Should the state help defray childcare costs?

anyone else feel that the current move towards helping parent pay childcare is a bit bizarre. Everyone is saying the social fabric of the country is in ****, that kids are becoming more and more disrespectful to their elders, and then you have people promoting the idea of allowing parents to spend 2 hours a day with kids.
has anyone considered that some moms, even dads, would like the support from the government to actually stay at home to mind their own children...???

Separate discussion split from this thread - ClubMan.

Kate Holmquist, in this morning's [broken link removed], quotes an array of experts who seem to think so (subscription required, but I presume it's OK to quote a snippet from Jean Whyte, director of research at the Centre for Children's Studies in TCD?)

Parents should be paid to be in the home for the first year of a child's life, if they want to be. Government-subsidised pre-school playgroups and one-to-one attention for under-twos should be provided in all care settings.

Best outcomes for children arise from having consistent high-quality care during their first year. The parent is the obvious person to provide this, so the Government should enable it, as many other EU states do. At the age of three, a child should be given a morning place in an affordable, approved, Government-subsidised playgroup for a minimum of three and a half hours, five days a week.

© The Irish Times, 7 November 2005

Click to expand...

one-to-one attention for under-twos should be provided in all care settings.

Click to expand...

Does this include kids minded at home? If so what happens with twins? Both parents must give up work?

I'm sorry, but this whole debate really gets my goat.

If you want to have kids, you sort it. These bloody people who think the government should pay for the looking after of their kids (whatever way you want to break it down) have a cheek imo.

My parents both worked, most of my friend's parents both worked or if only 1 parent worked they worked it out or if there was only 1 parent he/she worked it out.

That's life people - deal with it. If you can't afford them you shouldn't have them.

I could rant about this all day......

I was hoping that this thread would be best placed in the Great Financial Debates forum but I have a suspicion that contributions like the last one will eventually push it into Letting Off Steam instead...

Chamar - do you disagree with all forms of social welfare payments and tax breaks or just those that apply to parents of children? Also - where people who cannot "afford" children go on to have them anyway do you believe that the children in question should be punished or deprived as a result?

Most of the current clamour for state-subsidised childcare seems to be coming from not from the less well-off in society (many of whom already benefit from the considerable generosity of the state welfare systems towards families with kids) but from middle-class representatives of the social group who have collectively overstretched themselves in the property craze of the past 5-8 years. If the state intervenes now to relieve this sector of the effects of its self-imposed excess, then the only long-term effect will be to stoke up the property market again.

Chamar said:

These bloody people who think the government should pay for the looking after of their kids...

Click to expand...

Be of good cheer, Chamar — there is another way!

i have to say that it gets on my goat as well.
Why should I pay for the childminding of someone elses kids, don't compare it to free school its not the same.
Myself and my wife decided that it was better for us for caroline to give up work and look after our two kids. That was a choice we made, we had to make major cutbaks to do so but it was our decission. we didn't get anything for this. the couple who make the decission for both to work are making a choice, they are geting two wages and have costs associated therewith ie the cost of childminding. they do have a choice.why should I effectivly pay for them to get a payrise which in effect I would be doing.
In any event if grants/tax relief for childminding comes in the cost will go up to match, I guarantee it.

ubiquitous said:

...the less well-off in society (many of whom already benefit from the considerable generosity of the state welfare systems towards families with kids)

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the very wealthy get the same Child Benefit/individualised tax bands as those on the minimum wage. They should start by means-testing such benefits if they're serious about introducing a little more equity into the system.

Jem, we travelled much the same route, back in the late 80s/early 90s when CB was about £15/month and there was no talk of subsidising childcare costs! It's too late for me, but I still support the principle of it. Even at today's levels, the total net assistance we get from the State is probably less than the VAT take on the additional expenses we incur as a result of having, yes, chosen to have kids.

What would people think about removing the state pension from childless people, on the grounds that they hadn't produced any taxpaying children to contribute to the Exchequer?

DrMoriarty said:

What would people think about removing the state pension from childless people, on the grounds that they hadn't produced any taxpaying children to contribute to the Exchequer?

Click to expand...

Shouldn't this be the other way around?

If someone has had kids, they are then around to support the parents in old age.

Therefore no need for pensions for people with kids.

legend99 said:

anyone else feel that the current move towards helping parent pay childcare is a bit bizarre. Everyone is saying the social fabric of the country is in ****, that kids are becoming more and more disrespectful ...

Click to expand...

I think these are actually two very different issues.

1. Helping to pay childcare is an issue about quality of life for children and parents, wether you are for or against it.

2. Kids becoming more disrespectful is not a direct result of parents choosing to both work or stay at home. Lets face it, you dont require a degree to become a parent, but it sure would help to get some education.

If the argument is to give money to fix the social fabric, that is wrong. Parents need to get some education, maybe a pre-birth course like the pre-marriage course. (however the pre-marriage course aint great, i mean who wants to get marriage advice from a priest!)

Lets face it, you dont require a degree to become a parent

Click to expand...

Actually that reminds me of an interesting bit of research done in the US a while back. It concluded that the children who stood to lose most from childcare were the children of more intelligent mothers.

The explanation for this was that the kids benefit greatly from the time spent with their intelligent mammys and lose out when they spend the better part of their day with low-paid employees with no emotional attachment to them.

macshaned said:

If someone has had kids, they are then around to support the parents in old age.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but why should my kids (I paid for them!) contribute to "bloody" other people's pensions, too?

Or — "I walk to work, so why should my taxes pay for roads and public transport projects?"
Or — "I pay for my own healthcare, so why should I help fund public health services?"
Etc., etc...

Blessed are the parents, for theirs is the kingdom of lifelong-remortgaging-to-subsidise-the-ungrateful-little ...darlings.

...the kids benefit greatly from the time spent with their intelligent mammys and lose out when they spend the better part of their day with low-paid employees with no emotional attachment to them.

Click to expand...

That theory depends on two very dubious assumptions:

- That the quality of care and emotional support enjoyed by a child (at home or otherwise) is proportionate to the IQ of the person in charge of them.

- That childcare workers or business owners have no emotional attachment to the children in their care.

Although you may disagree, I don't think either of these assumptions are in any way credible.

ubiquitous said:

That theory depends on two very dubious assumptions:

- That the quality of care and emotional support enjoyed by a child (at home or otherwise) is proportionate to the IQ of the person in charge of them.

- That childcare workers or business owners have no emotional attachment to the children in their care.

Although you may disagree, I don't think either of these assumptions are in any way credible.

Click to expand...

As I recall (I'll try find a link) the research was attempting to find if there was any measurable harm done to children when placed in childcare at an early age.

One measurable factor was they found kids of smart mams tended to progress better academically in later years when their clever Moms stayed at home to raise them in early years.

Common sense really. Amazing we need researchers to tell us these things nowadays...

As far as childcare employees having an emotional attachment - what can I say except "ain't no one loves ya like your mamma do"

Do you have any links to the research in question? I find it hard to believe that they were able to measure some of the factors mentioned above (e.g. how did they measure how "smart" or "clever" the parents were)? Note also that correlation and causality are not the same thing (post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that). We don't need researchers to tell us what we think is obvious. We need them to test the hypotheses and prejudices that we might base our thinking on for validity. What seems to be obvious may not always actually be true.

jem said:

i have to say that it gets on my goat as well.
Why should I pay for the childminding of someone elses kids, don't compare it to free school its not the same.

Click to expand...

Jem, I think you are either extremely confused or suffering delusions of grandeur, if you think you are the person paying the childminding of someone else's kid!

Let's get this straight - a couple, where both are working, pay considerably more tax than a couple where just one parent works as there is a second income to pay tax on. A considerable portion of the non-taxed part of this second income goes in paying wages in a creche from which more tax is taken. So the state, including you, do very nicely out of this little arrangement, thank you very much. If all these working mothers downed tools tomorrow and stayed at home, you would find that the state coffers would be considerably emptier and the schools and hospitals in even worse condition than they are at present.

Personally, I think the state needs to do more to support all families. Certainly, the state should also do more to help parents such as your wife who want to stay at home to look after their children.

Am I the only one who finds it really strange that more people seem to get 'on-their-high-horse' about some small amount of tax relief being granted to working parents than are bothered by the substantial sums given in full tax relief to the select minority who choose to breed racehorses instead!

eliza said:

If all these working mothers downed tools tomorrow and stayed at home, you would find that the state coffers would be considerably emptier and the schools and hospitals in even worse condition than they are at present.

Click to expand...

According to my reading of Article 41.2 of the Constitution that's precisely what our state seems to expect of them:

2.

1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Click to expand...

ClubMan said:

I was hoping that this thread would be best placed in the Great Financial Debates forum but I have a suspicion that contributions like the last one will eventually push it into Letting Off Steam instead...

Chamar - do you disagree with all forms of social welfare payments and tax breaks or just those that apply to parents of children? Also - where people who cannot "afford" children go on to have them anyway do you believe that the children in question should be punished or deprived as a result?

Click to expand...

I was going to be very sarcastic to that but I won't because I can see my post seems harsh. You know my answers to your questions.

I could write forever on this & I'm not anti-having kids as my earlier post seems, but I just think what I'm hearing on this is coming from the "ME" generation as they age and have babies. And it is a distinctly middle-class voice that is making itself heard - has nobody noticed that? The reality is, that if this group of people get their way it is the kids of those who cannot afford children and then have them that will suffer as a result - exactly those kids that need the help. Not to mention the sick & disabled, elderly and other more deserving imo.

Maybe I'm missing something - but apart from the new problems faced by each generation (drugs etc) - why makes parenting harder today than before?

Chamar said:

The reality is, that if this group of people get their way it is the kids of those who cannot afford children and then have them that will suffer as a result - exactly those kids that need the help.

Click to expand...

This seems to be a circular argument that makes no sense. Here you are bemoaning the negative impact that state funding of childcare for "middle class" parents may have on those that cannot afford to have children but earlier you said:

That's life people - deal with it. If you can't afford them you shouldn't have them.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that middle class people who can't afford to have children should not but those that are less well off should?!