Pay Parents to Stay Home with Baby for 12 Months?

_Roz_

Article here.

Just wondering what people think. Unsurprisingly the majority think this should be the case. I, also unsurprisingly, as someone who has no interest in kids, thinks it mad that anyone feels they're entitled to full financial support for a year for a lifestyle choice they've made. You already get a chunk of money every week for the child once it's born like.

amcalester

Its a bit simplistic to call raising children a lifestyle choice.

Hector Bellend

amcalester wrote: »

Its a bit simplistic to call raising children a lifestyle choice.

It is a choice isnt it?

Silane

When you retire you will also get a chunk of money every week, just for being old, that money will come from other people's "lifestyle choices". That being said I think the current system is generous enough, and I have 1 year old.

amcalester

Hector Bellend wrote: »

It is a choice isnt it?

It's a choice for the individual but on a population level it's a necessity.

nice_guy80

the parents spending time with their kids will be of huge benefit to the family and society

shoving them into childcare at 6 months definitely isn't the answer

Kingp35

Silane wrote: »

When you retire you will also get a chunk of money every week, just for being old, that money will come from other people's "lifestyle choices". That being said I think the current system is generous enough, and I have 1 year old.

It comes from your PRSI contributions that you've made throughout your working life. Provided you actually worked of course.

The_Valeyard

Hector Bellend wrote: »

It is a choice isnt it?

Its a 24/7/365 job.


Constant fear wrapped up in sleep deprivation mixed with all your valuables slowly getting destroyed over time.

Hector Bellend

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Its a 24/7/365 job.


Constant fear wrapped up in sleep deprivation mixed with all your valuables slowly getting destroyed over time.

After youve made a conscious decision and effort to conceive

The_Valeyard

Hector Bellend wrote: »

After youve made a conscious decision and effort to conceive

Im sure theres a point in here somewhere.

Mitch Connor

Kingp35 wrote: »

It comes from your PRSI contributions that you've made throughout your working life. Provided you actually worked of course.

In reality that isn't the case though.

It is the taxes being paid by the working population that pays the pensions - without people having kids you don't have those taxes and the economy collapses.

An economy needs people to have families. Where that is the case, having families should be encouraged, incentivised and supported.

That said, I wouldn't agree with fully paid year - that is too much.

(And you could also get into a population control discussion too)

Billy86

The most important part in my opinion is getting rid of maternity leave in favour of parental leave - as things are many mothers, fathers and their children suffer needlessly from our dated-as-f*** system.

Silane

Kingp35 wrote: »

It comes from your PRSI contributions that you've made throughout your working life. Provided you actually worked of course.

PRSI doesn't cut it, the only way the systems stays solvent is if the population grows. There's currently 5 workers for every pensioner, at the current rate of growth there will be 2 workers per pensioner by 2050.

amcalester

Kingp35 wrote: »

It comes from your PRSI contributions that you've made throughout your working life. Provided you actually worked of course.

It doesn't really, your contributions aren't ring fenced for your future withdrawal.

Paying your contributions entitles you to receive a payment at a future date, but it'll be funded by the people paying in at that time.

Billy86

Hector Bellend wrote: »

After youve made a conscious decision and effort to conceive

Not every pregnancy is planned, and while it may change by the end of the year, currently it is illegal to abort an unplanned abortion in Ireland. Even if the 8th is repealed there is a good chance that 'unplanned' pregnancies will still be illegal to abort.

siblers

Hector Bellend wrote: »

It is a choice isnt it?

Not if the baby was an accident

super_furry

I'd agree with the proposal to an extent. Give a couple 12 months between the two of them to use the leave as they see fit. Two weeks paternal leave is nowhere near enough for a father and it's a big wrench to have to go back to work that early.

Mitch Connor

It doesn't matter if it is a choice or not.

Family life should be supported by public policy. The degree to which it should be supported is up for debate, but the support itself should not be.

We need people to have children. Cause we need those kids to grow up, join the work force, pay taxes, run the businesses and, yes, Government, in the future. We need people to become doctors and teachers, nurses and gardai etc.

The country NEEDS people to have kids in order to continue to function. So, why shouldn't the Government also support and help in that?

Kingp35

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The country NEEDS people to have kids in order to continue to function. So, why shouldn't the Government also support and help in that?

How much (in monetary terms) do suggest the government give to support parents and where do you suggest this money comes from?

Our social benefits bill is already astronomical as it is.

georgina toadbum

_Roz_ wrote: »

Just wondering what people think. Unsurprisingly the majority think this should be the case. I, also unsurprisingly, as someone who has no interest in kids, thinks it mad that anyone feels they're entitled to full financial support for a year for a lifestyle choice they've made. You already get a chunk of money every week for the child once it's born like.

Contraception isn't 100%. They may not have made the choice willingly. Also, abortion is still illegal in this country so they have no other option but to keep it.

*Before people start to think I'm pro-life, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the facts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Outkast_IRE

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Less support aimed at everyone and more support aimed at families in which both parents work.

I think we all know that free education in this country is far from free. Third level fees (Student Contribution Charge) are around €3000 per year now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mitch Connor

Kingp35 wrote: »

How much (in monetary terms) do suggest the government give to support parents and where do you suggest this money comes from?

Our social benefits bill is already astronomical as it is.

Honestly, I don't know. I'm

I'm not arguing this specific proposal is correct, just arguing against an implication in some arguments that the 'choice' to have kids shouldn't be supported.

IMO, the support and encouragement of families should be of the highest priority for any Government

VinLieger

_Roz_ wrote: »

Article here.

Just wondering what people think. Unsurprisingly the majority think this should be the case. I, also unsurprisingly, as someone who has no interest in kids, thinks it mad that anyone feels they're entitled to full financial support for a year for a lifestyle choice they've made. You already get a chunk of money every week for the child once it's born like.

Continuing the species is not a lifestyle choice, also if you think the benefit is anywhere near enough to meet even one of the single costs of taking care of a child you are incredibly ignorant and naive

_Roz_

VinLieger wrote: »

Continuing the species is not a lifestyle choice, also if you think the benefit is anywhere near enough to meet even one of the single costs of taking care of a child you are incredibly ignorant and naive

When the world is overpopulated, or when you're pumping out three, four or five kids, it absolutely is a lifestyle choice. It only becomes not a lifestyle choice when the population needs to be plumped up. The opposite is when a particular country gets SO overpopulated you're limited to only having one child, or two.

And I don't think that benefit is enough to take care of a child, but I think it's a good chunk towards something you should mostly be paying for yourself.

Mushy

Billy86 wrote: »

The most important part in my opinion is getting rid of maternity leave in favour of parental leave - as things are many mothers, fathers and their children suffer needlessly from our dated-as-f*** system.

My understanding of the whole thing is that the parental leave currently available will become paid. It's the system that is being worked towards after paternity leave was introduced.

Reati

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The country NEEDS people to have kids in order to continue to function. So, why shouldn't the Government also support and help in that?

Because the OP doesn't have an interest in children hence anything to do with children will not make sense in those terms.

_Roz_

Reati wrote: »

Because the OP doesn't have an interest in children hence anything to do with children will not make sense in those terms.

Actually it would make perfect sense if the country was underpopulated.

Sleepy

If the scheme only applies to those already in work (i.e. the government would cover the parents salaries for the 12 months - (effectively the state increasing maternity benefit to cover the employer "top up" costs), I might be in favour of it if it was done in conjunction with an overhaul of said maternity system that made parental leave usable by either parent.

Just paying people to have children is a fairly bad idea though: you'd have certain sections of society popping out another child who they'll utterly fail to raise properly just to top up their dole.

VinLieger

_Roz_ wrote: »

When the world is overpopulated, it absolutely is a lifestyle choice. It only becomes not a lifestyle choice when the population needs to be plumped up.

And I don't think that benefit is enough to take care of a child, but I think it's a good chunk towards something you should mostly be paying for yourself.

You are changing the argument if you are now talking about the the world as being overpopulated as the discussion is specifically relating to benefits in ireland. Ireland as is is currently not overpopulated, in fact we have been having less kids for well on 2 decades which down the line will have serious impacts in many areas one specifically is the state pension which by 2040 due to the disproportionate ratio of pensioners to workers by then will be completely unsustainable.

I agree the benefit should not be enough to meet every cost of raising a child but if you think its a "good chunk" you really have no clue to the current cost of childcare. What we seriously need is an overhaul of parental time off and pay, mothers should definitely be paid in full for 6 months and fathers current 2 weeks off is an insult.

Mrs OBumble

Billy86 wrote: »

The most important part in my opinion is getting rid of maternity leave in favour of parental leave - as things are many mothers, fathers and their children suffer needlessly from our dated-as-f*** system.

I couldn't disagree more.

Father's cannot breastfeed, and that's the major benefit of having mothers readily available for the first six months of a child's life. The only exemption from it being the mother should be if she's dead, abandoned the child or is medically recommended not to breastfeed.

OP, you realise that the state already provides partial financial support for the first six months? And that some employers (typically the employers of the better educated) also provide some paid maternity leave?

LirW

_Roz_ wrote: »

When the world is overpopulated, or when you're pumping out three, four or five kids, it absolutely is a lifestyle choice. It only becomes not a lifestyle choice when the population needs to be plumped up. The opposite is when a particular country gets SO overpopulated you're limited to only having one child, or two.

And I don't think that benefit is enough to take care of a child, but I think it's a good chunk towards something you should mostly be paying for yourself.

European birthrates are on decline though, overpopulation exists but it has other reasons like continents where people have to have many children to secure their care in an old age. The medical services even in the 3rd world caused less kids to die, so from the 8, where maybe only 2 or 3 would have reached adult age, all survive now.

Anyway, countries on mainland Europe have maternity benefits (less than a full income) that can be taken out over a variety of time spans. It's not uncommon in some countries that women can stay at home for 1 - 3 years with a set state benefit (the longer you stay, the less you get per month). Not a bad system at all and it gives working parents the opportunity to spend more time with their kids and less worry about financial difficulties.

The majority of people having kids are indeed working couples that think very well about having them and how many.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Surely single people who work are the cash cows?

People with children already receive heaps of benefits that those without children don't receive. The taxpayers who are single, or without children, already contribute to their benefits. Which is fine in itself, since we're also expected to pay to support everyone who needs support through our taxes.

However, any increase in benefits for families will have to come from tax revenue, and which will result in either funding to other areas being reduced or increases in taxes for all of us. I don't really see why I have to pay for other people to have/raise children beyond what is currently available.

As a single man in my 40s, why do I have to bend over backwards to improve the lives of those who have families? I'm not receiving any special considerations, and TBH with two incomes they're probably already earning more than I am anyway, even without taking into consideration any state benefits for having children.

_Roz_

VinLieger wrote: »

You are changing the argument if you are now talking about the the world as being overpopulated as the discussion is specifically relating to benefits in ireland. Ireland as is is currently not overpopulated, in fact we have been having less kids for well on 2 decades which down the line will have serious impacts in many areas one specifically is the state pension which by 2040 due to the disproportionate ratio of pensioners to workers by then will be completely unsustainable.

I agree the benefit should not be enough to meet every cost of raising a child but if you think its a "good chunk" you really have no clue to the current cost of childcare. What we seriously need is an overhaul of parental time off and pay, mothers should definitely be paid in full for 6 months and fathers current 2 weeks off is an insult.

It's 10 years since the population started declining, and it's now about what it was 12 years ago. We also still have the highest birth rate in the EU.

Child Benefit covers just under half the average cost of raising a child and putting it through 3rd level education, even though the benefit stops about 4 years before the completion of third level.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP, you realise that the state already provides partial financial support for the first six months? And that some employers (typically the employers of the better educated) also provide some paid maternity leave?

Yes, and I'm fine with some support, but not 100% full support for all financial needs for the first 12 months.

LirW wrote: »

European birthrates are on decline though, overpopulation exists but it has other reasons like continents where people have to have many children to secure their care in an old age. The medical services even in the 3rd world caused less kids to die, so from the 8, where maybe only 2 or 3 would have reached adult age, all survive now.

Anyway, countries on mainland Europe have maternity benefits (less than a full income) that can be taken out over a variety of time spans. It's not uncommon in some countries that women can stay at home for 1 - 3 years with a set state benefit (the longer you stay, the less you get per month). Not a bad system at all and it gives working parents the opportunity to spend more time with their kids and less worry about financial difficulties.

The majority of people having kids are indeed working couples that think very well about having them and how many.

They are, but we still have the highest birth rate going, and it's about where it was 11-12 years ago before it saw an increase. I do like the idea of being given a set amount and spreading it out how you see fit.

R.e. thinking about it, if you say so. Of the people in my department at work, one couple bought a house not big enough for the kids they wanted, had the kids anyway, and now are struggling to sell the house, are all squidged in their small house, and can't move til they sell the house. What the actual hell. And another one just had a second baby which she 'wasn't too sure about having' but she 'won't always have the opportunity' and 'sure we'll take the risk'. Actual quotes. And these are generally quite intelligent people.

LirW

Yes, and I'm fine with some support, but not 100% full support for all financial needs for the first 12 months.

In other countries the support wouldn't cover 100%, it's laid out to make it when you cut back and have another full salary. I honestly don't see what's wrong with that, you're not getting rich from it and you'd be better off with both parents working.

Also the cost of childcare is really high in Ireland, especially in urban areas. If you live in a commuter town it sometimes would make financial loss for the second partner to work and commute with childcare. Either way, you'll make it by but it's tight.


My point is, systems like that successfully work elsewhere in Europe, people are not getting rich from it and in 98% they don't have a financial benefit from it.
And regarding tax, there is so much nonsense tax money is spent on, if there ever would be a good restructure of the spending, Ireland would be able to afford it as well as better healthcare for people.

VinLieger

_Roz_ wrote: »

It's 10 years since the population started declining, and it's now about what it was 12 years ago. We also still have the highest birth rate in the EU.

Wow you are confusing so many things here. Our birthrate as compared to europe means nothing in this argument and i really don;t understand your insistence with trying to bring in global population statistics. The birthrate started declining in the 80's not the mid 2000's. Our population has been rising regardless since the 1950's with a tiny dip in 1991 which is likely to do with the sudden drop in birthrate's.

Populations also increase in many ways, immigration is one of the big reason's. The fact is we still have an aging population and the statistics show that currently we have a 5:1 worker vs pensioner ratio by 2040 this will be 3:1. Thats not something that can be magically fixed as its a problem that started created 20-30 years ago, you understand that right? It will take another 10-20 years for everything to even out.

_Roz_ wrote: »

Child Benefit covers just under half the average cost of raising a child and putting it through 3rd level education, even though the benefit stops about 4 years before the completion of third level.

No it doesn't, I have a child and I can tell you this for a fact as will every single other parent on here, the cost of childcare alone is pretty much a 2nd mortgage in itself

RocketRaccoon

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more.

Father's cannot breastfeed, and that's the major benefit of having mothers readily available for the first six months of a child's life. The only exemption from it being the mother should be if she's dead, abandoned the child or is medically recommended not to breastfeed.

OP, you realise that the state already provides partial financial support for the first six months? And that some employers (typically the employers of the better educated) also provide some paid maternity leave?

What a load of bollox.

So my wife is currently pregnant but you think parental leave shouldn't be a thing because my tits don't produce milk? What about bonding with the child? Spending time with the child? Giving my wife a break when she needs it?

VinLieger

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

What a load of bollox.

So my wife is currently pregnant but you think parental leave shouldn't be a thing because my tits don't produce milk? What about bonding with the child? Spending time with the child? Giving my wife a break when she needs it?

Countless studies have proven the benefits of a child having their father around in the first weeks and months

Sebastian Dangerfield

Hector Bellend wrote: »

After youve made a conscious decision and effort to conceive

Big assumption!

RocketRaccoon

VinLieger wrote: »

Countless studies have proven the benefits of a child having their father around in the first weeks and months

I've been lucky as with my first 2 kids I managed to get 2 weeks holidays from work which allowed me to be at home and get paid a full wage.

Grayson

a few things.

1) yes you are paying for someone to have a kid. However you're also paying for that kid to go to school. Probably paying something towards their healthcare too. You're also paying for a load of other stuff that you'll never use.

2) Childcare should be subsidised. It's so ridiculously stupidly expensive in this country. Subsidize it so parents can go back to the workforce if they want to.

3) Parental leave should be mandatory, equal and not shared. It's the only way society will ever be equal is if both parents are treated the same.

Grayson

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

What a load of bollox.

So my wife is currently pregnant but you think parental leave shouldn't be a thing because my tits don't produce milk? What about bonding with the child? Spending time with the child? Giving my wife a break when she needs it?

She's also tying leave to breastfeeding so if a woman doesn't breastfeed then technically she should be refused leave.

VinLieger

Grayson wrote: »

a few things.

1) yes you are paying for someone to have a kid. However you're also paying for that kid to go to school. Probably paying something towards their healthcare too. You're also paying for a load of other stuff that you'll never use.

Don't forget your also paying to ensure that child in 18+ years will join the workforce and their taxes will then help pay for whatever you might require by that time.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

2) Childcare should be subsidised. It's so ridiculously stupidly expensive in this country. Subsidize it so parents can go back to the workforce if they want to.

"Here's a €100 a month childcare subsidy for every family".
"Oh, prices are going up by €100 a month. Eh, insurance costs, yeah, that will do."

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

"Here's a €100 a month childcare subsidy for every family".
"Oh, prices are going up by €100 a month. Eh, insurance costs, yeah, that will do."

Indeed, the only way to attack the problem is reduce the costs of running childcare businesses, subsidies will never work for that exact reason.

I spoke to someone in the industry recently and they reckon it costs 80 quid in work time to just process the current subsidies per application due to how convoluted and wrapped in red tape it is, the subsidy itself then comes out to about 80-90 quid per month

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

She's also tying leave to breastfeeding so if a woman doesn't breastfeed then technically she should be refused leave.

There’s no reason why a mother can’t express milk for later use tbh.

Personal view is that both parents should have several months non transferable leave. Not necessarily a year and equally they shouldn’t have to take it all at the same point as each other but four months post birth seems about right to me.

Why not make it mandatory for prospective parents or people who want to have children, to save up a certain amount of money themselves before having the child? Similar to the deposit for a mortgage. That way they would have the money to support themselves and wouldn't need to hit the tax payer for support? I'm guessing this would be unreasonable. Somehow.

Demonique

amcalester wrote: »

Its a bit simplistic to call raising children a lifestyle choice.

It is a lifestyle choice when the human species is in no danger of going extinct anytime soon