Childcare - an issue now

ArthurDent

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=146267668&p=y46z68374

Officials drawing up proposals to ease childcare costs
15/06/2005 - 08:08:58

Senior civil servants from a number of Government departments are reportedly in the process of drawing up a range of proposals for reform of childcare policy.

Reports this morning said the proposals included subsidies, increases in child benefit payments and tax credits to help ease the burden of childcare costs.

The various options have reportedly been costed at between €160m and €713m per year and are due to be presented to ministers at a special Cabinet meeting on social inclusion next month.

Childcare and the costs it imposes on working parents has emerged as a major issue ahead of the next general election.


So the goverment have suddenly discovered this? What rock have they been hiding under for the past 10 years?
Nothing to do with the changes in the tax system since individualisation, that makes it more economically worthwhile to have two working parents than one?
So does anyone really believe that this issue is going to be addressed fairly?
Me - I doubt it - no way you can benefit thsoe working outside the home without pi$$ing off sahm or sahds.

Rock Climber

I'm wondering does anyone know what percentage of industries/businesses contribute towards child care?
It seems unfair to me that they want mums to work yet some if not a lot of them don't recognise the extra cost by the parent involved in this.
It's no worse that getting paid less than a single person or than a childless couple.It's the same effect.

I suppose some of their lack of responsibility here has to do with the buoyancy of the labour market.But perhaps at an E.U level and including obviously the new entrant countries, there should be a law making employers contribute to child care costs at least untill they are at school.

The use of tax payers money is of course the other way but isn't that a discrimination against single tax payers and couples who dont want children and of course couples who have children either old enough to look after themselves or grown up.
My view would be that more emphasis should be put on the Employers responsibilities here.
If its a case where the second parent has to work to maintain a mortgage, then I think the "social" system should intervene during the years that the family finances are under pressure due to the mortgage.
Something along the lines of a low interest loan or a council house purchase scheme or whatever.
Social intervention of course should be strictly means tested to rule out the fact that some working parents are actually working to maintain a high lifestyle rather than just a mortgage.
In that case they should have their priorities straight and not be moaning about child care costs when they can easily afford them but are under pressure with lifestyle expenses.

Nuttzz

Why should business pay for an employee because the employee decides to have a child?

Business doesnt necessarily want mothers to work they want the best person of the job.

Why should single / childless people get paid less or have less tax breaks because they have no kids?

If you stick it in your take the consequences IMO.

Rock Climber

Nuttzz wrote:

Why should business pay for an employee because the employee decides to have a child?

Because they want the employee to work for them?

Business doesnt necessarily want mothers to work they want the best person of the job.

And if the best person happens to be a mother?

Why should single / childless people get paid less or have less tax breaks because they have no kids?

Because well society should encourage its next generation and help provide the best for them.Call it an equalisation.

If you stick it in your take the consequences IMO.

That sounds like an advocacy of stay at home housewives.I would advocate E.U wide rules for a company contribution as the proper social thing to impose.
Companies could then choose whether to employ the extra costing labour unit if they want.OR parents could choose to forego the extra payment or possibly be obliged to do so if they can afford child care and/or the state should step in, in the circumstances I mentioned in my last post.
that would be my view

Boggle

The use of tax payers money is of course the other way but isn't that a discrimination against single tax payers and couples who dont want children and of course couples who have children either old enough to look after themselves or grown up.

Children are the future of a country, without which we would grind to a halt economically so I do not see why someone should be exempt from paying their fair share towards childcare costs.

Don't forget its todays children that 'll be paying for tomorrows pension...

Nuttzz

Rock Climber wrote:

Because they want the employee to work for them?

that doesnt answer why they should pay extra for an employee with a child

Rock Climber wrote:

And if the best person happens to be a mother?

fair enough, but why should they be paid extra because they have children

Rock Climber wrote:

Because well society should encourage its next generation and help provide the best for them.Call it an equalisation.

this is the parnets responsibility not governments

Rock Climber wrote:

That sounds like an advocacy of stay at home housewives.

not at all but why should, for example, a 23 year old single childless male be paid less or get less of a tax break than a 23 year mother for the same job? Does that not fly in the face of equality

Don't forget its todays children that 'll be paying for tomorrows pension...

really? they wont be paying mine......

Rock Climber

Nuttzz wrote:

that doesnt answer why they should pay extra for an employee with a child

The single employee gets the going rate, it's when the company want to keep the parent who has the child minding costs, then the extra pay is factored in.

fair enough, but why should they be paid extra because they have children
this is the parnets responsibility not governments

Its not a case of that, its a case of paying extra to a parent if thats whats needed for to incentivise them to stay in the job.

not at all but why should, for example, a 23 year old single childless male be paid less or get less of a tax break than a 23 year mother for the same job? Does that not fly in the face of equality

It would be a case of supply and demand.They could of course do without the parent and hire a single person if available.

really? they wont be paying mine......

In the above quote you are replying to someone else and something I did not say.However I agree with the persons point in that the next generation will be footing the bill for most of society , like we are now.
You may have made other arrangements for your pension but thats largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as most people wont be in a position to make those kind of arrangements and will depend on the tax payer to varying degrees.

Boggle

really? they wont be paying mine......

Touche.. They will still be paying for the running of the country that you live in.

that doesnt answer why they should pay extra for an employee with a child

They shouldn't. If an allowance should be made available then it should come from the state. Companies already have enough expenses in this country.
Also, many small companies already won't hire women who they consider migt get pregnant as they can't afford to pay maternity leave AND a replacement.

Why should single / childless people get paid less or have less tax breaks because they have no kids?

Well I reckon they(mother or father - not just mothers only) should get tax breaks as in many cases they earn little more than the price of a creche for the week.

Nuttzz

Rock Climber wrote:

The single employee gets the going rate, it's when the company want to keep the parent who has the child minding costs, then the extra pay is factored in.

where is the incentive for the employer to hire a working mother, if nothing else this would marginalise working mothers

Rock Climber wrote:

It would be a case of supply and demand.They could of course do without the parent and hire a single person if available.

again as above, this marginalises working mothers

Rock Climber wrote:

In the above quote you are replying to someone else and something I did not say.

that is why i didnt quote you

Boggle wrote:

They shouldn't. If an allowance should be made available then it should come from the state. Companies already have enough expenses in this country.
Also, many small companies already won't hire women who they consider migt get pregnant as they can't afford to pay maternity leave AND a replacement.

this is my orginal point, why should companies be burdened with childcare costs, there are plenty of schools empty after 2.30 that could be used for after school care etc. I have worked with many small companies who dont hire women for this reason, and the biggest offenders are companies run by women (just from my personal experience). I have 2 mothers working for me, I give them flexitime and term time arrangments. (http://www.worklifebalance.ie/) I dont see why I should have to pay more though just because they are mothers

boggle wrote:

Touche.. They will still be paying for the running of the country that you live in.

I think that will be more of an issue for future generations of Australian taxpayers rather than Irish ones

Boggle

I think that will be more of an issue for future generations of Australian taxpayers rather than Irish ones

You said it brudda...

ArthurDent

Boggle wrote:

Also, many small companies already won't hire women who they consider migt get pregnant as they can't afford to pay maternity leave AND a replacement.

Well I reckon they(mother or father - not just mothers only) should get tax breaks as in many cases they earn little more than the price of a creche for the week.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here Boggle - when i worked full-time with two small kids I paid 1,500 a month childcare, which meant that I was coming out at the end of the week (a 50+ hour week in many cases, with international travel at least 3 or 4 times a year) with about €150 - not exactly a huge incentive to stay working in a pressurised job. An added cost to the state is the loss of expertise (especially in areas such as nursing, medicine, pharamceuticals, biotecnology - all areas with more female than males) as it becomes more difficult financially (and in other ways) for women with children to stay in the workforce. And much as it would be nice to say that this is not a "womens issue" it still is primarily. Most of my female colleagues with two or more kids are "downsizing" their careers to try and get some balance (financial or work/life).

I don't think tax credits will necessarily cure this but the might help.

Cork

Nuttzz wrote:

Why should business pay for an employee because the employee decides to have a child?

Should the state or business pay for fuel getting to work?

Parents already get the childrens allowance that is not even means tested.

Would boarding schools be an alternative to cheches?

Child care is a pre election gemick.

The demise of real politics and the emergence of this lifestyle type of stuff.

Calina

Cork,

Well in answer to your first question, I would say, indirectly, yes. This is because most of the public transport in this country is operated by state owned companies and our aim should be to get as many people as possible to use public transport to go to work. Now realistically, this isn't possible at the moment, but it should be an aspiration.

I am assuming that this question was along the lines of demonstrating how ridiculous it is to assume that the state should pay for child care. Someone has to. The problem is for years, no one ever paid the one who did it - the stay-at-home mothers. Their contribution to society is incalcuble, but I seem to remember a study about 20 years ago suggesting that the cost of hiring people to do absolutely everything a stay-at-home housewife/mother did was around 100,000 pounds sterling a year. You can take that as you like as unfortunately, the stat is is 20 years old and I can't at this moment put my finger on an up-to-date figure. To the mods: I'd like to apologise for that.

Child-care may well be a pre-election gimick, in the same way as it was before the last election, but there are a lot of issues around it, and it's a loaded subject. I have no wish to write a little issue on the status of women in the workplace, but it is telling that the issue of child-care is more closely linked to the care provided by mothers rather than the care provided by fathers. Put simply, I think if the issue of the availability of child care had more of an impact on the careers and lives of the children's fathers rather than on their mothers, this would be a non-issue - every company and small town would have a state supported creche.

Which leads us on to another little point: you can provide all the tax breaks and support you like to parents who need to provide childcare. But the last time I heard any of my colleagues discussing child care/after school care, one of their driving concerns was the lack of availability of creche places for babies. Put simply, there are not enough. Babies are relatively expensive to mind and there are fewer places in the average creche for them.

As to whether boarding schools would be an alternative - they still have to be paid for by someone.

Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Are you trying to make some deep point about society today? Because I can make a few. While we're not the most aging population in Europe, we are aging, and frankly, that doesn't bode well for my old age. I'll probably wind up working my fingers to the bone until I'm 70 because my pension will be screwed and there won't be enough people in the younger generations paying into the pot for me to retire at 65.

Too many people look at at the short term cost of having children - child care costs and the like, and people needing to take occasional short hotice time off - but it will be no laughing matter in 40 years time when we have a declining working population.

I'm pretty certain from your post you don't have the remotest idea what is involved in having children, what sort of costs are involved even outside child care.

Cork

I think we cannot expect to replicate high levels of services like child care with maintaining a low tax economy.

There is going to be a down turn in our economy. The bubble is going to burst. We cannot afford to be stuck spending massive amounts on childcare when there is an economic downturn.

I personally would like to see more hospital beds and more visable reform of our heath system.

Boggle

Child care is a pre election gemick.

The demise of real politics and the emergence of this lifestyle type of stuff.

Funnily enough seems like a pretty important issue to me... It may one day be important to you too Cork.

I think we cannot expect to replicate high levels of services like child care with maintaining a low tax economy.

A tax break in order to pay childcare costs is not a high level of service. Of course it means that the tax take for the state is down a bit, but it also means a reduction in the amount of people minding kids in the black.

There is going to be a down turn in our economy. The bubble is going to burst. We cannot afford to be stuck spending massive amounts on childcare when there is an economic downturn.

If the bubble bursts then people will no longer be working and will no longer need that tax break as they can care for their own children.

Would boarding schools be an alternative to cheches?

Would you want to send your kids to a boarding school??