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

Potential-Monke · 17-03-2018 01:20PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:24PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:27PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:32PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:40PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:40PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:43PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:50PM

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 · 17-03-2018 01:54PM

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 · 17-03-2018 02:11PM

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 · 17-03-2018 02:12PM

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 · 17-03-2018 02:23PM

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 · 17-03-2018 02:32PM

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 · 17-03-2018 02:35PM

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 · 17-03-2018 03:47PM

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 · 18-03-2018 10:26AM

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 · 18-03-2018 10:36AM

This post has been deleted.

Ficheall · 18-03-2018 11:06AM

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 · 18-03-2018 08:53PM

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.

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

Comments