be transferrable but i think this is a bit new age for our Govt. This isn't even being done in countries like Sweden yet, or is it?

Neyite

ariana` wrote: »

I suppose it is because the woman carried the child and is also recovering herself for part of the maternity leave. And women traditionally would be needed to be on hand to feed the baby. But I agree this is out of date now. There should be a period e.g. the first 6-8wks that the woman must take but after this it should be transferrable but i think this is a bit new age for our Govt. This isn't even being done in countries like Sweden yet, or is it?

No, it is. I'd love it if we had anything resembling the Swedish model. From the link:

How many parent leave days are you entitled to?
Parents are entitled to 480 days of parent leave for each child. If you have twins you are entitled to an additional 180 days.
How are these days divided between parents?
Parents are encouraged to split these days equally between them. If you do this, you will be entitled to an additional equality bonus.
However, it is possible for one parent to take up to 420 days of the 480 days. To do this the other parent has to ‘give these days’ to the other parent.
The only exception to this rule is for single parents with sole custody. In these cases, the parent can take all 480 days leave.
Can both parents take parent leave at the same time:
Yes. During the first 3 months of the new baby’s life, the father is entitled to be home for 10 days. These days are in addition to the 480 parent days.
In addition to these first 10 days, both parents are able to be home together for 30 days during your child’s first year. These are called ‘double days’ because you get 2 days of parent leave deducted – one day for each parent.
Can an employer deny parental leave?
No. Parental leave is a legal right for all parents in Sweden. This means a company cannot deny your request for leave for any reason. Companies, in addition to the 480 parent leave days per child, are also entitled to allow you to reduce your working hours by an additional 25%.
Note: You can reduce your working hours up to 25% even if your parental leave days have been used up, however, you will not be compensated for these reduced working hours.
Let’s Talk Money

How much money?
Now things start getting much more complicated. Your parental leave payment really depends on your personal circumstances, your immigration status, the amount of days you have been living and/or working in Sweden, your salary, and whether you have been working for the last 240 days.
Basic Level of Benefit (even if you have not worked in Sweden)
As long as you are a legal resident of Sweden you are entitled to the basic parental leave payment which is 180 SEK a day. This means you are eligible even if you have not been earning money in Sweden prior to your child’s birth. However, if you receiving parental benefits from other countries, this amount will be docked from your Swedish benefit.
Parent leave payment range:
If you are a legal resident of Sweden, have been legally working here for the last 240 days then in most cases you will be entitled to 80% of your salary for the first 420 days of your parent leave. The maximum daily payment is capped at 910 SEK a day.

The 6 month paid maternity in Ireland corresponds to the government initiative to encourage breastfeeding to six months, so in theory, we get the maternity leave to feed our child. Not necessarily to recover or to look after them. In the late 80's maternity leave was about 3 months long.

seventeen sheep

ariana` wrote: »

It's unfortunate but service providers will always try to make more if there's more money to be made! There's talks of 2nd free pre-school year but for example my experience of the free pre-school year in my kids' creche

My expectation was they would deduct the amount they were given from the Dept from my weekly fee and charge me the remainder.

But instead they deducted the 3 hours (15 hours weekly) from the number of hours my child spent there and charged me an hourly rate for the remaining hours.

So ok my fees went down but not by nearly as much as i expected and so while a 2nd ECCE year would still be a help, it wouldn't be as big a help as the Dept. intends because the service provider can twist it to benefit themselves.

So do the government pay a set rate per child to any childcare facility? Does it differ with location? If so, what is the rate?

Sorry - my baby isn't near that stage yet, so I haven't looked into the scheme. I kind of took it at face value, that he'd get three hours per day free. Seemingly not.

ariana` wrote: »

I suppose it is because the woman carried the child and is also recovering herself for part of the maternity leave. And women traditionally would be needed to be on hand to feed the baby. But I agree this is out of date now. There should be a period e.g. the first 6-8wks that the woman must take but after this it should be transferrable but i think this is a bit new age for our Govt. This isn't even being done in countries like Sweden yet, or is it?

It is, as far as I know? In all of the Scandinavian countries.

pwurple

seventeen sheep wrote: »

So do the government pay a set rate per child to any childcare facility? Does it differ with location? If so, what is the rate?

Sorry - my baby isn't near that stage yet, so I haven't looked into the scheme. I kind of took it at face value, that he'd get three hours per day free. Seemingly not.

If it's just the 3 hours a day, then it is free.... within school term. So doesn't include mid-terms, christmas, easter, summer etc. If you have them in 4 hours a day, or during midterms etc, then you negotiate that with them.

It is, as far as I know? In all of the Scandinavian countries.

And canada, new zealand, australia too maybe?

ariana`

seventeen sheep wrote: »

So do the government pay a set rate per child to any childcare facility? Does it differ with location? If so, what is the rate?

Sorry - my baby isn't near that stage yet, so I haven't looked into the scheme. I kind of took it at face value, that he'd get three hours per day free. Seemingly not.

There are 2 different rates paid to the childcare/educational facility depending on the qualification of the teacher. My creche get the higher rate which is in the region of €63.xx (open to correction on this) per week. Instead of deducting €63.xx per week from my weekly bill, they deducted 3 hrs per day from his hours and recalculated his weekly fee using an hourly rate, (instead of the daily/half-daily rate). So technically he did get his free 3 hrs per day that he was entitled to, but the childcare facility managed to gain the maximum payment possible for him between what they got from the govt. and what they got from me

meeeeh

When Sweden is being cited as an example, it also has the highest rate of working mothers. (Source: http://europa.eu/epic/countries/sweden/index_en.htm )
If you increase the female productivity, decrease financi reliance on the partner which means greater independence and so on, I am sure there is a lot easier to offer better leave conditions. It might be my cultural background but I really dislike the concept of stay at home parents because it just perpetuates inequalities in society and I think state should try to discourage it as much as possible. I really don't understand how subsidized childcare would discriminate stay at home parents. Nobody is forcing them not to work.

iguana

meeeeh wrote: »

Nobody is forcing them not to work.

They do work. They do the work of looking after their children. A job that a huge amount of parents actually want to do and that many are forced not to do because they can't afford it. It is desperately unfair to create a situation whereby single income families are subsidising double income families which is in part what state sponsored childcare means. The former tax credit system pwurple has described or even the more recent Early Childcare Supplement, where all families received a grant for each preschool child, was fairer as families could either use the extra income to supplement a single income to help allow one parent provide the childcare, or it allowed other families to subsidise the payment of a third party for provision of childcare. It allowed choice and helped families do what suited them as a family rather than pushing every family in the same direction.

I know it's just anecdote but at least half of the working mothers I know hate it and are desperate to be at home with their children. While lots have a career they love and others feel stir crazy at home and need their time in the workplace to give their lives balance, many women and quite a few men deeply desire to spend their days being the fulltime career of their child but can absolutely not afford to. Their choice needs to be respected in the same way as that of working parents.