Pay Parents to Stay Home with Baby for 12 Months?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

No. Once again, you're going beyond what I said.

I said that for them to gain the benefits beyond what is already existing for people with children... then they should pay into a fund to support this kind of initiative.



Hardly. Perhaps take a moment to read what's written rather than jumping in with rightous indignation?

You're still creating a two tier system where better off people get better support. If you're poor and cannot pay into your fund then you will get less time with your child and your child will get less parental support.

It's the poor who will suffer more from your system.

maybe before accusing me of not reading you could actually think about what you're writing. It's very, very simple maths.

Fann Linn

LirW wrote: »

It is in the best interest of society to have well raised and educated children, the first few years in life are crucial. One day these kids will work, pay taxes and be part of a society as well.
Childcare costs in Ireland are insanely high, yet a lot of people don't have a choice but putting their babies into childcare full time well before they're a year old. Simply out of financial reasons.
Systems like that work well all across Europe. The times where you comfortably raise a child on one salary are over in most parts of the country.

So the alternative to high childcare costs is pay the mother to stay at home? Why does the state not address the problem of high childcare costs by providing state creches, or incentivising employers to provide facilities.

Your other points I agree with, as one who raised 4kids of my own.

LirW

A lot of women only get the minimum of maternity pay and lots of private companies, especially smaller ones don't top up. These women don't have a choice but going back to work soon. And child benefit for one child isn't funding a lavish lifestyle either.
Women in other countries with similar tax rates get a lot more bang for their buck which makes it possible to stay at home longer with the children, and it sometimes includes the father too.

It's obvious that childcare costs need to be addressed of course.

I raised my first in another country where there's a set benefit for all mothers and they can choose the timespan for how long they wanna get it (between 12 and 36 months with the possibility of the father claiming 6 months of it). If you go for the year you'd come close to a minimum wage salary, if you split it over 36 you get a bit over 400 Euro a month plus you have a certain amount that you can earn while claiming it (I think it was 8k a year). So you aren't getting rich from it but it lifts a lot of pressure off working families to raise their kids on their own, which is proven to be the best especially in the first year of a child's life.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Silane wrote: »

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.

Is that because people with no work ethic and little belief in education are the ones churning kids out left right and centre in order to get a house and more money without having to work?

seamus

Finley Early Beard wrote: »

Is that because people with no work ethic and little belief in education are the ones churning kids out left right and centre in order to get a house and more money without having to work?

No, it's because people are having less children and people are living longer.

Partially down to education, but also believed in a large part to be down to the fact that people simply cannot afford to have large families.

Most of the people I've encountered in recent times having very large families (more than four kids), tend to be very high single-income earners; €150k+.

Two-income high earners and low wage earners tend to go for smaller families because the economics demand it.

Despite the popular stereotype, the number of "baby making machines" on the dole is quite small.

By the time most of us look at retiring, we'll probably have abolished mandatory retirement because we can't afford it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

seamus wrote: »

No, it's because people are having less children and people are living longer.

Partially down to education, but also believed in a large part to be down to the fact that people simply cannot afford to have large families.

Most of the people I've encountered in recent times having very large families (more than four kids), tend to be very high single-income earners; €150k+.

Two-income high earners and low wage earners tend to go for smaller families because the economics demand it.

Despite the popular stereotype, the number of "baby making machines" on the dole is quite small.

By the time most of us look at retiring, we'll probably have abolished mandatory retirement because we can't afford it.

Why are people having less children? I’d guess going on my generation and my friends, there’s two types of people at the moment. (20s).
People who went to college who had to move or travel to work, who work really hard at their career and to try progress, but are crippled paying for the other side to sit at home, have at least a couple of children in their 20s, apply for gap and council houses and medical cards and lone parents and everything else that’s going. There’s no incentive for people responsible enough to have children because they’re too busy paying for people who have no sense of personal responsibility

Wanderer78

Finley Early Beard wrote: »

Why are people having less children? I’d guess going on my generation and my friends, there’s two types of people at the moment. (20s).
People who went to college who had to move or travel to work, who work really hard at their career and to try progress, but are crippled paying for the other side to sit at home, have at least a couple of children in their 20s, apply for gap and council houses and medical cards and lone parents and everything else that’s going. There’s no incentive for people responsible enough to have children because they’re too busy paying for people who have no sense of personal responsibility

boring! of course it has little or nothing to do with the fact that the cost of living is slowly rising, wages for a large proportion of society have virtually stagnated, levels of private debt are at an all time high, politicians and their advisers seem to think things such as austerity are good etc etc etc!

might be worth a watch;)

diomed

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.

I am retired ten years. Now at 67 year old I have been receiving old age pension for one year.
My belief is my old age pension comes from the PRSI contributions I made during 37 years work, about 11% of my pay.
My work pension was funded by the 6% contributions made by the company and by the 20% of salary I paid into the pension fund during my last 15 years at work.
Yes, I do get money for being old. It is a pension. Learn how things work.

LirW

Finley Early Beard wrote: »

Why are people having less children? I’d guess going on my generation and my friends, there’s two types of people at the moment. (20s).
People who went to college who had to move or travel to work, who work really hard at their career and to try progress, but are crippled paying for the other side to sit at home, have at least a couple of children in their 20s, apply for gap and council houses and medical cards and lone parents and everything else that’s going. There’s no incentive for people responsible enough to have children because they’re too busy paying for people who have no sense of personal responsibility

People have less children for a variety of reasons but a big one is that they now have a choice to decide against kids. Not too long ago it was unacceptable for a couple to not have children. If you're married you have kids, end of.
So people that would never had them out of choice had them.
Now people have the choice to plan their lives without them, it certainly doesn't suit people into their lives and this is fine.

Young people are busy, if you want to go to university, establish a career, maybe buy a house and have a nice wedding you're so busy that you won't have kids well into your 30s. I know a highschool sweetheart couple, both 30 now, they are together for 15 years and constantly talk about kids but they aren't willing to do the step yet because they both fear for their careers and want to establish themselves more. Certainly not the only couple thinking like that.

bnt

I don't know. On the one hand, the first years of a child's life are absolutely critical to his or her long-term development, and my attitude is "if you're going to do something, do it properly". But I am also concerned about the consequences of simply paying people to breed, without other checks and balances. As things stand, those people having the most children are the ones least likely to produce productive members of society (a.k.a. Idiocracy in action).

Wanderer78

bnt wrote:

I don't know. On the one hand, the first years of a child's life are absolutely critical to his or her long-term development, and my attitude is "if you're going to do something, do it properly". But I am also concerned about the consequences of simply paying people to breed, without other checks and balances. As things stand, those people having the most children are the ones least likely to produce productive members of society (a.k.a. Idiocracy in action).

Does everyone gain equally from all this production?

DEFTLEFTHAND

We need to broaden our tax base to do these things. We're already spending 20 billion a year in state aid.

Unsustainable spending, this is a county of 4 million.

Too much take and not enough give from certain sections.

Silane

diomed wrote: »

I am retired ten years. Now at 67 year old I have been receiving old age pension for one year.
My belief is my old age pension comes from the PRSI contributions I made during 37 years work, about 11% of my pay.
My work pension was funded by the 6% contributions made by the company and by the 20% of salary I paid into the pension fund during my last 15 years at work.
Yes, I do get money for being old. It is a pension. Learn how things work.

This discussion is about a state benefit scheme, I'm not sure how a private pension fund has any relevance.
If you think the government took your PRSI contributions and put them aside and grew them enough to pay for your current benefits I think you're the one who needs to learn how things work. If people stopped paying taxes your pension stops, regardless of what you paid in.

Grayson

bnt wrote: »

I don't know. On the one hand, the first years of a child's life are absolutely critical to his or her long-term development, and my attitude is "if you're going to do something, do it properly". But I am also concerned about the consequences of simply paying people to breed, without other checks and balances. As things stand, those people having the most children are the ones least likely to produce productive members of society (a.k.a. Idiocracy in action).

It's just an extension of the current scheme. If you're worried about paying people to breed then how do you feel about going in the direction of the US where there's no mandatory maternity leave? Essentially the only way you can take time off after having a child is if you can afford to take the time off. If not, then you're back in work a day or two later.

RocketRaccoon

Finley Early Beard wrote: »

Why are people having less children? I’d guess going on my generation and my friends, there’s two types of people at the moment. (20s).
People who went to college who had to move or travel to work, who work really hard at their career and to try progress, but are crippled paying for the other side to sit at home, have at least a couple of children in their 20s, apply for gap and council houses and medical cards and lone parents and everything else that’s going. There’s no incentive for people responsible enough to have children because they’re too busy paying for people who have no sense of personal responsibility

My wife is 26 and pregnant with our second child, she didn't go to college and certainly doesn't sit at home in a council house nor do we have medical cards. What a ridiculous post.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

You're still creating a two tier system where better off people get better support. If you're poor and cannot pay into your fund then you will get less time with your child and your child will get less parental support.

It's the poor who will suffer more from your system.

Once again. Hardly. There is no call to remove the existing system that is currently in place. The poor already receive the benefits of the existing system.

So, the objection is that the poor would be on the current system, but the middle class (and higher) would be able to pay to get extra time off? That's a two-tier system? Nah. Not buying it.

maybe before accusing me of not reading you could actually think about what you're writing. It's very, very simple maths.

Well.. let's see. First, you accuse me of wanting people to terminate a child because they couldn't pay into such a fund, second, you claim I'm making child poverty more likely, and now you introduce the poor as losing out.

I suggested that people who want this extra benefit should pay for that benefit, rather than expecting all taxpayers to cover it for them to receive 12 months leave. I've yet to see anyone really suggesting how this would be paid. Oh, Sure, hit the tax revenue for the costs, but that cuts into other areas which are already underfunded.

So, in simple maths, how would you pay for all this? More taxes for everyone?

LirW

So, the objection is that the poor would be on the current system, but the middle class (and higher) would be able to pay to get extra time off? That's a two-tier system? Nah. Not buying it.

There are people that are cool with being poor and living on the dole + benefits for their entire lives. But there are other people that are definitely not cool with being poor and they can't win on either side. If a woman in a min-wage job gets pregnant and the father decides it's not for him and hits the road, she'll have the baby and will have to shoulder the costs pretty much on her own with putting the kid into daycare while going back to work and continue struggling. Even if she wanted to pay into a fund to get extra time off, she has other worries to keep herself and the baby dressed, fed and warm. She wouldn't be housed anytime soon, she won't find a place to rent if her lease is up.
And that's not even an unrealistic assumption.

And honestly, there is so much nonsense funded with tax money, there are areas where cutbacks could be made but there are protected interests, therefore it's not going to happen.

splinter65

VinLieger wrote: »

Seems to work perfectly well in sweden and norway

You can’t compare Ireland with the Nordic countries.
Nordic people understand perfectly that in order to have all these social benefits that huge amounts of tax must be paid. My brother lives in Switzerland and it’s a similar mentality there. The tram outside his workplace operates to military presicion and there are no ticket inspectors or conductors because everyone knows that if you don’t pay for the tram ride then the tram can’t operate the way it does.
Here, even when people were asked to pay €4 per week for clean water there was mass protests on the streets.
Someone would have to pay for the 12 months off.
Who do you suggest?

screamer

_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.

Ha ha ha. This is so funny considering g there's already thousands of scroungers getting full financial support for years for lifestyle choices theyve made and they get the same chunk of change every month and here's the kicker....the only thing they will ever contribute to the economy are more mouths for you and every other tax payer to feed. Why not give working people some work life balance and support when their babies the future tax payers are born.... I think it's a good idea and a great investment in their future....and therefore all of ours.

LirW

splinter65 wrote: »

You can’t compare Ireland with the Nordic countries.
Nordic people understand perfectly that in order to have all these social benefits that huge amounts of tax must be paid. My brother lives in Switzerland and it’s a similar mentality there. The tram outside his workplace operates to military presicion and there are no ticket inspectors or conductors because everyone knows that if you don’t pay for the tram ride then the tram can’t operate the way it does.
Here, even when people were asked to pay €4 per week for clean water there was mass protests on the streets.
Someone would have to pay for the 12 months off.
Who do you suggest?

The problem is though that people pay a lot of taxes here, especially the middle class. They just don't get the bang for their buck, be it families or singles and they still pay 50-60 Euro for every doctor visit ( and no, plenty of health insurance policies don't give you anything back for them). They still pay stupidly high public transport costs for busses being cramped, not showing up and don't get me started on Bus Eireann.
These people can't complain though because they're busy to work.
They pay through the nose for childcare and can drive home to Athy every evening because life in Dublin got too expensive and the budget didn't stretch.
They carry a huge weight, yet get little back.

If that bonus is income related, someone on the dole wouldn't get more or marginally more since they don't have an income.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

There are people that are cool with being poor and living on the dole + benefits for their entire lives. But there are other people that are definitely not cool with being poor and they can't win on either side.

If a woman in a min-wage job gets pregnant and the father decides it's not for him and hits the road, she'll have the baby and will have to shoulder the costs pretty much on her own with putting the kid into daycare while going back to work and continue struggling. Even if she wanted to pay into a fund to get extra time off, she has other worries to keep herself and the baby dressed, fed and warm. She wouldn't be housed anytime soon, she won't find a place to rent if her lease is up.
And that's not even an unrealistic assumption.

As opposed to the poor man (or woman) who can't (or doesn't want to) have children, and are forced to pay higher taxes or have their existing benefits cut to pay for people who want an extra 6 months with their children? I know a number of people who aren't poor, but are struggling financially... why should they have to pay for other people to have children when they don't themselves?

Giving people the right to have an extra 6 months would likely cost quite a bit, yes? Am I wrong in thinking that these people expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab while they're out of work looking after the child? Or is this an extra 6 months unpaid, and unsupported?

LirW

I'm not going into detail with the childless people that are forced to pay for families through their taxes. We're a society, it's in the country's best interest to raise well educated and adjusted children because they are going to be future tax payers who's funding yours and everyone elses services one day.

The best thing to do would be heavily subsidising childcare, because current childcare costs are basically a second mortgage people have to pay. In urban areas lots of parents simply can't afford to stay at home with their kids and a high number is back in work when the children are not even a year old, while sticking a grand up the creche's ar5e.

Anyway, it's not the place to discuss that.

I'm pretty sure if the taxpayer's money would be properly used and allocated Ireland could afford 1 year of leave for everyone without cutting back in education, healthcare or infrastructure.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

I'm not going into detail with the childless people that are forced to pay for families through their taxes.

Ahh well... That's it then. End of discussion.

LirW

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh well... That's it then. End of discussion.

Let's put it like that, the childless people aren't only paying for family, they are paying for pensions, they are paying for some 3rd world healthcare, they are paying for wrongly planned infrastructure and a whole lot of other things that they won't ever use or are completely mis-planned.
It's part of the game when you decide to live in Ireland or pretty much anywhere else where you have a system that supports families.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

LirW wrote: »

Let's put it like that, the childless people aren't only paying for family, they are paying for pensions, they are paying for some 3rd world healthcare, they are paying for wrongly planned infrastructure and a whole lot of other things that they won't ever use or are completely mis-planned.
It's part of the game when you decide to live in Ireland or pretty much anywhere else where you have a system that supports families.

You can’t deny though the childless get a lot less benefits for their tax

LirW

Finley Early Beard wrote: »

You can’t deny though the childless get a lot less benefits for their tax

They do, not denying that. But how exactly should it even out? It's the nature of it that there is some sort of family payment pretty much anywhere in the west.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

LirW wrote: »

They do, not denying that. But how exactly should it even out? It's the nature of it that there is some sort of family payment pretty much anywhere in the west.

Like someone suggested if working families want more time off then they should pay into a fund that allows that. Keep the maternity/paternity leave as is and if people want more they can pay extra from their wages

Cee-Jay-Cee

_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.

Those children that you have no interest in are the very people that you will rely on in your old age when you are ill or can no longer look after yourself. Society would cease to function in a very short space of time if everyone had the same attitude as you (which you are perfectly entitled to have) but it’s just as well that most people don’t think like you and wish to have a family of their own.

I have two children and when they were both in childcare we were paying €1200 a month for fees alone and that was with a second child discount applied. It’s very expensive and while I don’t expect the state to fork out fully for childcare, I think it should be increased from the paltry amount available at the moment. I’d be fairly sure we spend more money on foreign aid than we do on childcare in this country.

BrokenArrows

Being payed to stay at home to take care of the kid would be great, but how much would would anyone be paid?
Their average salary over the past few years?

If they are not paid their full salary then most will have to work again anyway, maybe not as much but they will still have to work.

I think they would accomplish far more by making Maternity leave shareable between both the mother and father or to grant father a reasonable amount of time. 2 weeks currently given to fathers is so little.

DubDani

While it is a good idea, and should be supported it's IMO not the Issue to throw money at right now. The Government needs to throw all the money it can afford into childcare provision. Making childcare affordable for everyone will help society as a whole. It will give families more disposable income, which will in turn benefit the country as a whole. And that ultimate benefit is most likely going to be higher then the cost (at least in the medium to longer term).

And that doesn't even take into Account the positive effect on the children. How can it be that other developed Nations can provide proper childcare facilities for 80-150 Euro a month, but in Ireland it costs more then a 1000 Euro a month. Making childcare affordable ensures young children get the support they need, get fed a proper meal a day and get to develop their social skills. And their parents can go and do a proper contribution to the society as well.