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

[trasneoir]

"Budget 2017 discriminates against every parent of young children who does not use day care."

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

Why should state policy drive childcare choices in a particular direction.

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.

 

[Purple]

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.

"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?

 

[cremeegg]

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

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.

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)?

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.

To my mind, full time parenting is a luxury.

Unfortunately you are probably correct

If you want it, and you can afford it great, but the state shouldn't be subsidising it.

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

 

[cremeegg]

"Professional" childminders?...You're having a laugh, right?

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

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?

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.

 

[trasneoir]

"Professional" childminders?...You're having a laugh, right?

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.

 

[Purple]

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.

Who bans them?

 

[T McGibney]

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.

By that yardstick, a nightclub bouncer is a "professional".

 

[trasneoir]

Who bans them?

AGS (by revoking their vetting) or Tusla (by revoking their certifications).

By that yardstick, a nightclub bouncer is a "professional".

What's your objection? Their collars are the wrong colour?

 

[Purple]

AGS (by revoking their vetting) or Tusla (by revoking their certifications).


What's your objection? Their collars are the wrong colour?

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.