Creche bailout

Millionaire only not

What do people think of the crèche bailout on insurance ?
I just see hotels have just jumped on the bandwagon claiming same problem !
Have they opened a can of worms for themselves they will not be able to close ?

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/fears-hospitality-sector-will-be-latest-to-hit-huge-trouble-as-leading-insurers-exit-market-38798859.html

James Brown

Creches should be subsidised and given a flat rate government bond/insurance.
Before anyone gets all 'why should I pay for someone else's kids', well pay for their children's allowance and lack of tax input so.
FYI: Mags Cash would have no excuse not to work for example.

The hotels can get f***ed. Why? They change rates based on greed. They are a business yes, but on that defense, let them ride the market so.
Working people need the service of a creche to work and pay tax. Hotels can close and get other work if it comes to that, such is business.

_Kaiser_

I think the problem is the same as always with FG.

The goal is to allow "big business" to thrive as much as possible, with as little interference as possible, and sell off as much state bodies and interests as they can to support it.

Same thing happened with property and NAMA and now here we are with a massive rental and availability crisis and talk of blanket rent freezes nationally.

People have been screwed by their health and car insurance policies for years under this government (as the recent report has shown). Now its small-medium business that's affected and because they're somewhat more vocal and organised, FG belatedly react - but rather than tackle the underlying problem (the free hand they've allowed), they try to fudge by throwing cash at it - which may play well in some sections prior to an election, but ultimately will only be absorbed and make the situation worse.

Rinse and repeat. Vote FG! :rolleyes:

shesty

Actually I think the problem is more the sector involved and the immediacy of the issue ...childcare is a huge talking point and a problem for many people, and it sounds like a number of facilities could end up closing their doors in the coming months, causing a huge problem for parents.ie, future voters.

You are right on hotels though.No way should they get a bailout.Otherwise, I struggle to see how they will solve the problem long term myself.

Fr_Dougal

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Creches should be subsidised and given a flat rate government bond/insurance.
Before anyone gets all 'why should I pay for someone else's kids', well pay for their children's allowance and lack of tax input so.
FYI: Mags Cash would have no excuse not to work for example.

The hotels can get f***ed. Why? They change rates based on greed. They are a business yes, but on that defense, let them ride the market so.
Working people need the service of a creche to work and pay tax. Hotels can close and get other work if it comes to that, such is business.

Tax credits for cre users. Very simple solution.

_Kaiser_

shesty wrote: »

Actually I think the problem is more the sector involved and the immediacy of the issue ...childcare is a huge talking point and a problem for many people, and it sounds like a number of facilities could end up closing their doors in the coming months, causing a huge problem for parents.ie, future voters.

You are right on hotels though.No way should they get a bailout.Otherwise, I struggle to see how they will solve the problem long term myself.

Long term it means tackling the compo culture and payouts, as well as the legal costs and practises that sustain and encourage it. Greater regulation and transparency in the insurance sector is a must too.

But that again means eating into the profits of the connected, so it certainly won't happen under the current administration anyway.

One eyed Jack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Creches should be subsidised and given a flat rate government bond/insurance.
Before anyone gets all 'why should I pay for someone else's kids', well pay for their children's allowance and lack of tax input so.
FYI: Mags Cash would have no excuse not to work for example.

The hotels can get f***ed. Why? They change rates based on greed. They are a business yes, but on that defense, let them ride the market so.
Working people need the service of a creche to work and pay tax. Hotels can close and get other work if it comes to that, such is business.

On that basis Matt, both hotels and crèches can get fcuked, as both are businesses, and both are lifestyle choices for their respective markets, and both have for years offered a “race to the bottom” standard of service, while charging their customers for a premium rate service, which is why their insurance premiums are going up. Both industries also have a principle of keeping their costs as low as possible by hiring unqualified staff and offering them poor working conditions, then crying foul when their efforts to maximise their profits at the expense of their employees welfare is highlighted.

The issue isn’t actually rising insurance premiums, it’s the fact that the industries aren’t as profitable as they once were and business owners aren’t able to make the profits they once did.

I don’t see any reason why crèches should be subsidised by Government either tbh, they’re a business, not a charity.

Harry Palmr

Creches are now vital to the economy - if they go bust mummy stays at home (the days of the extended family being drafted in to "mind the child" are over for the most part).

But this simply indicates the utter dysfunction of the public liability insurance market. Here in Waterford two bike hire companies which serve the Greenway are about to close up the last I heard as premiums shoot from affordable at a push to beyond reason in about three years.

James Brown

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Tax credits for cre users. Very simple solution.

Not if there are no creches.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On that basis Matt, both hotels and crèches can get fcuked, as both are businesses, and both are lifestyle choices for their respective markets, and both have for years offered a “race to the bottom” standard of service, while charging their customers for a premium rate service, which is why their insurance premiums are going up. Both industries also have a principle of keeping their costs as low as possible by hiring unqualified staff and offering them poor working conditions, then crying foul when their efforts to maximise their profits at the expense of their employees welfare is highlighted.

The issue isn’t actually rising insurance premiums, it’s the fact that the industries aren’t as profitable as they once were and business owners aren’t able to make the profits they once did.

I don’t see any reason why crèches should be subsidised by Government either tbh, they’re a business, not a charity.

I addressed that. So take all the working parents out of the system and pay them children's allowance?
It's time the government queered the market for the tax payer IMO, they do it for private business.

One eyed Jack

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Creches are now vital to the economy - if they go bust mummy stays at home (the days of the extended family being drafted in to "mind the child" are over for the most part).

Eh? 445,000 women working unpaid in the home already in 2016 are what is vital to the economy, not low standard, below minimum wage, unqualified staff which are mostly women working part-time in poor conditions with no opportunities for career development or pension opportunities. The days of extended family minding children are by no means over, they’re increasing due to the high costs of childcare that puts it beyond the reach of most people who are now seeing that it just isn’t worth the risk due to the poor standards and practices in the industry.

One eyed Jack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I addressed that. So take all the working parents out of the system and pay them children's allowance?
It's time the government queered the market for the tax payer IMO, they do it for private business.

I don’t understand what any of that means Matt tbh. Parents whether they are working or not already qualify for a generous children’s allowance from the State. I don’t agree with the State providing children’s allowance but I understand why it’s believed to be necessary as part of the State’s fulfilling it’s obligations towards children’s welfare.

Harry Palmr

What about the women who work or are they not your kind of person?

James Brown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t understand what any of that means Matt tbh. Parents whether they are working or not already qualify for a generous children’s allowance from the State. I don’t agree with the State providing children’s allowance but I understand why it’s believed to be necessary as part of the State’s fulfilling it’s obligations towards children’s welfare.

Basically availability of creches helps the tax paying work force.

Amirani

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Tax credits for cre users. Very simple solution.

Introducing tax credits would be inflationary on prices. It's also not really going to solve many of the underlying affordability issues for many people.

A childcare tax credit for a single mother earning €12/hr is going to make very little difference, though may help those on middle incomes. It's not a "simple solution" as it's a very limited and incomplete solution.

One eyed Jack

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What about the women who work or are they not your kind of person?

What a bizarre question. What does it matter what kind of person they are to me personally? Your point was about crèches being vital to the economy and if they close down families will have to draft in extended family members to care for their children.

My point was that 445,000 women working unpaid in the home already provide a more vital service to the economy because they are providing their labour at no cost, and are therefore providing essential services and better value than subsidising sub-standard loss-making businesses which provide a poor return on investment given the lack of career development, part-time hours, poor working conditions, and risks to children’s safety and welfare.

James Brown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What a bizarre question. What does it matter what kind of person they are to me personally? Your point was about crèches being vital to the economy and if they close down families will have to draft in extended family members to care for their children.

My point was that 445,000 women working unpaid in the home already provide a more vital service to the economy because they are providing their labour at no cost, and are therefore providing essential services and better value than subsidising sub-standard loss-making businesses which provide a poor return on investment given the lack of career development, part-time hours, poor working conditions, and risks to children’s safety and welfare.

A very good point. I would like to force chancers out to work though, of the having a kid, getting a flat, never doing a tap variety.
Also what about women who want a career and contribute?

Fr_Dougal

Amirani wrote: »

Introducing tax credits would be inflationary on prices. It's also not really going to solve many of the underlying affordability issues for many people.

A childcare tax credit for a single mother earning €12/hr is going to make very little difference, though may help those on middle incomes. It's not a "simple solution" as it's a very limited and incomplete solution.

Fair point, but at present non-workers can avail of free crèches.This should be removed as it’s really not necessary.

In the case of insurance, do an exercise on what part of the market is the most profitable. Then make it mandatory that insurers who want to service that market, have to offer insurance for the likes of cres.

It was only reported yesterday that insurance companies are making record profits.

jester77

I like the solution we have here. The first 20 hours per week for each child are paid by the state. If you want to stay in the creche longer you have to apply for a voucher for the remaining weekly hours and these are subsidised based on a means test. You are also not automatically entitled to get extra hours, for example if you are not working you won't get extra hours in the creche.

James Brown

jester77 wrote: »

I like the solution we have here. The first 20 hours per week for each child are paid by the state. If you want to stay in the creche longer you have to apply for a voucher for the remaining weekly hours and these are subsidised based on a means test. You are also not automatically entitled to get extra hours, for example if you are not working you won't get extra hours in the creche.

The trouble with that is the Creche can charge what it likes. We have enough tax money going to private profits.

RedXIV

My wife's cousin was over with us yesterday and she works in a school and overheard that the insurance used by the school is looking like they won't be around next year, potentially causing a delay in the school re-opening in January.

I think there things that should have flat, government managed insurance rates, such as schools and creche's but it'd be remiss to think there are companies packing up just because they aren't raking in a mountain of cash anymore. I know a local leisure play area where my parents live which is used all the time, good connections with the community but the owner has been pretty clear that if the insurance keeps jumping as it has been doing, it'll cost him money to stay open.

I wouldn’t be letting crèches have flat rate insurance until
they are charging flat rate for their services too.

shesty

Pity they wouldn't offer people the option of tax credits around childcare costs or children's allowance.That would probably be the most flexible approach.

whisky_galore

Short term fire money at it type of solution rather than tackling the root of the problem.

ChikiChiki

Ireland has turned into a wild west of cartels and businesses operating like gangsters under FG leadership. They have been asleep at the wheel for such a long time now. FG have enabled this carry on by failing to tackle it.

Bailing out creches sets a bad precedent imo! Enough is enough for the taxpayer. FG need to be booted out onto the streets quick.

Limpy

Its hard for crèches to operate these day's. Feeding kid's Raman noodle's will get you investigated and on TV.

Millionaire only not

Let the government underwrite them followed with free legal aid !
Seen as they already put there foot in it by subsiding !
I’m being sarcastic before anyone jumps on me !

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On that basis Matt, both hotels and crèches can get fcuked, as both are businesses, and both are lifestyle choices for their respective markets, and both have for years offered a “race to the bottom” standard of service, while charging their customers for a premium rate service, which is why their insurance premiums are going up. Both industries also have a principle of keeping their costs as low as possible by hiring unqualified staff and offering them poor working conditions, then crying foul when their efforts to maximise their profits at the expense of their employees welfare is highlighted.

The issue isn’t actually rising insurance premiums, it’s the fact that the industries aren’t as profitable as they once were and business owners aren’t able to make the profits they once did.

I don’t see any reason why crèches should be subsidised by Government either tbh, they’re a business, not a charity.

Crèches can’t hire unqualified staff but your rant was fun

lawred2

salmocab wrote: »

Crèches can’t hire unqualified staff but your rant was fun

Wouldn't engage with auld Jack. He's not a fan of women in the workplace.

He's a 1950's man.

jam_mac_jam

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote: »

Maybe women here might start actually parenting their children again instead of leaving them all day to Olga and Adeola on minimum wage. Shocking idea I know .

Or men perhaps...

One eyed Jack

salmocab wrote: »

Crèches can’t hire unqualified staff but your rant was fun

They can, and they do.

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can, and they do.

No they can’t

Wanderer78

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote:

Maybe women here might start actually parenting their children again instead of leaving them all day to Olga and Adeola on minimum wage. Shocking idea I know .

Maybe something needs to be done about the rapid rise in the cost of living, particularly in relation to housing and accommodation in general first!

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Wouldn't engage with auld Jack. He's not a fan of women in the workplace.

He's a 1950's man.

You alright there horse? I couldn’t care less whether women are in employment or aren’t. It’s none of my concern, all the one to me, I treat a woman the same regardless of her employment status.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You alright there horse? I couldn’t care less whether women are in employment or aren’t. It’s none of my concern, all the one to me, I treat a woman the same regardless of her employment status.

Yeah but you took a thread that only really applied to working parents and used it as an arse licking exercise for the stay at home mother. Stay at home dad's not worthy of your praise? You do seem to have a bit of a new in your bonnet over mothers working, get over it.

eviltwin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe something needs to be done about the rapid rise in the cost of living, particularly in relation to housing and accommodation in general first!

And maybe some people need to get with the notion that it's nothing to do with money, many of us enjoy our jobs and want to work.

whisky_galore

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe something needs to be done about the rapid rise in the cost of living, particularly in relation to housing and accommodation in general first!

A side effect of two wages coming into households where once upon a time there was mostly just the one.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Yeah but you took a thread that only really applied to working parents and used it as an arse licking exercise for the stay at home mother. Stay at home dad's not worthy of your praise? You do seem to have a bit of a new in your bonnet over mothers working, get over it.

This thread was never about working parents, it was about the rising cost of insurance for businesses. It’s just not profitable for insurance companies to offer insurance to businesses incurring losses because they aren’t prepared to spend what it takes to meet health and safety regulations, and now they’re crying foul because the cost of insurance premiums are eating into the costs of running their businesses so they want the State to bail them out.

Fcukall to do with working parents and it wasn’t me who brought them up. I was simply responding to Harry’s earlier point about the value of women in employment to the economy as though that’s the only factor should be considered by the State in providing for the family and children’s welfare. There’s nothing for me to get over because I’ve already stated I couldn’t care less whether a woman is in employment or not, all the same to me. I didn’t mention fathers working in the home because Harry didn’t, so your beef about me not mentioning fathers is with Harry, not me either.

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I wouldn’t be letting crèches have flat rate insurance until
they are charging flat rate for their services too.

Many just operate the ECCE scheme though and they have a pricing scheme that is not only set by the state, it also hasn’t changed for years. Any additional insurance premiums, rent increases or additional training requirements has to come out of the pockets of those who run them. Many of whom would be far better off working in Lidl.

For these pre schools, this hike in insurance could well be the tipping point.

joseywhales

They need to sort out the courts. You should not be receiving compensation beyond the cost of medical care for any accident where you are capable of sitting at a desk the next day.

Kids almost die everyday, it's just life, we have banged our heads off the ground and fallen out of trees, eaten something bad and been sick, I feel like insurance claims should be very rare but they are obviously not.

crisco10

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote: »

I don't know many stay at home fathers. Its not the done thing in this country. And by that I mean men who chose to be stay at home fathers. Not talking about unemployed, career breaks or who are sick. Its not common.

OT but that's largely down to the setup we have for maternity/paternity leave. The opportunity for women to take a "career break" is there with up to 9 months or so off maternity leave. Dad gets 4 weeks. It sets the balance from the off.

Wanderer78

whisky_galore wrote:

A side effect of two wages coming into households where once upon a time there was mostly just the one.

A lot more complicated than just a 'side effect', deregulation of the financial sector, and allowing it to flood the planet with cheap credit, which has helped greatly in causing the rapid rise in housing, has failed, instead of working less hours than what was envisaged, has had the opposite effect, we re swimming in debt

Maewyn Succat

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote: »

Maybe women here might start actually parenting their children again instead of leaving them all day to Olga and Adeola on minimum wage. Shocking idea I know .

My wife is the sole earner in our family as I am a fulltime student. We have 2 kids in childcare. What do you suggest we do if the creche was to close and we can't find other arrangements? All of the staff in the creche we use are Irish so no Olga's or Adeola's there.
Shocking idea?....more like shocking mentality to not be able to think outside your little box.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

My wife is the sole earner in our family as I am a fulltime student. We have 2 kids in childcare. What do you suggest we do if the creche was to close and we can't find other arrangements? All of the staff in the creche we use are Irish so no Olga's or Adeola's there.
Shocking idea?....more like shocking mentality to not be able to think outside your little box.

And not the least bit ironic of course that you would attempt to criticise someone else for what you think is not thinking outside the box, while showing no will to think outside the box yourself. If the crèche you’re using closed down due to no longer being a sustainable business capable of turning over a profit, you would have no choice but to think outside the box.

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And not the least bit ironic of course that you would attempt to criticise someone else for what you think is not thinking outside the box, while showing no will to think outside the box yourself. If the crèche you’re using closed down due to no longer being a sustainable business capable of turning over a profit, you would have no choice but to think outside the box.

I said "if we can't find alternative arrangements ". I am more than capable of thinking outside the box. Unlike your buddy who you're defending I am not of the opinion that all mothers should "parent their children ", which I take to mean sit at home with their children and quit working. Are you also of the opinion that women shouldn't work when they have young kids? I thought that kind of thinking died out 30 years ago but obviously not.

Clarence Boddiker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread was never about working parents, it was about the rising cost of insurance for businesses. It’s just not profitable for insurance companies to offer insurance to businesses incurring losses because they aren’t prepared to spend what it takes to meet health and safety regulations, and now they’re crying foul because the cost of insurance premiums are eating into the costs of running their businesses so they want the State to bail them out.

Fcukall to do with working parents and it wasn’t me who brought them up. I was simply responding to Harry’s earlier point about the value of women in employment to the economy as though that’s the only factor should be considered by the State in providing for the family and children’s welfare. There’s nothing for me to get over because I’ve already stated I couldn’t care less whether a woman is in employment or not, all the same to me. I didn’t mention fathers working in the home because Harry didn’t, so your beef about me not mentioning fathers is with Harry, not me either.

Insurance companies have made record profits in the last couple of years. They complain about the high level of claims yet almost all of them have made massive profits...somethings not adding up.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

I said "if we can't find alternative arrangements ". I am more than capable of thinking outside the box. Unlike your buddy who you're defending I am not of the opinion that all mothers should "parent their children ", which I take to mean sit at home with their children and quit working. Are you also of the opinion that women shouldn't work when they have young kids? I thought that kind of thinking died out 30 years ago but obviously not.

Being unable to think outside your own little box will do that to you. It doesn’t matter what my personal opinion is regarding what arrangements other people make that suit their families, the facts are that 455,000 women were working in the home in 2016, and those are official figures from the CSO, quite a fair distance outside your own box.

One eyed Jack

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Insurance companies have made record profits in the last couple of years. They complain about the high level of claims yet almost all of them have made massive profits...somethings not adding up.

Things are adding up alright - insurance companies aren’t making the profits they were in previous years, so they’re refusing to provide their services to businesses which are proving to be more of a liability than a profit making venture. That’s the whole point of insurance.

hmmm

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Insurance companies have made record profits in the last couple of years. They complain about the high level of claims yet almost all of them have made massive profits...somethings not adding up.

Yes, the risks and costs are too high to quote for a relatively small market. If they were making "record profits" they wouldn't be leaving

It's time for a referendum, we need to change the culture fundamentally - we can't have people suing every time they trip over a daffodil.

jam_mac_jam

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

I said "if we can't find alternative arrangements ". I am more than capable of thinking outside the box. Unlike your buddy who you're defending I am not of the opinion that all mothers should "parent their children ", which I take to mean sit at home with their children and quit working. Are you also of the opinion that women shouldn't work when they have young kids? I thought that kind of thinking died out 30 years ago but obviously not.

It's fairly amazing that the argument that women shouldn't be working and look after the kids comes up on boards everytime creches are mentioned.

I would have thought that those ideas were gone. My dad in his seventies wouldn't think like this. Weird.

tabby aspreme

My OH is in contact with creche owners daily, of several people she spoke to today , one small community service will see there premium rise from € 390 to €1150 next year, and on the other end of the scale, a large creche, with a premium increase from €3000 to €11500, neither of these services have ever had a claim, and are lucky that the company they currently have insurance with, is the one staying in the Irish market.

Clarence Boddiker

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's fairly amazing that the argument that women shouldn't be working and look after the kids comes up on boards everytime creches are mentioned.

I would have thought that those ideas were gone. My dad in his seventies wouldn't think like this. Weird.

Its better for the children to have one parent at home until they go to school. My own personal opinion but I don't think its right for kids to be put in to creche before they turn one. Obviously many people cannot afford this but very young children are better off for their development in the company of their mother.