Childcare: tax incentives to have children or low-cost state childcare?

Surprisingly, an Irish government minister is looking to a country beyond Britain for intellectual inspiration for new legislation. I wouldn't say senior civil servants or journalists would be happy with such "radicalism"...

At any rate, Regina Doherty is over in France wondering what Ireland could learn from French experiences. Genuinely refreshing to see that openmindedness:

Regina Doherty eyes French labour reforms on visit to Paris

One of the interesting proposals, in light of the impending pensions crisis as a result of people living longer and having fewer children to pay for future pensions, is a tax incentive to people to have more children. This could be a good part of the solution if we could work it in such a way that the bright, talented and happy cultured people have more children and all the cultureless howayas with various addictions have fewer children. I suppose linking it to tax refunds implies the people who will benefit will at least have a job so that's a step in the right direction. With a bit of fine tuning this French idea could be a fine piece of social engineering... (I don't think I'm ready for a political career just yet! hehe)

Of course, the blindingly obvious solution is screaming at Irish society: an extension of free education by another 4 years or so to cover children attending all state-owned childcare centres (i.e. the state starts building childcare centres and people can afford to have more children and those children will hopefully be taxpayers of the future.) As a intermediary step, the state could at least have low-cost state-owned childcare centres - it's about €300 per month in Germany per child but I'm paying just over €2200 per month for two children (one in crèche, one in montessori).

Predictably, just as it subsidises the private organisations that run 90% of Ireland's primary and secondary schools, current Irish government policy is to subsidise private childcare owners (e.g. the ECCE grant which was ostensibly given to help parents simply resulted in childcare centres raising their prices to absorb it).

Given the impending pensions crisis, do you agree with tax incentives or with the creation of a low-cost state childcare system to encourage people to have more children?

Fr_Dougal

Through the establishment of a low-cost, state-owned childcare system

Tax credits.

Free childcare or state subsidised childcare would end up costing the state a fortune because costs would be higher than a privately run enterprise. With tax credits you’re incentivizing people to work.

You don’t work? Then you should have time to look after your kids.


Btw, your option 4 should be edited if you want decent debate.

Fr_Dougal

Some other options (specify in post)

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Tax credits.... With tax credits you’re incentivizing people to work.

You don’t work? Then you should have time to look after your kids.

That system without adjustment would surely financially punish a family that decided the best thing for the child is for one parent to stay at home. I, for one, definitely would be opposed to that. I think we have our priorities arseways that both parents must now work outside the home to cover basic things like a mortgage. Back in 1999 McCreevy moved towards tax individualisation which in effect has financially punished stay-at-home parents ever since. There's no fairness in that.

silverharp

its an interesting issue, i'd be inclined to go for the gov offering cheap loans to couples which can be paid off by having kids, fund it for example by getting rid of tax reliefs on pensions. At the moment the tax system exploits young people to pay for older generations which has to be bringing down family formation.
lots of countries in europe have good childcare and none of them are replacing their populations so providing it shouldnt be a priority

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

ireland generally follows with a lag time, one would have to assume family formation or number of kids will drop here over time , i cant see why we would be different?

Wanderer78

Since privately run childcare services pay their staff well and provide them with good working conditions, such as zero hour contracts etc. Private operators always put parent and child's needs first, ahead of profits, it's a win win really, no brainer!

Tigerandahalf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And a good portion of that is made up of non natives having more children. Wasn't there a figure that 1 in 3 births were to non native parent.

Sorry it was 1 in 4.
http://jrnl.ie/1599272

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Atlantic Dawn

Housing is the problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lawred2

Tax credits or a real contribution to child care costs both preschool and during school.

Universal child benefit rewards the feckless.

This should only be given to those working and contributing.

Wanderer78

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

Housing is the problem.

Housing is 'a' problem, i.e. one of many extremely important and growing problems, with many of these problems with no clear solutions

Wanderer78

lawred2 wrote:

This should only be given to those working and contributing.

And what do we do with those that won't or can't?

Tigerandahalf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It may be a problem further down the line if these migrant families decide to return to their own country or move elsewhere in the eu. They may not be as tied to Ireland if another recession came around and had opportunities elsewhere.

If 1 in 4 were to non native does that mean the figure for native Irish is about 1.5 births per woman.

Malayalam

Leaving aside the unnecesssary ''cultureless howayes'' remark in the OP, I think support should be equally provided for the mother who chooses to stay at home for I suppose what could be called ideological reasons regarding child-care. Although ideological is a horrible word. By it I mean a considered personal analysis of what is preferable for a child - and this will differ from person to person.
People who choose to stay home are sometimes sidelined or considered strange or even a cause for anger, as if they somehow cast aspersions on those who choose to work outside the home and put their children into various options for daycare. This should not be the case - it is a valid conscious choice to rear ones own children. (The OP asks how to incentivise having children.)
If the state pays for children to be minded outside the home, they should provide the same support to the mother/father who stays home and minds her own. It is not only due to financial excess/ luck that many mothers/ fathers choose to stay home with their children, but it is often due to a personal choice regarding what constitutes best practice for rearing children, a choice which often involves financial loss as a direct effect, an effect which is accepted at the time due to a preference for rearing the child at home.
Unless, of course, the whole scenario is really about facilitating 'workers' for the system, instead of bringing children into the population, in which case.. carry on.
In passing, the phrase ''state-run/owned child-care'' always gives me a vague shudder - it conjures both oppressive historical scenarios and totalitarian futures. I know, I know, they're grand and fine places and etc., I am just saying what the phrase conjures for me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fr_Dougal

Through the establishment of a low-cost, state-owned childcare system

Deleted User wrote: »

That system without adjustment would surely financially punish a family that decided the best thing for the child is for one parent to stay at home. I, for one, definitely would be opposed to that. I think we have our priorities arseways that both parents must now work outside the home to cover basic things like a mortgage. Back in 1999 McCreevy moved towards tax individualisation which in effect has financially punished stay-at-home parents ever since. There's no fairness in that.

The parent that stays at home can mind the children. It’s not rocket science.

nice_guy80

private childcare is the problem
who takes the profit?
everything is profit driven - number of kids in room, the qualifications for staff

state run or community childcare is the way to go
pay the staff a decent wage, provide proper facilities and train the staff up properly

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

would you agree with people such as alan greenspan when he said, 'increasing worker insecurity is 'good' for the economy'? whos economy was he actually talking about?

where has all this 'tax' gone to, particularly in the last few years? it wouldnt have gone to financial institutions, conducting in a highly questionable manner, possibly immorally and unethically?

Tigerandahalf

Our birth rate will only get worse.

High home prices are delaying couples from having children.

The availability of the morning after pill will have an increasing effect.

Perhaps tax reliefs are the best solution as mothers who stay at home will probably do so anyway.

Mothers who have more than 2 children should be given extra tax relief on returning to work and be given extra unpaid leave.

It is a very important issue.

Touchee

Some other options (specify in post)

I think childcare should be partially subsidised by the State.

At the moment, staff working in this industry are paid a max of €9.65 an hour, 8 hours a day, lunch break is not paid, sick days are not paid.

Let's say the State pays them €10 an hour, that's €80 for one employee, therefore €400 a week.

The parents should pay €400 a month for one child, on the assumption the employee to children ratio is 1:4.

The State would then cover the cost of buildings, insurance and food. Maybe it's simplistic, but on a high level I don't think it would cost the state an absolute fortune.

Compare paying €400 a month to €1000 a month. The parents would have more disposable income, which would go back in the economy.

Wibbs

I pay for my pension and don't need any future generation to pay for it! (note: idiot option)

It would be my opinion we need a lowering of the world's population not growth. The world's population has doubled since I was born. That trend should be slowed. For a start a large chunk of environmental damage would be tackled if the world's population was half of what it is today. Secondly if predictions play out with an increasingly automated production future we certainly need fewer people than more

In any event, in Ireland it's a moot point as we are at replacement levels, indeed our numbers have gone up by a few percentage points in the last decade.

Potential-Monke

People get enough free money for kids as it is. They don't need any more reasons.

Wanderer78

Potential-Monke wrote: »

People get enough free money for kids as it is. They don't need any more reasons.

'free money', interesting idea! maybe things such as qe for the people or ubi should be considered?

Potential-Monke

Wanderer78 wrote: »

'free money', interesting idea! maybe things such as qe for the people or ubi should be considered?

I have no idea what you just said...

Fr_Dougal

Through the establishment of a low-cost, state-owned childcare system

Wibbs wrote: »

It would be my opinion we need a lowering of the world's population not growth. The world's population has doubled since I was born. That trend should be slowed. For a start a large chunk of environmental damage would be tackled if the world's population was half of what it is today. Secondly if predictions play out with an increasingly automated production future we certainly need fewer people than more

In any event, in Ireland it's a moot point as we are at replacement levels, indeed our numbers have gone up by a few percentage points in the last decade.

You can’t say that here, Wibbs.

Lia_lia

Many countries have incentives for people to have more children as their birth rates are declining. South Korea, Japan, France...I'm sure there are more. Ireland is not one of them and as mentioned has one of the highest birth rates in the EU. So this thread does not make much sense.

I do think childcare fees are extortionate though compared to many other EU countries. And yes, families where both parents work would probably have more children if childcare was cheaper.

Wanderer78

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I have no idea what you just said...

please correct me if im wrong, but is your use of the words 'free money' related to social welfare payments? maybe we should consider ideas such as quantitative easing for the people, or more commonly called universal basic income? its an interesting idea, with potentially interesting ways to try pay for it

Potential-Monke

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please correct me if im wrong, but is your use of the words 'free money' related to social welfare payments? maybe we should consider ideas such as quantitative easing for the people, or more commonly called universal basic income? its an interesting idea, with potentially interesting ways to try pay for it

Yes, social welfare. People already get paid to have kids, they don't need more money. If they can't afford the childcare, stop having kids. I don't like kids anyway, so my view is skewed, but it annoys me with all the benefits people with kids get.

Don't know anything about Universal Basic Income, so can't comment on it.

Wanderer78

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Yes, social welfare. People already get paid to have kids, they don't need more money. If they can't afford the childcare, stop having kids. I don't like kids anyway, so my view is skewed, but it annoys me with all the benefits people with kids get.

Don't know anything about Universal Basic Income, so can't comment on it.

so should we only allow certain people to have kids, and what happens if people have kids and struggle to support them? no kids either myself

the debates on ubi are very interesting, we dont really know how to pay for it though, but there are interesting ideas knocking around the place.

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

we arent here to service an economy though, its about the state hindering or helping its citizens to achieve life goals.

Potential-Monke

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so should we only allow certain people to have kids, and what happens if people have kids and struggle to support them? no kids either myself

the debates on ubi are very interesting, we dont really know how to pay for it though, but there are interesting ideas knocking around the place.

I personally think one should have a licence to have kids, but it's unenforceable. As for what do they do when they can't support them? Don't know, don't care. Not my problem. Call it cold hearted, but not everyone has to enjoy kids being around, or having them, or just like kids in general. People judge me for my lifestyle, calling it a waste, but why is doing nothing, which is what I want to do, being a waste? Is it only a waste to those who have kids and no spare time? That's a conversation for a different thread though.

strandroad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who's having these children though? Childcare and accommodation costs are crippling working families - see a thread in Personal Issues right now from a woman who would love nothing more than to have a second child but as a couple they cannot afford it. I bet her welfare dependant neighbours have no such qualms. Ireland has very high levels of low job activity households, double the EU average I think; it would be interesting to see which side of the chart the children of Ireland are born to and to explore what it means to social cohesion and future trends if we don't support responsible parenthood, but we continue to support welfare reliance in childbearing.
Such plans don't need to be about raising the number of births; more about rebalancing the opportunities.

LirW

Some other options (specify in post)

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I personally think one should have a licence to have kids, but it's unenforceable. As for what do they do when they can't support them? Don't know, don't care. Not my problem. Call it cold hearted, but not everyone has to enjoy kids being around, or having them, or just like kids in general. People judge me for my lifestyle, calling it a waste, but why is doing nothing, which is what I want to do, being a waste? Is it only a waste to those who have kids and no spare time? That's a conversation for a different thread though.

No problem with your lifestyle, it's fine when people don't want to have them or don't enjoy them.
But that here is about the grand scheme of things, kids are an essential part of society because one they they'll be taxpayer and pay for services you use and will continue to use when you're old.
I get it's frustrating to see people who don't have the means to support them continue to having them but a decision regarding supporting families involved the poor, low income earners, middle class and the wealthy.
The easier you make it for the "good" in society to raise kids and make it affordable for them, the more society will benefit from it in the long run.

It's very easy to say, don't have them, don't need them in my life, they're obnoxious (and you're well in the right to see it like that) but it's a very simplistic view on a complex problem, because if there aren't any kids, families will be imported and we can currently see what problems that brings.

Wibbs

I pay for my pension and don't need any future generation to pay for it! (note: idiot option)

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

You can’t say that here, Wibbs.

I hear that. This mantra of "we must have more kids and more people!!" repeated throughout the Western world is in my humble going to be seen in the future as one of the most illogical and daftest notions of our times. A real case of "Really? WTF were they smoking back then?". Beyond fuelling an already bloated consumer/boom bust economic cycle it makes near zero sense as an overall strategy going into the future.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

I hear that. This mantra of "we must have more kids and more people!!" repeated throughout the Western world is in my humble going to be seen in the future as one of the most illogical and daftest notions of our times. A real case of "Really? WTF were they smoking back then?". Beyond fuelling an already bloated consumer/boom bust economic cycle it makes near zero sense as an overall strategy going into the future.

i'd certainly be in favor of europe "building a wall" and it might be a nicer place if the population went back to 1900 levels, noting though that ireland is the only country int he world to have a lower population now than the 19th century so we dont exactly have the same issues as elsewhere

Tigerandahalf

Wibbs wrote: »

I hear that. This mantra of "we must have more kids and more people!!" repeated throughout the Western world is in my humble going to be seen in the future as one of the most illogical and daftest notions of our times. A real case of "Really? WTF were they smoking back then?". Beyond fuelling an already bloated consumer/boom bust economic cycle it makes near zero sense as an overall strategy going into the future.

Who is going to pay your pension so in the future Wibbs. Or wipe your arse when you are in a nursing home in your old age.

Yes the world could do with less people but you have to have a plan in place to reduce that over time.

Our biggest problem now is that the older generation have too much of a share of the wealth and voting power and any decisions made by governments will be difficult as anyone over 50 will want to protect the status quo.

The IMF has hinted at the above and have talked about the need to bring about change.

Wibbs

I pay for my pension and don't need any future generation to pay for it! (note: idiot option)

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Who is going to pay your pension so in the future Wibbs. Or wipe your arse when you are in a nursing home in your old age.

Who did all that 30 or 40 years ago, when the world population was nearly half of today?

Our biggest problem now is that the older generation have too much of a share of the wealth and voting power and any decisions made by governments will be difficult as anyone over 50 will want to protect the status quo.

Again that has been the case for at least the last half century.

The IMF has hinted at the above and have talked about the need to bring about change.

TBH I view the pronouncements of the IMF at about the same level as the WHO, mostly good with scattered showers of nonsense.

Wibbs

I pay for my pension and don't need any future generation to pay for it! (note: idiot option)

silverharp wrote: »

noting though that ireland is the only country int he world to have a lower population now than the 19th century so we dont exactly have the same issues as elsewhere

Very true S, but personally I'd not like to see it going back to 19th century levels. It's about "right" at the moment.

LirW

Some other options (specify in post)

Who did all that 30 or 40 years ago, when the world population was nearly half of today?

Well, look at the level of care or the general lifestyle people had 30 or 40 years ago. Would people voluntarily go back to that in order to be cool with a significantly smaller population?
That's the thing, nobody wants more people and especially not children but still expect top level state services.

Tigerandahalf

Wibbs wrote: »

Who did all that 30 or 40 years ago, when the world population was nearly half of today?

Again that has been the case for at least the last half century.

TBH I view the pronouncements of the IMF at about the same level as the WHO, mostly good with scattered showers of nonsense.

30 or 40 years ago the mother stayed at home and cared for children and a grandparent and perhaps a grand uncle or aunt.

That no longer happens with women now predominantly in the workforce.

One of our problems is we have allowed the older generation invest in property even though they already have good pensions. This has in turn pushed up the cost of housing for families making it more likely for families to be delayed or reduced in number.

It would have made more sense if the older generation had been encouraged to invest in gov backed infrastructure schemes - like building roads, expanding broadband infrastructure, schools, etc. That would have left a legacy.
Instead we just have a bloated property sector.

Beasty

The World is already overpopulated. Ireland has been a big beneficiary of immigration over recent years, and the economy and tax take has risen on the back of that. Those of us approaching or in retirement now have probably extracted more from the World's resources than all the prior generations put together. There is no need for the state to fund my pension, although there remain plenty of people out there who could better do with that funding being diverted to the less well off (including those of pension age)

We really don't want, or need, to be trying to find ways to bring even more children into this World

Wibbs

I pay for my pension and don't need any future generation to pay for it! (note: idiot option)

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

One of our problems is we have allowed the older generation invest in property even though they already have good pensions.

"Allowed"? You do realise that people, families have been buying homes for themselves for generations? As for going to the property/investment idea, you're just as guilty of playing into that notion as the "older generation" you seem to want to vilify. Never mind that the majority of said generation(s) bought and paid for just one home(and were paying mortgages for years keeping the banks happy, paying back at least double what they borrowed).

This has in turn pushed up the cost of housing for families making it more likely for families to be delayed or reduced in number.

A far bigger issue has been both the market and governments repeated screwups in the housing sector. In turn building too many homes when they weren't required(Celtic tiger era) to building too few when they are(today).

It would have made more sense if the older generation had been encouraged to invest in gov backed infrastructure schemes - like building roads, expanding broadband infrastructure, schools, etc. That would have left a legacy.

Yeah, sounds great. Where were they expected to raise families and grow old? On a motorway, in a Wifi router? Renting? Renting is grand if you're young free or single, renting when you're 80 not so much. Especially in the rental environment that is Ireland. And who owns the rental properties? Ah yeah, those investing in multiple properties. So we'd go from individual families owning their own homes to a landlord class and you see this as a solution?

professore

Through the establishment of a low-cost, state-owned childcare system

The higher the % of women in the workforce, the lower the birth rate. Simple maths. Speaking from experience It's damn hard to have 2 parents working full time with small kids. And it doesn't even make sense financially. And it's not good for the kids either.

Very out of tune with the prevailing social trends but there you have it. Every decision in life involves tradeoffs. You can't have it all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ficheall

What sort of selfish cunt wants to bring people into the world for the purpose of paying for their own old age?

(I'm obviously one of the idiots voting for option 4. Not that I could currently afford to support myself in my retirement, but then I guess I'll die when needs be, and not be foisting my problems onto someone else.)

ancapailldorcha

Ficheall wrote: »

What sort of selfish cunt wants to bring people into the world for the purpose of paying for their own old age?

(I'm obviously one of the idiots voting for option 4. Not that I could currently afford to support myself in my retirement, but then I guess I'll die when needs be, and not be foisting my problems onto someone else.)

People paying taxes today, notably the middle classes are paying for today's pensioners. Perhaps some of the tax take is going towards their own pension in the future. I don't know. I pay tax in the UK and I fully intend to avail of the pension I've paid taxes over the years for though that'll likely be worth sod all. Either way, I don't think that people are having children and going through all that that entails for the purpose of having someone to call in now and then if/when they reach old age though the latter is becoming more and more likely with better healthcare, ageing populations, etc...

I'd say Ireland is probably fine as is. 2.1 children per woman is the replacement rate. 1.9 is the figure that was quote earlier. The UK is at about 1.8 if I recall. That said, Germany and Japan, the latter of which is at 1.2/1.3 is in for a seriously nasty shock in the intermediate future.