Opinion "Budget discriminates against parents who do not want children in day care"

Discussion in 'Budget 2017' started by Brendan Burgess, Oct 12, 2016.

  1. trasneoir

    trasneoir Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    298
    I'm not a parent. Why is the state punishing my choices? </sarcasm>

    Economic efficiency seems like a decent motive for state policy. From the state's perspective, why pay an unlicensed untrained parent to stay at home minding 1/2/3 children, when the state could pay a licensed professional to mind 6/7/8 children (freeing up 3/4/5 parents to contribute to today's economy)?
    To my mind, full time parenting is a luxury. If you want it, and you can afford it great, but the state shouldn't be subsidising it.
     
  2. Purple

    Purple Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    7,229
    "Professional" childminders?...You're having a laugh, right?

    I don't think the state should be paying anything towards child minding. People get Children's allowance (which should be a tax credit at the lower rate, not a universal payment). That's more than enough. I have 4 kids. My brother who has none is already paying for their education, their health, their playgrounds etc. Why should he subsidise my childcare costs as well?
     
    rob oyle likes this.
  3. cremeegg

    cremeegg Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,280
    I think this is a perfectly reasonable question. I deliberately didn't engage with BB when he made a similar point above. It's a different discussion.


    Why, because parents and not the state should make the choices about family childcare versus centre based childcare. As for the efficiency, well the subsidy is per child, so while a question could asked about what is the most efficient way to subside child care, that has no bearing on the present scheme.

    Unfortunately you are probably correct

    Again this question is between different ways of subsidising childcare, rather than subsidies, yes or no.
     
  4. cremeegg

    cremeegg Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,280
    I couldn't agree more, but I didn't think we were allowed say that.

    We do subsidise child care, it seems we cannot discuss the hows without addressing the whys.

    At its simplest your kids will pay your brothers pension.
     
    leanbh and phileasfogg like this.
  5. trasneoir

    trasneoir Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    298
    To my mind, "professional" means that there's a regulatory/professional body who can ban from your discipline for severe misconduct. By that definition, as a programmer, I'm not one.
    A creche worker needs more vetting and formal qualification than a parent, they are subject to more scrutiny, and they can be banned for misconduct far more easily.
     
  6. Purple

    Purple Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    7,229
    Who bans them?
     
  7. T McGibney

    T McGibney Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,600
    By that yardstick, a nightclub bouncer is a "professional".
     
  8. trasneoir

    trasneoir Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    298
    AGS (by revoking their vetting) or Tusla (by revoking their certifications).

    What's your objection? Their collars are the wrong colour?
     
    T McGibney likes this.
  9. Purple

    Purple Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    7,229
    The term is thrown about by everyone. I don't like the distinction at all as it dates back to a time when it was considered vulgar for the upper classes to work but as long as they were in the Professions it was okay.
    I'm not a professional, I'm a tradesman.