# Should the state help defray childcare costs?



## legend99 (7 Nov 2005)

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_.


----------



## DrMoriarty (7 Nov 2005)

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_


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2005)

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



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


----------



## Chamar (7 Nov 2005)

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......


----------



## ClubMan (7 Nov 2005)

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?


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## DrMoriarty (7 Nov 2005)

Chamar said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## jem (7 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## DrMoriarty (7 Nov 2005)

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)


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?


----------



## macshaned (7 Nov 2005)

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?


 
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.


----------



## Trustmeh (7 Nov 2005)

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 ...


 
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!)


----------



## CoffeeBrew (7 Nov 2005)

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


 
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.


----------



## DrMoriarty (7 Nov 2005)

macshaned said:
			
		

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


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.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Nov 2005)

> ...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.



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.


----------



## CoffeeBrew (7 Nov 2005)

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.
> 
> ...


 
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"


----------



## ClubMan (7 Nov 2005)

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.


----------



## eliza (8 Nov 2005)

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.



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!


----------



## ClubMan (8 Nov 2005)

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.


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.


----------



## Chamar (8 Nov 2005)

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?


 
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?


----------



## ClubMan (8 Nov 2005)

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.


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.


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


----------



## Chamar (8 Nov 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

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


 

..........


----------



## Chamar (8 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

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


 
No because I believe that middle class people can afford to have children but are part of the "ME" generation that believes they have a right to have children without sacrifice or other negative impact on their lives the responsibility of a child can bring. If not then perhaps it is as Ubiquitous outlines below. My first post is really directed at those who actually CAN afford to have kids but are bemoaning that they can't when they realize what it all means - the HUGE sacrifice & responsibility that's involved (and I think kids are worth it if you're willing). It is not directed at the 1 in 7 kids in this country that have to live in poverty - it's them that I want to help - and sadly any proposal to subsidise childcare is not directed at them either


----------



## Chamar (8 Nov 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> 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.


 
I agree with this.


----------



## Chamar (8 Nov 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> 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?"
> ...


 
You're looking at it the wrong way - you should see it as your kids as contributing to their own bloody pensions.


----------



## Humpback (8 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Do you have any links to the research in question?


 
The Freakonomics book has a chapter specifically on this topic.

Edited to address comment below from ubiquitous. My link above refers to this original comment below from CoffeeBrew and the subsequent query above from ClubMan.



			
				CoffeeBrew said:
			
		

> 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.


 
The link above is only highlevel overview of the chapter - which does include swimming pools and guns, but does also address the impact that parenting and "smart" parents can have on the intelligence of their kids. I cannot paste in the whole chapter, but anyone who has read this book will be aware of the comments within. Anyone who hasn't read the book, and is interested, can go out and read the book.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Nov 2005)

Eh nothing there about childcare costs, just a point regarding the relevant dangers of backyard swimming pools and guns kept in people's homes - neither of which phenomena are exactly major menaces to society in this green land, as yet anyhow.


----------



## legend99 (8 Nov 2005)

Blaming middle class people for the issue is slightly unfair. Maybe if middle class people got the same benefits as lower paid people they mightn't have such cause of complaint.
I think its an interesting debate to be honest. But the argument of 'ah sure, why should parents be helped out by the state' is non-sesneical because the obvious extension of that argument is to decide to remove all social benefits in the state and move to the Boston rather than Berlin model. For example, if parents don't qualify for any beenfits, then why should any people who get sick and need benefit get it? Why should we bother to have an old age pension etc? 
What I do think is that the child benefit payment should be taxed and the tax raised be used to increase it. It is extremely unfair that everyone be it minimum wage or top earners get the same beenfit. Of course, no political party in the country has the balls to make this a reality, even though it would be an extremely equitable proposal.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Nov 2005)

> Maybe if middle class people got the same benefits as lower paid people they mightn't have such cause of complaint....What I do think is that the child benefit payment should be taxed and the tax raised be used to increase it. It is extremely unfair that everyone be it minimum wage or top earners get the same beenfit.



You seem to be contradicting yourself here by saying initially that middle class parents aren't getting enough benefits and then saying they should be taxed on the little that they receive at the moment?


----------



## legend99 (8 Nov 2005)

I think parents in general are not getting enough yes.

However, I also think it should be taxed. At least then you can raise the overall payment, even if some people get less into their hand. Because at the same time, others will get more. Raise it to 250 per child. People not paying tax get the full benefit. Lower earners get 200 of it. Higher earners still get nearly the same beenfit as now.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Nov 2005)

The effect of this change would surely be to increase child benefits for parents on social welfare, at the expense (by default) of those at work, who currently have big problems in affording childcare. I reckon that your proposal would worsen the childcare crisis, not alleviate it. 

It would also have the effect of making it harder for stay at home mothers on welfare to return to the workforce as doing so would expose them to a tax hit on their child benefit before they even start.


----------



## michaelm (8 Nov 2005)

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 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...???


I feel that plans re supplementing daycare are misguided but then there's very little this government gets right. They should be talking about making it less difficult for a working couple, who go on to have children, to revert to one income.  


Currently when a double income family revert to one income to care for their children in their own home they take the hit of reduced net income (yes their choice, i agree) but also are penalised by a tax system which discriminates against single income families over double income families by substantially reducing their standard rate cut-off point. This despite the constitutional protection which in theory should protect the family from anti-family policies.. 

*Article 41 *

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. 

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.


----------



## Chamar (8 Nov 2005)

michaelm said:
			
		

> Currently when a double income family revert to one income to care for their children in their own home they take the hit of reduced net income (yes their choice, i agree) but also are penalised by a tax system which discriminates against single income families over double income families by substantially reducing their standard rate cut-off point. This despite the constitutional protection which in theory should protect the family from anti-family policies..


 

Isn't the reduction in standard rate cut-off point be because the sole earner is availing of the non-earners tax credit?


----------



## michaelm (9 Nov 2005)

Chamar said:
			
		

> Isn't the reduction in standard rate cut-off point be because the sole earner is availing of the non-earners tax credit?


No it isn't. The two are unrelated. On tax credit transfer, there is a €770 home carers credit for single-income families but the sole earner can't use their spouses €1270 PAYE tax credit therefore single-income families find themselves €500 worse off from a tax credit point of view, compared to a double-income family, in addition to a worse 'Standard cut-off' position.


----------



## legend99 (9 Nov 2005)

michaelm said:
			
		

> No it isn't. The two are unrelated. On tax credit transfer, there is a €770 home carers credit for single-income families but the sole earner can't use their spouses €1270 PAYE tax credit therefore single-income families find themselves €500 worse off from a tax credit point of view, compared to a double-income family, in addition to a worse 'Standard cut-off' position.




Has there ever been talk about the tax position penalising single income married couples with kids as being unconstitutional does anyone know??? 
For example, there was that case about the lesbian couple who married in Canada wasn't it, demanding the Irish state recognise them as being married for tax purposes....so has anyone ever questioned the individualistion of the tax system?


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Nov 2005)

A lot of air time was given to it when McCreevy first brought it in. And I suppose it would be fair to say that pre-election "public opinion" pressures — especially from stay-at-home _Mná na hEireann_ (including Mrs M!  ) were a part of the reason he quickly had to introduce the home carer's credit to soften the blow a little...

But challenging government policy on "constitutional" grounds strikes me as a losing battle — at least in this area.


----------



## legend99 (9 Nov 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> A lot of air time was given to it when McCreevy first brought it in. And I suppose it would be fair to say that pre-election "public opinion" pressures — especially from stay-at-home _Mná na hEireann_ (including Mrs M!  ) were a part of the reason he quickly had to introduce the home carer's credit to soften the blow a little...
> 
> But challenging government policy on "constitutional" grounds strikes me as a losing battle — at least in this area.



was just curious....be interesting to see what happens in December budget. if they only go the route of tax breaks or defraying costs of official child minding (as opposed to lets be honest the thousands of couples who pay their mothers friends/mothers/aunts off the record), I reckon it will back fire even more.


----------



## michaelm (9 Nov 2005)

legend99 said:
			
		

> Has there ever been talk about the tax position penalising single income married couples with kids as being unconstitutional does anyone know???


The booklet from this site  is suggesting that it's unconstitutional. I found it interesting reading, but I suppose in my case it's like preaching to the converted.


----------



## DrMoriarty (9 Nov 2005)

legend99 said:
			
		

> ...I reckon it will back fire even more.


Let's hope so!


----------



## ice (9 Nov 2005)

I think Curam took this issue to the european court. They felt that individualisation was unconstitutional, don't think the outcome was positive for them though


http://homepage.eircom.net/~with/


----------



## michaelm (10 Nov 2005)

ice said:
			
		

> I think Curam took this issue to the european court. They felt that individualisation was unconstitutional, don't think the outcome was positive for them though


I don't see any mention of this on their website.  The constitutionality of 'Individualisation', should it be tested, would be a matter for the Irish courts not the European court.


----------



## Sherman (10 Nov 2005)

If you're so convinced its unconstitutional, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and take a case?


----------



## michaelm (10 Nov 2005)

Sherman said:
			
		

> If you're so convinced its unconstitutional, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and take a case?


Indeed. I didn't say I was convinced it was unconstitutional - although it may be. Unfortunately, partly due to 'Individuation', I operate on a shoestring family budget and therefore I'm not in any position to take such cases; but thanks for the suggestion anyway.


----------



## JaneyL (15 Nov 2005)

For a country that still is largely intolerant of a woman's right to control their own fertility, I'd say that child care provision is still very poor.

I say all this as a working mum who has just arrived in the country


----------



## michaelm (15 Nov 2005)

JaneyL said:
			
		

> For a country that still is largely intolerant of a woman's right to control their own fertility


That's a whole debate you don't really want to get into.  I'm not sure what your link to an abortion clinic has got to do with the current thread and I'm somewhat surprised that it hasn't drawn the attention of the Moderators.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2005)

JaneyL said:
			
		

> For a country that still is largely intolerant of a woman's right to control their own fertility, I'd say that child care provision is still very poor.
> 
> I say all this as a working mum who has just arrived in the country


Check out the snippet of the constitution that I posted earlier to see what the state officially expects of women!


----------



## JaneyL (15 Nov 2005)

Thanks for that Clubbie. I'm glad to see that not all Irish men have conservative attitudes.

There's hope for us yet


----------



## delgirl (15 Nov 2005)

JaneyL said:
			
		

> Thanks for that *Clubbie*. I'm glad to see that not all Irish men have conservative attitudes.There's hope for us yet


 
Very cosy - you have a new fan ClubMan!


----------



## michaelm (15 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Check out the snippet of the constitution that I posted earlier to see what the state officially expects of women!


In defence of Article 41, the wording may be dated but, in my view, the intent is worthy. The APOCC will likely recommend cosmetic changes replacing 'woman' and 'mother' with 'parent' in an attempt to lessen the apparent embarrassment felt by some forward thinking PC citizens in relation to the Article.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2005)

Actually - according to this it seems that I'm an ultra conservative so get back to your duties you brazen hussey! 

_michaelm _- you should have explained that _APOCC _is the _All Party Oireachtas Commission on the Constitution _for mugs like me who had to Google it!  To be honest I personally don't see anything wrong with modifying the wording along the lines that you mention. Something that is more inclusive of the varying sorts of "family" and less strictly defined gender roles in our society these days would be welcome. Why is _"PC"_ invariably used in a pejorative sense these days?


----------



## Seagull (17 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Why is _"PC"_ invariably used in a pejorative sense these days?


It's all down to the preference of style over substance. Apples look better than the traditional beige box.


----------



## angie (21 Nov 2005)

just to go back to the original point if the state allowed a tax credit for childcare or some proportion of it how is someone who chooses to stay at home to mind their kids funding it ? If two parents go to work both are paying into the system.  If they get a tax credit they may pay a little less into the system but nonetheless both are paying into the system.  If one parent stays at home then only one is paying into the system and at that is paying less because of the home carers tax credit ergo the couple both working are funding the system and helping the parent staying at home to do so.  Also I know of a lot of parents who chose to stay at home and do so by claiming social welfare for the first fifteen months and I am not saying that anyone here has done that before I get jumped on but I do know a lot who have done it.  Childcare is a cost of going to work.  If you get a credit for it you are still funding the system.  If you stay at home you are not funding the system. angie


----------



## michaelm (21 Nov 2005)

angie said:
			
		

> If you stay at home you are not funding the system.


In fact those at home rearing children are the lifeblood of the system.  Put as simply as I can, families with a single income pay the higher tax rate at a substantially lower income level, and are afforded less tax credits, than families with two incomes; this is discriminatory.  Some will correctly point out that having a child is a personal choice and that parents should stop whining and deal with it however from the States point of view there is no choice, in that children must be born to maintain a stable population (I read somewhere that an average of 2.1 children per woman is required); so it is imperative that the State support families and child rearing.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Nov 2005)

angie said:
			
		

> If you stay at home you are not funding the system.


 This is nonsense. Even people who don't earn a salary or pay income tax/_PRSI_ directly still pay other taxes (_DIRT_, _VAT_, stamp duty, _VRT,_ _CGT _etc.) which go towards "funding the system".


----------



## angie (21 Nov 2005)

ok fair enough everyone pays indirect taxes including the working parents.  The point I am trying to make perhaps not clearly enough is that two working parents pay more tax even if there is a tax credit for some percentage of childcare.  If one stays at home they are paying less tax.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Nov 2005)

angie said:
			
		

> ok fair enough everyone pays indirect taxes including the working parents.  The point I am trying to make perhaps not clearly enough is that two working parents pay more tax even if there is a tax credit for some percentage of childcare.  If one stays at home they are paying less tax.


You seem to assume that two salaries are always greater than one. This isn't true. 2 x 30k salaries are less than 1 90k salary.

Don't let the thread descend into a SAHM's vs working mum's slagging match. It's not an 'either/or' choice. The state needs to do a better job of supporting all parents.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Nov 2005)

angie said:
			
		

> two working parents pay more tax even if there is a tax credit for some percentage of childcare. If one stays at home they are paying less tax.


Simply not true. If my salary were halved and my wife went out and took up paid employment for an equivalent salary — thereby restoring our total combined income to its former level — we would pay approximately €5,200 p.a. _less_ income tax than I do — whether _or not_ we had children!

That's why individualisation is inherently discriminatory, as michaelm has just pointed out. The only way to bring some degree of equity into the equation is to means-test both CB _and_ eligibility for any proposed tax credits for childcare costs.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Nov 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> You seem to assume that two salaries are always greater than one. This isn't true. 2 x 30k salaries are less than 1 90k salary.


Good point - and one that's often overlooked in this sort of discussion.


----------



## ice (21 Nov 2005)

There is also more to the whole 'childcare' debate than money......

If funding the system was the only important factor then a mother would be back to work as soon as she was out of the bed and we'd all work till the day we dropped 

Its also about the kind of society we want and we need to focus on the child primarly and whats best for them. Focusing on rearing well rounded, well educated children is favourable for us all in the long run.


----------



## Bonafide (19 Jan 2006)

It seems to me that there are inconsistencies in how children are recognised by the state. 
If I were a recipient of Social Welfare with children I would be paid more than those without children. The also have most of the rights of adult citizens (with the exception of the vote etc..). 
The majority of things that are bought for them attract VAT most of which is charged at 21%, and they are expensive. They attract lots of Doctors bills, Dentists and other costs all of these people who in return pay tax on their incomes. 
Why not grant children tax-free allowances when they are born that can be utilised by the parents while their children are dependant on them? Children are an investment in the future, right? The majority of them will go on to become taxpayers won’t they?


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2006)

Bonafide said:
			
		

> Why not grant children tax-free allowances when they are born that can be utilised by the parents while their children are dependant on them? Children are an investment in the future, right? The majority of them will go on to become taxpayers won’t they?


Didn't tax free allowances for children come into play with things like covenants in the past - i.e. the child could claim back standard rate tax on the donation and the donor could claim the difference between standard rate and the high rate? Great scheme - I think I have a covenant out for each of my many nephews and nieces at the time!


----------



## Bonafide (19 Jan 2006)

No, I don't mean a scheme like that. I mean a genuine tax free allowance allocated to the parents tax free alowances for each child while they are dependants.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Jan 2006)

I presume you mean tax credits now that tax free allowances are a thing of the past for several years now?


----------



## Bonafide (19 Jan 2006)

Showing my age now


----------



## gauloise (24 Jan 2006)

The French model of State sponsored "garderie" (after school and holiday care) and subsidised creches is one from which  I feel we could learn a lot. Parents are means tested, those on top dollar pay full price down to those on minimum wage who pay a nominal fee. It might also help competition in the private sector and thus benefit parents also. We have gone through creches, chilminders etc.. and in the end I decided to give up working not for financial reasons but for the benefit of my children who were quite happy to forgo the extras if Mum was at home and I have to say life is better all round. It is unfortunate that in this thread so little comment was give to the hidden cost of childrens welfare when going in to childcare etc.. as at the end of the day no price can be put on this!


----------



## Bonafide (24 Jan 2006)

Well, the thread is entitled "Should the state help defray childcare costs?" and therefore more of a financial commentary than a social one. 
With regards to the French model you mentioned, am I correct in understanding that the higher earners pay full rate of childcare and also effectively pay the taxes that subsidise the balance of the running costs of these facilities? I would wonder about high earning parents, if they have to pay full rates anyway, would they choose private over state care and as a result lead to greater class divides than we have already? There is no perfect solution and it is a highly emotive debate. Every parent wants to give the best that they can to their children and every family situation is different.


----------



## gauloise (24 Jan 2006)

Municipal "garderie" are in all main towns & cities and the rate paid by parents for these is a flat rate regardless of income. The creches are subsidised as it is here that the greatest cost lies in the pre-school years. In my experience high earners chose the creche that suited them best ie location etc.. with little consideration for the fact that they might be subsidising others through their taxes. I am not sure whether such subsidies are funded through income tax or through the social fund into which everyone pays regardless of income.


----------



## Guest127 (30 Jan 2006)

legends question now takes on a bizarre twist , which to be fair was pointed out on aam much earlier than tonight's new headlines would indicate. Bizarre that a childcare payment to help defray the high cost of childcare in Ireland is now payable in all 25 ( soon to be 27) countries in the EU. 
I dont think the government has thought this one out fully and it was a pre- election gimmick. I can already see the spin being put out that they knew about this all along.


----------

