# Childcare on the agenda in the dail today



## Molly (6 Sep 2005)

childcare costs are on the agenda today in the dail. Are the working parents of Ireland in for a tax break or childcare payment subsidy ? How does the tax payer's who dont have children feel about contributing to other peoples childrens care cpsts ?

As a working parent im debating as to whether to continue working full time , leaving my child in someone elses care for 8.5 hours a day and pay the highest childcare cost in Europe or whether to give it all up, and stay home ..... 

link


----------



## Carpenter (6 Sep 2005)

My wife has opted to give up work for a year or so to look after our first child at home.  If the government were to introduce a tax break or similar for a mother working outside the home would it not be reasonable that the mother who decides to stay at home should receive something as well?  Our household income is obviously a good deal lower than it was last year but we are happy to "cut our cloth according to our measure".  It's hard to see how any tax break/ subsidy could be introduced without discriminating against some other group.


----------



## Molly (6 Sep 2005)

yes I agree Carpenter, We would struggle to get by on one income if I do give up work. 

sone of the options being looked at today are here:
[broken link removed]


----------



## stobear (6 Sep 2005)

Would totally agree with you Carpenter, we are lucky for my wife to work 3 days (a rare thing at her level) so as to have a foot in the jobs market and spend 4 days at home with the boy, it really is a good arragement and this is primarily down to her employer who has been very very supportive, she is also entering a new area which also gives her good exposure to a new set of skills. But when number 2 bear comes along she will more than likely give up work for maybe 2 or 3 years to work in the home. But any tax break that she misses out on could influence our decision the other way. Being an old fashioned sort we would prefer one income and have the other at home, but monetary pressures dont always allow for this.


----------



## Carpenter (6 Sep 2005)

Also, would government intervention in this way drive up the cost of professional childcare?


----------



## Molly (6 Sep 2005)

thats my main concern, as soon as some form of child subsidy is introduced no doubt creche fees will probaby increase........


----------



## Cahir (6 Sep 2005)

If people who have kids get a tax break maybe those of us who choose not to (or cannot) have kids should get a tax break on another aspect of their lifestyle.


----------



## Molly (6 Sep 2005)

> If people who have kids get a tax break maybe those of us who choose not to (or cannot) have kids should get a tax break on another aspect of their lifestyle


 .    


not wanting to in any way offend or upset anyone who choose's not to or unfortunately cannot have kids, but eh No, I dont think those who dont have children should get a tax break on another aspect of their lifestyle.


----------



## Cahir (6 Sep 2005)

Molly said:
			
		

> .
> 
> 
> not wanting to in any way offend or upset anyone who choose's not to or unfortunately cannot have kids, but eh No, I dont think those who dont have children should get a tax break on another aspect of their lifestyle.




And why should those people have to pay for other peoples kids?


----------



## Molly (6 Sep 2005)

> How does the tax payer's who dont have children feel about contributing to other peoples childrens care costs ?


 
i did ask that question..


----------



## Cahir (6 Sep 2005)

And I answered.  As a taxpayer, if I have to pay for other peoples kids then I should at least get a tax break on a lifestyle choice of my own.

But back to the question I asked you - why do you think everyone should pay for lifestyle choice of someone who chooses to have kids?


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Sep 2005)

If the govt introduces a childcare tax break, it will lose them the next election. For a start it will only push up prices, same as what the FTB stamp duty cut did last year. Next it will alienate those parents who rely on 'informal' arrangements to have kids minded (ie relatives & the black economy). It will also justifiably alienate those parents who have forgone their careers to stay at home to mind their children.


----------



## Molly (6 Sep 2005)

i dont think a response " why should they " answers the question as asked 
"what do tax payers think of paying for childcare costs "

Im a tax payer and dont have an issue paying for social welfare costs of the unemployed, single/ lone parents etc etc...

do you, presumably as a tax payer, begrudge contributing to social welfare costs as a whole or just have a problem where its paid in relation to child care / child cost , i.e childrens allowance... 


> why do you think everyone should pay for your lifestyle choice?


  .... I did'nt choose to have a child, it was'nt a lifestyle choice...


----------



## Carpenter (6 Sep 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> But back to the question I asked you - why do you think everyone should pay for lifestyle choice of someone who chooses to have kids?


 
Well most economists would argue that the kids of today will be funding the health and welfare services of the current adult generation in a few decades time and that means you and me!

Anyway I don't think having children (if one is lucky enough to be able to have them) is a lifestyle choice in the same way that indulging in foreign travel or following a particular football club might be. The government tells us that this economy needs a young, skilled educated workforce to drive it. Unless we intend to supply our future requirements for workers by outsourcing from other countries then we should have some tax breaks for parents, no? I'm only playing Devils' advocate here


----------



## Capaill (6 Sep 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> And I answered.  As a taxpayer, if I have to pay for other peoples kids then I should at least get a tax break on a lifestyle choice of my own.
> 
> But back to the question I asked you - why do you think everyone should pay for lifestyle choice of someone who chooses to have kids?



Firstly I would not consider having children a lifestyle choice.  There are many reasons for having kids but lifestyle would not be one of them.  Your lifestyle changes as a result.

Don't forget that the future workforce, i.e. children, will be the ones who will be partly funding your pension, your healthcare etc. when you have the "lifestyle" choice of retiring.

C


----------



## RainyDay (7 Sep 2005)

Cahir said:
			
		

> And I answered.  As a taxpayer, if I have to pay for other peoples kids then I should at least get a tax break on a lifestyle choice of my own.


Will your lifestyle choice be paying the taxes that will pay for your/my old age pension in 40 years time?


----------



## reddy (7 Sep 2005)

I am a SAHM  with three children. DH and i decide when we had children that i would be the primary caregiver, no-one else. I subsequently gave up a well paid, intersting job with pretty good prospects. Fair enough, my choice. But not a financial one, if it was purely a financial decision i would still be working. But there was basically no way we wanted anyone else caring for our children. Why should i be penalised  for this? For wanting to give my children the best care I felt i could give them? Surely that is a basic human right? I for one will be very pissed off sah parents be it mums or dads are penalised by the government today. if one chooses to work outside the home and have their children in daycare of whatever kind, then that is their choice, that is a lifestyle choice and should not be funded byt the state. Having children is not a lifestyle choise, but how you choose to rear them is.


----------



## CoffeeBrew (7 Sep 2005)

reddy said:
			
		

> Having children is not a lifestyle choise, but how you choose to rear them is.


 
Agree with you there. My wife has always been home with the kids. We did consider daycare when they were younger but after visiting several we couldn't free ourselves of the notion that they were basically orphanages with no overnight facilities. Not for us so we went without the second income.

There appears to be a lot of couples in our area who place their kids in daycare in order to finance an expensive lifestyle: new cars, big mortgage, holidays etc.


----------



## Molly (7 Sep 2005)

unfortunately any topic in relation to this subject always seems to come back to working mums V stay st home mums. Which has been argued to death and the bottom line is everyone to their one, be it you have choosen to stay home and care for your children or you have choosen to go to work and leave your  children in someone elses care.
Im not about to get into an argument as to whether its right or wrong to have children in childcare.
 I dont think if there was a form of child care subsidy introduced that stay at home mothers are being penalised, as they do not have childcare costs... and Im only speaking in relation to childcare costs,  im more that aware of all costs associated with child rearing. 

if we take a typical scenario of two working parents, with children in 
childcare , you have two incomes paying tax, so is it not fair therefore in this scenario that where you have double income's in a house hold being taxed and both these incomes are supporting childcare then surely a form of tax credit is fair and right.? bearing in mind married couples with a single income are probably  paying less tax anyway on income if the earner has the non earners tax credits. 

( Im not married so If  i do give up work I cannot pass my tax credits to my partner, but thats another days argument )

bottow line is woman are needed in the work place and if a woman chooses to go to work and has to pay childcare costs, then shouldnt this contribution to the workforce be recognised and is'nt it only fair that as a working mother is generating taxable income should'nt some of the tax she is paying go towards
her childcare costs.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Sep 2005)

Bottom line however is that a tax credit won't work. Creches and childcare providers operate in an industry where demand exceeds supply. There is nothing to stop creches from increasing their prices by 20% the day that a 20% tax credit is introduced. (Last year the govt thought it was giving first time buyers a welcome break when it cut stamp duty on 2nd hand houses, lo and behold house prices increased accordingly within a few weeks of the change).

Also, so many parents rely on unregistered childminders or family arrangements so the tax credit won't apply to them. This would be deeply inequitable.


----------



## Molly (7 Sep 2005)

> Also, so many parents rely on unregistered childminders or family arrangements so the tax credit won't apply to them. This would be deeply inequitable.


 .... But could a tax credit not be given irrespective of what your childcare circumstance's are. mortgage tax relief is given to all mortgage holders including those who avail of th rent a roon scheme. give it at source, not difficult to do. 



> Creches and childcare providers operate in an industry where demand exceeds supply. There is nothing to stop creches from increasing their prices by 20% the day that a 20% tax credit is introduced


 . I do agree, but I would like to think this would'nt happen, but maybe im being too idealistic.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Sep 2005)

Molly said:
			
		

> .... But could a tax credit not be given irrespective of what your childcare circumstance's are. mortgage tax relief is given to all mortgage holders including those who avail of th rent a roon scheme. give it at source, not difficult to do.


This would create a poverty trap - the tax credit would be of little/no value to those on minimum wage, who are paying very little tax anyway. It would also discriminate against the lower paid - why should the state pay for 20% of the creche fees for some children (children of lower rate taxpayers) and 42% of the fees for others?


----------



## Molly (7 Sep 2005)

> This would create a poverty trap - the tax credit would be of little/no value to those on minimum wage, who are paying very little tax anyway. It would also discriminate against the lower paid - why should the state pay for 20% of the creche fees for some children (children of lower rate taxpayers) and 42% of the fees for others?


 
Ok see your point, there just does'nt seem to be a solution so. 

truthfully my biggest gripe is I have being working for 13 years , I enjoy working and my daughter loves her creche, but its getting increasingly harder and harder for me to justify going to work and leaving my 3 year old in someones elses care for 8.5 hours 5 days a week. Our child care costs have gone up 60% in three years, and this obviously has a major factor on making the decision as to whether to continue working. Myself and my partner are not married so if I do give up working I cant even transfer my tax credits to him, Ive paid taxes all my working life , I've never had to claim unemployment or any other social welfare benefit with the exception of maternity benefit and I feel the government is doing absolutely nothing to assist or encourage woman to stay in the work force. 

We've been trying to get rid of our short term debts and get mortgage reduced to a borrowing that we can support on one income before I give up work. We then sensibly will have to marry so I can transfer my tax credits. 

now where do we find 20K for the big day ??  ....!!!!!!!


----------



## reddy (7 Sep 2005)

Ok, totally understand where you are coming from now, but sweet This post will be deleted if not edited immediately 20K? Thats nuts! Pls tell me you are joking, there is no way you want to spend 20grand on the big day? i only ask, cos we did it a few yrs ago abroad, and no way did we spend anything near that money. We were in practially the same boat as youare now, trying to pay off debts, trying to save for a mortgage and trying to save for a wedding. We also had a child 3 at the time, we wanted more children, but things were so up in the air at the time, we couldnt contemplate it. Anyway, we decide to get married abroad, we paid about 4500 in total, with a gift of 1000 on cash. That was punts. Then we changed the tax credits etc, spent 12months getting our bits in order and borrowed the dopsit for a house ( about 12k). We have 2 more girls since then. Anyway, nothing to do with the inital debate, but your story rang a few bells with me. i hope you dont mind me putting in my tuppenceworth. 20k? christ, im weak even thinking about it!!!


----------



## Molly (7 Sep 2005)

eh I was only kidding, that what the smiley was for......!!!! friggin killing myself to pay off debts, not about to blow 20k feeding aunts and uncles overpriced beef ...it will be a stroll across the road to the church and back to my parents garden for a few sarnie's and a few glasses of bubbly......!!!!!


----------



## reddy (7 Sep 2005)

Thank god for that!! I hope you dont think i was being patronising, i wasnt.


----------



## Molly (7 Sep 2005)

No i didnt think that at all....... everyone to their own, but there is no way I would fork out that kind of money for a wedding..... but we may splash out on a well deserved holiday/honeymoon...


----------



## RainyDay (7 Sep 2005)

Back to the original issue - The proposal which Maureen Gaffney put to the FF meeting yesterday was for state-provided pre-school facility for all children from the age of 3 upwards - no poverty trap, no inequities due to differing tax rates, equal support for working mums & stay-at-home mums.

Makes sense to me....


----------



## MOB (8 Sep 2005)

I see a small problem with the Maureen Gaffney proposal: it may contribute to the redundancy of those extended family members (particularly the older generation who currently take a good chunk of the undocumented childcare burden).  A lot of grannies and grandads will be delighted, but the long term effect will be to loosen family ties, as many grandparents\sisters\in laws will no longer be playing the roles that they currently play.   

I don't know if we have any accurate data on the informal family support networks upon which many people rely.  I certainly accept that in many cases those networks are dealing with excessive demands, but families are already a good deal more fragmented than those of a couple of generations ago, and I am not sure that it is a good thing.   I don't really have any answer to this problem.  Maybe it isn't a problem at all.  Maybe I should just move house to be closer to granny and forget worrying about society.


----------



## oysterman (8 Sep 2005)

Let me declare an interest here - Mrs. O and I both work and we have been paying childcare costs for the last 8 years and expect to do so for another 6 or 7 years.

On a self-interested basis I would love a big fat tax credit or, even better, an allowance paid directly to us - of course we already have children's allowance, which I seem to recall having escalated exponentially since we first had kids but Maureen Gaffney doesn't seem to think that's of much use to us.

We are already in receipt of income to pay for childcare - the second salary coming into our family. Like most people in our situation we've done the sums and decided that it suits us, financially and personally, to both stay in the workforce. We don't expect society to recognise that - our employers already do by paying us salaries.

If we get a tax break we will use some of it to pay the inevitable increase in chilcare costs that will follow. The rest will go into our general spending, causing increased demand for all goods and services in the economy and contributing to a general increase in the price level.

The very problem that many couples quote for both working - spiralling house prices - will be exacerbated by giving those most likely to be active in the housing market (young families) an increase in spending power. It will be a further transfer of resources from the state to the building sector.

It will happen because it is politically expedient.


----------



## Carpenter (8 Sep 2005)

I imagine that there are many grannies and other extended family members who would only be too delighted to be relieved of any childcare obligations, and it's hard to argue with them.  Most of these people reared their own children without the the aid of childcare facilities/ preschools or montessoris etc.  Why would we expect them to rear ours?  I think most grandparents are happy to oblige when the unforseen happens, the emergency etc, but they are quite happy (and entitled IMHO) to enjoy their retirement/ middle age without obligation, they've raised their own kids  they don't owe a debt to society.


----------



## efm (8 Sep 2005)

I haven't read the FF proposal on childcare but does anyone know was there any detail to it? Are they proposing to just pay the existing and established crèches the money, are they talking about a nationwide building programme of purpose built state run pre school "care centres", are they talking about expanding national school facilities to include pre school children or is this purely a piece of politicking in advance of the next election?

My situation is myself and Mrs fm work and we have a two year old in a crèche which costs €965 a month - with a second little fm on the way the crèche costs will increase to €1900 a month - Mrs fm's net pay after tax is €2000 per month - if she remains working after the second baby she will be working for €100 per month; so she is giving up work to look after both children at home - In simple terms the pool of available labour has been decreased because of the cost of childcare. If this scenario is repeated enough times the size of the workforce will contract and the current labour shortages we see in some market sectors will increase.

BTW I am not complaining or bemoaning the government - the decision to have children was ours alone (nobody from the civil service invaded the marital boudoir and forced me to make whoopee with the missus!!) and we live with the consequences; my point is that the cost of childcare, like it or not, will force some people out of the workforce and if the costs increase so will the number of people moving out of the workforce.

efm


----------



## CoffeeBrew (8 Sep 2005)

Oh no ! here we go again...


state funded preschool = government good intentions = 
usual unintended consequences =
property vested interests get the spare creche money =
bubble inflates further = 
even more parents will have no choice but to both work


----------



## RainyDay (8 Sep 2005)

CoffeeBrew said:
			
		

> property vested interests get the spare creche money =


How do you work this out?


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Sep 2005)

Oysterman very eloquently explained this logic above



> If we get a tax break we will use some of it to pay the inevitable increase in chilcare costs that will follow. The rest will go into our general spending, causing increased demand for all goods and services in the economy and contributing to a general increase in the price level.
> 
> The very problem that many couples quote for both working - spiralling house prices - will be exacerbated by giving those most likely to be active in the housing market (young families) an increase in spending power. It will be a further transfer of resources from the state to the building sector


----------



## fobs (13 Sep 2005)

> If people who have kids get a tax break maybe those of us who choose not to (or cannot) have kids should get a tax break on another aspect of their lifestyle


 
you don't pay your taxes on a selective basis and cannot opt out of funding for 
things tht don't affect you. For example I may not agree with tax breaks for stud farms,artists etc...
but cannot get a reduction in my taxes because i don't qualify forsame. SAHM are a different issue to funding for childcare costs and one should't be dependant on the other.
I think it is about time there was some tax breaks for childcare costs AND for SAHM and the sooner the better.


----------



## Summer (20 Sep 2005)

"And I answered. As a taxpayer, if I have to pay for other peoples kids then I should at least get a tax break on a lifestyle choice of my own.

But back to the question I asked you - why do you think everyone should pay for lifestyle choice of someone who chooses to have kids?"

Becuase the people of  our generation are paying for the pensions of the previous generations and the future generations will pay for our pensions. Very simple no kids, no pensions!
​


----------



## farmer (20 Sep 2005)

I don't understand why we need children to fund our pensions etc. Why won't the migrant workers suffice? Is it because they don't have to pay  PRSI or something? If Ireland is so attractive to them surely the govt could just change the rules so that migrant workers have to pay PRSI?


----------



## SarahMc (20 Sep 2005)

I believe there is no way the government is going to go down the road of providing tax relief which will be seen to support women at work.  If you look at the various reports in the system at the moment, you are looking at 10bn spent on childcare by 2010, via subsidies or various other proposed methods.

This is the equivalent of a quadrupling of child benefit!!


----------



## Carpenter (20 Sep 2005)

farmer said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we need children to fund our pensions etc. Why won't the migrant workers suffice? Is it because they don't have to pay PRSI or something? If Ireland is so attractive to them surely the govt could just change the rules so that migrant workers have to pay PRSI?


 
The children of the future will be funding more than just pensions, they will be funding all public services, infrastructure and all the other things that are essential in a democratic economy.  They will be funding these things just as this generation and those before us have done.


----------



## farmer (21 Sep 2005)

But they'll be funding everything by paying taxes - VAT, income tax ,excise etc etc. If our workforce is made up of migrants won't they pay the same tax that our kids would pay? What's the difference between migrants paying for everything and our kids paying for everything? I'm not being pedantic. I genuinely don't understand why there seems to be general agreement when someone brings up the "We need to have kids to fund us" line


----------



## MOB (23 Sep 2005)

"What's the difference between migrants paying for everything and our kids paying for everything? I'm not being pedantic. I genuinely don't understand why there seems to be general agreement when someone brings up the "We need to have kids to fund us" line"

I don't see it (migrants "paying for everything") ever happening, but to take this argument to its logical conclusion, suppose for a minute that our country has a huge influx of immigrants over the next 15 years, sufficient to bring about a situation where they constitute a majority of the tax take.   With this tax majority would obviously come a numerical and ultimately a political majority, and a political unwillingness to spend their money on supporting the greying (mostly non-immigrant) population.   Certainly, if Ireland were to see demographic changes on this scale, I think the point would be largely academic, but as it is clearly not going to happen, I don't think there is much to be gained from debating the issue.


----------



## Summer (23 Sep 2005)

Our pension system is based on the current generation paying PRSI to fund the pensions of those who are retired.
51% of  Irish women work and the EU has a target of raising that to 60%. There has been nearly a 20% increase over the last decade. So the government has to give some incentive/encouragement to keep women working.
Migrant workers are entitled to have their families living with them but childcare costs more than the minimum wage which they are earning.
It has been recognised that most mothers will give up work because it is not economically viable for them to continue even on a part time basis. This information and more is available on the SIPTU website. Childcare is part of the next round of wage agreements.


----------



## angie (29 Sep 2005)

If a working mum gets a tax credit for childcare how is someone who doesn't have kids funding it ? If she stays at home she doesn't pay any tax. If she goes to work and gets a reduction on the tax that she pays then she is still paying more into the system than if she stayed at home. Childcare is a cost of a working mum going to work.  If she doesn't have childcare then she can't go and not only is she not paying into the system then her husband is paying less because he gets her tax credits.


----------



## Samantha (30 Sep 2005)

i heard on the radio that the proposal will be to give tax relief (8000) to chilminders who mind kid in their own home and to increase the number of kids to five instead of 3 before they need to register to the healthboard.

Childminders getting tax relief does it mean that their price will drop ? Shouldn't the gouvernement propose in this case a minimun and a maximun a childminder should charge in order to get this relief. I don't see the point to give tax break if the price are not dropping down.

Regarding the number of kids, I do think no matter on many children a childminder mind she should be registered with the healthboard as soon as she is minding one kid other than hers.

What about people using creches ?


----------



## extopia (30 Sep 2005)

>>A lot of grannies and grandads will be delighted, but the long term effect will be to loosen family ties, as many grandparents\sisters\in laws will no longer be playing the roles that they currently play. 

I don't think it will ever be COMPULSORY to send kids to creche/preschool.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2005)

In communist East Germany in the 1950's they had a system where the parent that stayed at home to mind the children got a payment of X amount. If both parents worked then they could nominate another person (Granny, neighbour, sister etc) to receive the payment. The payment was tax-free and did not affect any social welfare benefits that the recipient got. 
I don't know what the economic effect would be but introducing a large amount of money into the economy usually fuels inflation.


----------



## extopia (30 Sep 2005)

>> If people who have kids get a tax break maybe those of us who choose not to (or cannot) have kids should get a tax break on another aspect of their lifestyle.

Having kids is not a lifestyle choice. I have four words for you:

SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES

If you can have kids, but choose not to, that's the lifestyle choice. At least until we can create some other form of continuing the species. Cloning I suppose. Hell, we'll clone them at age 21 so we can eliminate education as well as childcare costs. (Of course we'll create plenty of uneducated models too to meet our unskilled labour needs).


----------



## SarahMc (30 Sep 2005)

_Childminders getting tax relief does it mean that their price will drop ? Shouldn't the gouvernement propose in this case a minimun and a maximun a childminder should charge in order to get this relief. I don't see the point to give tax break if the price are not dropping down.
_

It would have been madness to introduce tax relief to parents before introducing something like this, vast majority of children are minded by a minder, vast majority of minders not tax compliant.  Result of tax relief for parents - clamouring for the few creche places - prices going up.  Plus SAHMs up in arms!!  


_Regarding the number of kids, I do think no matter on many children a childminder mind she should be registered with the healthboard as soon as she is minding one kid other than hers._

Absolutely agree, can't identify them unless their registered with Revenue though.


----------

