lazygal wrote: » And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed.
xLexie wrote: » Like I said, no rational person would assume women should give up their career if they were the higher earner, that's rags of newspapers sensationalising it so as hysterical women, like the one I listened to on the radio this morning, will be outraged and buy their paper
xLexie wrote: » I'm not saying I agree with women having to give up their jobs despite being the higher earner but women want it all. They want to be seen as the main carer, they'll (mostly) take their 6 months maternity leave, if the relationship breaks down they assume responsibility for the children and in a lot of cases make life hell for the father who has no rights. But, when it suits, it should be equal and it should be the father who stays home. Just kind of contradicts itself in my opinion.
LittleBook wrote: » You've explicitly said that anyone who's fallen victim to this deliberate and sensationalist misrepresentation of the guidelines (including people in this thread) is irrational when clearly there is plenty of margin for error in this situation.
Morag wrote: » Can't believe this, ffs it's 2013, Minister Leo saying that when it comes to restructuring house hold fiances that women should give up their jobs and careers to save on the cost of child care. Heaven forbid the Dad might want to stay at home.
xLexie wrote: » Just listening to some hysterical lunatic on the radio now saying this is anti women and anti children.
Das Kitty wrote: » Setting aside the which party is the lower wage earner for a moment, I think this measure would be short sighted in the extreme. Issues like keeping a foothold on the career ladder are incredibly important for the future solvency of the household. Some people where I work job share while their kids are young to spend extra time with them, and I know in some cases their net income does not cover their childcare/travel costs. Once their kids are all at school they return to work full time without having sacrificed the benefits of unbroken service.
meeeeh wrote: » I intentionally didn't post in the thread earlier because like, I presume, everybody else I couldn't read anything more but the article title in the opening post. Sensationalist media doesn't help but don't blame them if you form your opinion on the basis of one sentence. And that is irrational. The hysterical reactions around this subject won't help anyone.
meeeeh wrote: » If one of the partners is stuck in a dead end job with young children who will be in the childcare for a while, it makes sense for the bank or them to quit their job. It doesn't make sense for the state because the state will lose taxes and will have to pay more in social security. If somebody is well on the career ladder or the children are older it doesn't make sense for anybody to quit job. I would expect banks and the state will employ people with enough brain power to judge and advise what to do in the situation. But realistically if a family where both parents are working can't afford even the reduced cost of the mortgage then they are most likely f****d in any case.
Neyite wrote: » I'm studying accountancy. At some point I'll have to trade in my job for one that is a training contract, which pays pittance. If it covers child care, I'll be lucky. But, its only for a couple of years then I qualify, allowing me to then go for jobs that offer about €10,000 per annum than I get now, with potential to earn more as my experience increases, which at the moment there is no promotional potential in my current job, nor any chance of a pay rise in the next 5 years. So long term, its more beneficial to my family to have short term hardship. That's the big picture for me.
eviltwin wrote: » Heard another side to this on the radio just now. A lot of parents have given up their jobs by choice to stay home with their kids or only work part time. Some of those people might have the potential to earn more than they do now. Could they be forced to go back to work or increase their hours to cover debts?
pwurple wrote: » I should hope most people do try to work enough to cover their debts! It is money you spent afterall. If not, why wouldn't I just take out a massive mortgage, and a car loan, then pack in my job to look after the kids and expect someone else to pick up the tab while I continue to swan about in my massive car and house. Is this the ideal now?
eviltwin wrote: » No of course its not. I just thought it was an interesting point. There are people in debt who are making repayments and slowly but surely chipping away at what they owe. I'm one of those people. I have no hope of getting a full time job where I am so could my bank reasonably expect me or my husband to take on extra work at weekends or at night to clear that debt faster?
pwurple wrote: » I doubt it. The whole discussion was about insolvency. Insolvency is where you are not paying *anything* off, and it looks like you won't ever pay it off. If you are paying something, then insolvency surely doesn't apply. If there are people out there who are insolvent, but have ludicrous bills (whatever they are, childcare, tv, cars) then I think it's hardly unrealistic to offer them some help or financial advice in getting those bills under control. People can be financially clueless as well as being in a tough spot with work. I'm sure we all know people who don't have a lot of cop on regarding money.
Press Release, 27 March 2013 The National Women’s Council of Ireland calls on the government to make a clear a statement that childcare costs will remain outside of the proposed Insolvency Arrangements. Statements made by Minister for Transport, Leo Varadkar, in relation to the proposed guideline on childcare are extremely anti-women and anti-children and go against all government policies to promote employment and gender equality Orla O’Connor, Director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland said, “Minister Varadkars comments are contrary to the Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s comments that the proposed guidelines are ‘quite incredible’ and that we need an ‘atmosphere for jobs’, including for women. Childcare is not a luxury but a necessity. It is unacceptable that the government would punish working families for making difficult financial decisions with regard to combining work and family life, including continuing their employment despite a loss of income due to the high costs of childcare. Families make all kinds of decisions and they are not all about short term maths but about the long term sustainability and well-being of the family.” She continued, “We know about the difficulties of interrupted careers in terms of loss of promotion and future earnings. Having only one of the parents work is also extremely precarious in the current economic climate. What if the partner loses their job? Both the EU and the OECD emphasise the importance of maintaining people particularly women in work in order to achieve gender equality but also economic recovery. Ireland already has one of the lowest maternal employment rates. Only 51.5% with children aged between 4 -5 years of age work and the figure is as low as 42 % for women with three children.” Orla O’Connor concluded, “We also have to ask ourselves why childcare costs are one of the highest in Europe in Ireland. If we want to support families struggling to pay back their mortgage, we need to invest into quality and affordable childcare that would alleviate some of the financial burden and actually create an incentive for people to stay in or seek employment.”
vitani wrote: » Presumably, you wouldn't take on that traineeship if it meant not being able to afford a roof over your head though, would you? I started an unpaid internship last year. I was receiving the one parent allowance at the time and after paying for childcare, I had a just enough left every week to buy food & nappies and travel to and from work. It was a short term hardship, like you say, but it led to a job in my chosen career field. The only reason I could do this was because I had good family support and no existing debts. It would have been irresponsible for me to take on the internship if it meant I would have genuinely struggled to feed or clothe my daughter. That's regardless of my own career prospects. I sympathise with anyone who can't afford to work, I really do. But I think there's a difference between families who have to cut back on non-essentials, and families who are so in debt that they have to apply for a deal under this new legislation. For those in the second situation, I do agree with what Varadkar said. As much as it pains me to agree with him.
Neyite wrote: » No, I wouldn't risk the roof over my head, and personally I would love to be a stay at home mother for a couple of years but once you have that cv gap it's really hard to get back into the workplace.
pwurple wrote: » Short term thinking is right. The real elephant in the room is the high cost of childcare. Either tax credits towards childcare, or some kind of pricing control would be great.
Dolbert wrote: » In many European countries, they have state-subsidised public creches, which are insanely cheap compared to here. If the government were truly interested in giving parents a choice then childcare wouldn't be so extortionate here.
Cairo Obnoxious Weed wrote: » I do think the media and other parties are whipping this up into something it's probably not and Varakar has fell for it. The whole argument has revolved around women and not parents in this discussion. I heard Morning Ireland this morning and was quite offended by it. One of the commentators labelled this insolvency issue as "anti-women and anti-children". I would say it is anti-parents and anti-children. The whole thing got skewed when it kept speaking about the mother's salary as being a determining factor. Nothing was mentioned about the partner/father's salary or if the parents weren't in a relationship if the father was contributing maintenance. The whole discussion I heard on Morning Ireland is that mother's are solely responsible for childcare which is an archaic view and insulting to BOTH sexes. Unfortunately the whole thing is gone out of control now and no reason discussion can be had on the topic.
clairefontaine wrote: » They never tackle the real problems, they just ad hoc to ad hoc ad finitum. They need to tackle the exhorbitant cost of childcare. It is nearly or more the same as a mortgage. For single parents, they need to get the single dads to pay real maintenance and enforce it or pay directly to childcare. Contrary to popular myths and legends, many single parents get very nominal amounts and are covering the majority of the cost of childcare.
How Strange wrote: » I think any draconian measures such as coercing a parent to give up work is horrendously idiotic. Surely it is better for children to see their parents go out to work everyday (if they choose to)and contribute to society. Is it better that they see their parents sit around on welfare just because they had to cut their expenses to satisfy an insolvency arrangement. How dies that benefit society, the economy or the family? It creates another poverty trap.
