Lets all have more kids!!!

Greybottle · 15-04-2018 09:22AM

Dog walker 1234 wrote: »

I am happy to sow my wild oats on Saturday night and pray for a crop failure Sunday morning.

A brilliant Makem & Clancy line. :pac:

lazygal · 15-04-2018 09:22AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So those who don't want others having kids, don't want a pension when they get older. Fine....maybe there should be some system to weed these people out and ensure there is no pension payments to them ever.

They don't want anyone caring for them in their dotage either clearly.

s7ryf3925pivug · 15-04-2018 09:24AM

We got one of those boxes. Didnt get much with it. Haven't used it much yet. Probably will for a while as he outgrown his current downstairs sleeping arrangements.

Bit weird to think a gesture like this would affect fertility rates. I suspect the journalist has the angle wrong. It's about the child's wellbeing and avoiding SIDS.

Lu Tze · 15-04-2018 09:26AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So those who don't want others having kids, don't want a pension when they get older. Fine....maybe there should be some system to weed these people out and ensure there is no pension payments to them ever.

There won't be a pension by the time we retire, or at least not one in anyway comparable to today's one. The numbers just don't stack up, can't see there being any state pension for anybody who has assets or other income (such as providing their own private pension) in 35 years or so.

Akrasia · 15-04-2018 09:45AM

lazygal wrote: »

Or offer a child care payment for parents working full or part-time to be used on their preferred child care. We have no interest in creche based child care, we employ a child minder.

Why only for working parents though?

Why is it only economic activity when minding someone else's kids?

If there's a childcare payment it should be paid to all parents to either pay some of the cost of professional child care, or loss of earnings if they mind their own children.

lazygal · 15-04-2018 09:48AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Why only for working parents though?

Why is it only economic activity when minding someone else's kids?

If there's a childcare payment it should be paid to all parents to either pay some of the cost of professional child care, or loss of earnings if they mind their own children.

Minding my own kids is parenting. It's not a job.

appledrop · 15-04-2018 09:50AM

It's simple if you want to increase birth rate you need to assist with childcare costs.

Raging_Ninja · 15-04-2018 09:55AM

They're not wrong though. The modern welfare state absolutely depends on there being more people working and entering the workforce and paying taxes than leaving it through retirement, just like any other pyramid scheme. Best way to guarantee this is people having more kids.

10 years ago there were 4 people paying taxes for every 1 person receiving social welfare (pension, dole, etc). In about 15-20 years that figure will be down to 2.2 as the birth rate falls into line with all the other industrialised countries.

Demographics is the greatest threat the welfare state can ever face.

Sofiztikated · 15-04-2018 10:01AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Exactly . All well and good giving parents a baby box, that won't do anything to ease the burden of childcare . They only have to look around and ask why people are not having more kids . They simply can't afford to pay huge rents , massive mortgages and ridiculous child care costs .

It's also to do with the change of lifestyle. Women aren't at home, cranking out children from their early 20's anymore.

I think its a good idea, the box, but it'd want to be somewhat substantial. Cos if its a single piece of cardboard, I don't see many Irish people using it for the cot purpose.

iamwhoiam · 15-04-2018 10:09AM

lazygal wrote: »

Minding my own kids is parenting. It's not a job.

Do you not think parents should be supported to stay at home and look after their children ? If parents were supported for two years or so I am sure many would stay at home rather than take the option of supported creche fees ? I spoke to a Latvian girl recently and to increase the birth rate they are supported financially for up to three years .It is a percentage of their previous pay and the percentage lowers each year but they are still at least supported

corks finest · 15-04-2018 10:12AM

Let's not,I'm a father of 8,and can honestly say it was naive and stupid of me to have so many,my income at the time they were young(all in their 30s now)was not enough,it required 2 jobs,and later on the wife had to wo to as well,my eldest is on number 6 kid,has no life herself, not enough money,and in the same position as we were ,crazy,crazy stuff

lazygal · 15-04-2018 10:13AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Do you not think parents should be supported to stay at home and look after their children ? If parents were supported for two years or so I am sure many would stay at home rather than take the option of supported creche fees ? I spoke to a Latvian girl recently and to increase the birth rate they are supported financially for up to three years .It is a percentage of their previous pay and the percentage lowers each year but they are still at least supported

Not everyone wants to stay home. I did for a year both times. I was happy to go back to work. What happens if your job isn't there after three years or you're replaced in the meantime?
Going the creche subsidy route just shovels more money into private enterprises like Giraffe.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 15-04-2018 10:17AM

Blazer wrote: »

Sometimes you seriously wonder about what planet politicians are on...and then you see ideas like this.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/baby-boxes-for-parents-of-every-newborn-irelands-strategy-to-increase-birth-rate-revealed-36807832.html

The latest brainwave being floated to support an aging population is ....encourage families to have more kids by giving them a baby box.

Instead of lets say
1. Eliminate chidlren's allowance after the 2nd child going forward
2. Increase number of teachers for primary and secondary schools and expand the school subjects and revise the crap junior cert and leaving cert qualifications
3. Build more colleges thus reducing points for courses leading to more people in higher level jobs
4. Rebuild the HSE ground up. Increase nurses salaries at start and give them a proper career path like most countries do thus preventing the draining of resources to other countries

And there's probably a tonne more we could do to ensure most people get upskilled and have better jobs which in turn would provide a better tax take instead of sponging off welfare, career criminals etc etc...

But no...lets encourage Jonjo and Charmaine down the road to pump out the sprogs in the hope one of them might actually get a job and pay a bit of tax to support their parents in the future.
We already have the highest birth rate in Europe and we want more??

The west isn’t over populated. Quite the opposite.

All of your solutions bar point 1) are extremely vague. Not worth engaging.

iamwhoiam · 15-04-2018 10:19AM

lazygal wrote: »

Not everyone wants to stay home. I did for a year both times. I was happy to go back to work. What happens if your job isn't there after three years or you're replaced in the meantime?
Going the creche subsidy route just shovels more money into private enterprises like Giraffe.

At no stage did I say everyone wanted to stay at home ? I said the option should be there to stay at home . If they are going to subsidize child care in creches then in my opinion the option should also be there to stay at home and be supported with the same amount as creche subsidy would cost >I dont actually understand your arguement at all .I am for options and allowing parents chose the child care they wish to avail of , be it at home , creche or a minder .All should get equal support
And I see no problem with any route if it suits the parents and child .Nor would I be snobby and tut tut at creches as they are often the ideal option for many parents and children

lazygal · 15-04-2018 10:21AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

At no stage did I say everyone wanted to stay at home ? I said the option should be there to stay at home . If they are going to subsidize child care in creches then in my opinion the option should also be there to stay at home and be supported with the same amount as creche subsidy would cost >I dont actually understand your arguement at all .I am for options and allowing parents chose the child care they wish to avail of , be it at home , creche or a minder .All should get equal support
And I see no problem with any route if it suits the parents and child .Nor would I be snobby and tut tut at creches as they are often the ideal option for many parents and children

Why would someone who doesn't have child care costs because they've chosen not to work outside the home need a child care subsidy? If you choose to forgo income why should the state pay you instead?

iamwhoiam · 15-04-2018 10:25AM

lazygal wrote: »

Why would someone who doesn't have child care costs because they've chosen not to work outside the home need a child care subsidy? If you choose to forgo income why should the state pay you instead?

Because it gives them the OPTION to stay at home .Many dont have that option because they simply cannot afford it .Its not that difficult surely to understand that? Subsidizing creche fees or minders or the parent to stay at home at one rate for all is not at all difficult to grasp ? If the government only chose to subsidize for example one route of childcare then people can only afford that one route .If they open more routes people can chose the route to suit them

lazygal · 15-04-2018 10:27AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Because it gives them the OPTION to stay at home .Many dont have that option because they simply cannot afford it .Its not that difficult surely to understand that? Subsidizing creche fees or minders or the parent to stay at home at one rate for all is not at all difficult to grasp ?

I'm working for not much more than childcare fees right now. People make all sorts of choices the state doesn't pay for. If you choose to forgo paid employment to stay at home to be with your children, that's on you. Why would the state pay you for parenting?

iamwhoiam · 15-04-2018 10:36AM

lazygal wrote: »

I'm working for not much more than childcare fees right now. People make all sorts of choices the state doesn't pay for. If you choose to forgo paid employment to stay at home to be with your children, that's on you. Why would the state pay you for parenting?

By the very same token then by your logic why should they pay or subsidize a creche fee or indeed your child minder so ? You posted that if the government subsidize creches then your minder also should be subsized . By your own logic you are now contradicting that . As why should they pay for anything at all really if you chose to be a parent ? Did you get maternity leave pay ? Childrens allowance ?

Atlantic Dawn · 15-04-2018 10:36AM

It's funny that only now the government can see the country is completely finished when it comes to the sustainability of our incredibly generous state pension and social welfare system, there's simply not enough people being born to come even close to keeping it going. They will waffle this they will waffle that but at the end of the day it all comes down to the price of a house being out of the reach of people planning to start a family and those who havn't planned and are banging them out like Flynn are more likely to become homeless as a result of the unaffordability of them.

I had to laugh when I saw the front page of the Irish Independent yesterday, big massive headline "Just 18 months until house prices hit Celtic Tiger peak" and then below it a seperate story "Binge drinking is just what young people do no", can people not see the link in knowing you have zero chance of ever owning a house at current prices and as a result pi$$ing your weeks wages away?

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ind-10.jpg

techdiver · 15-04-2018 10:37AM

Simon Brief Steward wrote: »

Stop taxing a sole breadwinner more than two spouses who each earn half as much. Parental care is preferable to daycare before age three.

I wish i could thank this more than once.

Tax individualisation was a disaster for single income households.

Blazer · 15-04-2018 10:39AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The west isn’t over populated. Quite the opposite.

All of your solutions bar point 1) are extremely vague. Not worth engaging.

so I'm born for a position in politics or the public sector.

My point is there are far better long term options towards solving the so-called aging crisis.
We have the highest birth rate already in Europe but how many of those will go on to be productive and law abiding citizens??
If you can't be bothered to engage sure trot off and collect your welfare cheque.

wexie · 15-04-2018 10:39AM

lazygal wrote: »

I'm working for not much more than childcare fees right now. People make all sorts of choices the state doesn't pay for. If you choose to forgo paid employment to stay at home to be with your children, that's on you. Why would the state pay you for parenting?

You've heard of parental leave no?

lazygal · 15-04-2018 10:41AM

wexie wrote: »

You've heard of parental leave no?

Yes. Chose not to use it.

Dakota Dan · 15-04-2018 10:41AM

Just sterilise all potential scumbag breeders instead of paying them to breed. End result less scumbags scrounging off the state on welfare and costing a fortune on the judicial system.

lazygal · 15-04-2018 10:41AM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

By the very same token then by your logic why should they pay or subsidize a creche fee or indeed your child minder so ? You posted that if the government subsidize creches then your minder also should be subsized . By your own logic you are now contradicting that . As why should they pay for anything at all really if you chose to be a parent ? Did you get maternity leave pay ? Childrens allowance ?

Well they don't. I pay my minder from my after tax income. What's your point?

wexie · 15-04-2018 10:41AM

lazygal wrote: »

Yes. Chose not to use it.

and because you chose not to use it others shouldn't either.
Is that the extent of your argument?

Wanderer78 · 15-04-2018 10:42AM

Blazer wrote:

My point is there are far better long term options towards solving the so-called aging crisis. We have the highest birth rate already in Europe but how many of those will go on to be productive and law abiding citizens?? If you can't be bothered to engage sure trot off and collect your welfare cheque.

'productive citizens', interesting term, but what the hell does it actually mean? Maybe we need to figure out ways to distribute wealth more evenly?

lazygal · 15-04-2018 10:45AM

wexie wrote: »

and because you chose not to use it others shouldn't either.
Is that the extent of your argument?

No. My point is choices come with financial consequences. If you choose to have children, you should be aware of the costs.

Zebra3 · 15-04-2018 10:46AM

wexie wrote: »

right....that'd make things way better.

There's enough Shakiras, Brittneys, Jacintas, Antos and Deccos kicking about as it is.

The objective is to make things a little better, not a lot worse

If you’re gonna look down your nose at Deco, at least spell his name right. :rolleyes:

iamwhoiam · 15-04-2018 10:46AM

lazygal wrote: »

Well they don't. I pay my minder from my after tax income. What's your point?

My point is you posted that a payment for creche or minder fees would be an option to be explored . Now you are contradicting yourself and saying parents should not be subsidized to parent
I give up now explaining to you how you are not only dismissing the option of staying at home being equally as important to support . Its like talking to a brick wall at this stage
Your way or no way

Lets all have more kids!!!

Comments