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

17-03-2018 08:36AM #1

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 · 17-03-2018 09:23AM

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.

17-03-2018 09:39AM

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 · 17-03-2018 09:52AM

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 · 17-03-2018 09:53AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-03-2018 09:58AM

This post has been deleted.

silverharp · 17-03-2018 09:59AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:00AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:03AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:10AM

This post has been deleted.

Atlantic Dawn · 17-03-2018 10:12AM

Housing is the problem.

Permabear · 17-03-2018 10:14AM

This post has been deleted.

lawred2 · 17-03-2018 10:15AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:15AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:16AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:19AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:35AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:43AM

This post has been deleted.

Fr_Dougal · 17-03-2018 10:44AM

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 · 17-03-2018 10:47AM

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 · 17-03-2018 11:29AM

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78 · 17-03-2018 11:39AM

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 · 17-03-2018 11:45AM

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 · 17-03-2018 12:10PM

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 · 17-03-2018 12:52PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:03PM

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

Wanderer78 · 17-03-2018 01:04PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:09PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:12PM

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.

17-03-2018 01:14PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:16PM

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

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

What's the best way to incentivise people to have more children? 56 votes

Comments