Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pay Parents to Stay Home with Baby for 12 Months?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Anything the state pays to assist in raising children is an investment into future growth, health & safety. Simple as.

    If you choose not to have children, you are still going to be surrounded by, and reliant on other people's children when you're 70 years old and claiming a state pension and receiving state care.

    Would you rather these people were well-educated with a good upbringing and well-paying jobs paying for your pension? Or would you rather they grew up in homes where there was constant financial worry, where they had to leave education early and where they themselves were relying on state assistance to make ends meet?


  • Options
    #63
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,148 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


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

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

    There are plenty of reasons why expressing doesn't work for many mothers.

    I think parental leave should be shared if the parents want to do that. Fact is though, since it was introduced in the UK for example, only a very small percentage of fathers have availed of it. Seems like a change in mindset and culture with regards to parenting is needed for this to take off

    Re the question in the OP, I think it's a good idea to provide support for a parent to stay home with the child for the first year. There are lots of benefits for a child to have a single primary carer when young. Probably though, it would benefit a lot more people to have more affordable childcare


  • Options
    #64
    jester77
    Registered Users Posts: 11,262 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    Invest in the kids now and this will result in a later investment into the tax and pension pot. It's securing the future of the economy and funding older people to a decent quality of life once they retire. It's not exactly rocket science.

    Of course the onus is on the government and the people voting for them not to fu*k it up in a way that force generations of these people to emigrate.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    How do you enforce that? If they don't have the money they have to have a termination? Or make them pay additional taxes if they have a child without the money saved?

    Let them pay into a fund that when it meets a certain amount then they're eligible for the full 12 months. If they don't pay in, or don't have the full amount required, then they stick with the standard system.

    Why go to extremes? I never mentioned stopping anyone from having children. I merely object to my having to pay for them to do so, beyond the current benefits.


  • Options
    #66
    Sebastian Dangerfield
    Registered Users Posts: 1,798 ✭✭✭Sebastian Dangerfield


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

    You're taking the extreme view. No children equals an increasing average age in the population. Those people need pensions down the line, if there isn't a plentiful younger generation behind them, who contributes the taxes needed to service that, let alone provide the services the older people no longer can?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


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

    But sure how did any of us bond with our Dads then?

    I've always been closer to my Dad than Mum and he worked like an animal on his business when I was young. But he still made time for me in the evenings and weekends.


  • Options
    #68
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Let them pay into a fund that when it meets a certain amount then they're eligible for the full 12 months. If they don't pay in, or don't have the full amount required, then they stick with the standard system.

    Why go to extremes? I never mentioned stopping anyone from having children. I merely object to my having to pay for them to do so, beyond the current benefits.

    My point was that it's not possible to make someone do this. And what you're suggesting is that people save up for a child but if they can't afford to then they get less money.
    Really you're making child poverty more likely.


  • Options
    #69
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,148 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Let them pay into a fund that when it meets a certain amount then they're eligible for the full 12 months. If they don't pay in, or don't have the full amount required, then they stick with the standard system.

    Why go to extremes? I never mentioned stopping anyone from having children. I merely object to my having to pay for them to do so, beyond the current benefits.

    If you want to be part of society then your tax money might go towards things you don't agree with in order to benefit that society as a whole. You can't pick and choose so you'll just have to suck it up unfortunately


  • Options
    #70
    AVFC.Stephen
    Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭AVFC.Stephen


    Parents should get paid as healthcare should be free. We live in a country that favours the idea of pretending to give you more by lowering your taxes only to hammer you on everything else to make up the difference.

    I wouldn't mind paying an extra 2% if it meant that, that 2% was going on healthcare but just like the USC, we will be told it's for something and when it's paid it will be just like the 1 billion rainy day fund (not there). What happens when the next crash happens ? A galaxy social charge will it be ?


  • Options
    #71
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    amcalester wrote: »
    Its a bit simplistic to call raising children a lifestyle choice.

    Indeed. It is more of a hobby. Something you choose to do with your spare time, rather than play sport, go to the theatre, learn to make candles, or whatever. I dont think anyone truly thinks honestly that they should be paid for. But people will not turn down an opportunity, if it seems to be in the air, of having someone else fund their passtimes. Its similar to football clubs or whatever running lottos, or fundraisers (glorified begging).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


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

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

    Why ? Because the big problem in the world is that there is a shortage of people ?


  • Options
    #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Grayson wrote: »
    My point was that it's not possible to make someone do this. And what you're suggesting is that people save up for a child but if they can't afford to then they get less money.

    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.
    Really you're making child poverty more likely.

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


  • Options
    #74
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Indeed. It is more of a hobby. Something you choose to do with your spare time, rather than play sport, go to the theatre, learn to make candles, or whatever. I dont think anyone truly thinks honestly that they should be paid for. But people will not turn down an opportunity, if it seems to be in the air, of having someone else fund their passtimes. Its similar to football clubs or whatever running lottos, or fundraisers (glorified begging).

    3/10


  • Options
    #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    If you want to be part of society then your tax money might go towards things you don't agree with in order to benefit that society as a whole. You can't pick and choose so you'll just have to suck it up unfortunately

    Did I say that I wanted to pick and choose? I said that I have no issue with my taxes supporting the existing benefits for families... I just don't see why I have to pay for more benefits for them.

    We all pay for parents to stay at home for 12 months? That's not reasonable. I'm perfectly fine with my tax money going to support the existing system, because it's reasonable.


  • Options
    #76
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,804 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


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

    Please link to one which shows that the around-ness needs to be full time, and that its of greater benefit than breastfeeding is.


  • Options
    #77
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Please link to one which shows that the around-ness needs to be full time, and that its of greater benefit than breastfeeding is.

    Where did i claim this? Thats a piss poor straw man.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-behson-phd/paternity-leave-is-good-for-kids-too_b_4151986.html
    The children of fathers who take long leave after their birth are more likely to perform better in cognitive development tests and are more likely to be prepared for school at the ages of four and five.


  • Options
    #78
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    siblers wrote: »
    Not if the baby was an accident

    Babies aren’t accidents.


  • Options
    #79
    rick_fantastic
    Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭rick_fantastic


    I for one would love a year off work on full salary to look after each kid... in fact I'd have one every year


  • Options
    #80
    Lia_lia
    Registered Users Posts: 6,691 ✭✭✭Lia_lia


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree more.

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

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

    I have a relative who had to send her son to crèche after 4 months because she was paid a lot more than her husband and her job didn’t top up maternity pay. If they could share the maternity leave her husband could have stayed at home with the baby for another 2 months. And his work actually did offer topped up maternity pay for 6 months! So would have been useful for them.


  • Options
    #81
    Kingp35
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,261 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kingp35


    rick_fantastic wrote: »
    I for one would love a year off work on full salary to look after each kid... in fact I'd have one every year

    Many would, which is one of the problems with the proposal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    rick_fantastic wrote: »
    I for one would love a year off work on full salary to look after each kid... in fact I'd have one every year

    You can pay me 3 annual salaries, still wouldn't go through another pregnancy again.


  • Options
    #83
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Generous parental leave int the Nordic countries had not magically make people have larger families. The year of paid leave has no effect on family size.

    A year of paid maternity leave is a great idea provided it is sharded one partner must take at least of 3 months of the paternity leave and if they don't they lose the leave.


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It's a difficult one as I'm very much against the current system of throwing money at baby producing layabouts who never worked a day in their life while working people struggle a lot financially.

    A system where tax paying couples get more help while taking it away from baby machines on the dole is the type of direction I would like to see.
    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Please link to one which shows that the around-ness needs to be full time, and that its of greater benefit than breastfeeding is.

    Of the people I know how have had kids in the last year or two (and it's quite a few since I'm at that age where all my friends are starting families) only one mother breastfed past the first few weeks so your argument isn't really valid.


  • Options
    #85
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Kingp35 wrote: »
    Many would, which is one of the problems with the proposal.

    Seems to work perfectly well in sweden and norway


  • Options
    #86
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,006 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


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


    I think it's a fantastic idea, and I've no kids and don't plan on having any.


  • Options
    #87
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,716 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Would some one really have a child so they could get a paid year off work? I refuse to believe that. You hear about people having children to improve dole/ get a house but its a completely seperate thing.

    Since the average costs of raising a child are €240,000 then you could just save the money instead of having the child and take several years off.


  • Options
    #88
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Please link to one which shows that the around-ness needs to be full time, and that its of greater benefit than breastfeeding is.

    So if a mother doesn't want to or can't breastfeed, she should be entitled to no maternity leave I'm guessing?


  • Options
    #89
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Why do parents need to be paid to look after their kids?


  • Options
    #90
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,192 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    I think it's fine from the mother's perspective at the moment, I would like to see longer paternity leave though. not necessary as long as what mothers currently get but a couple of month would be good.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Why do parents need to be paid to look after their kids?

    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.


Advertisement