New childcare proposals?

[Loaded1973]

[broken link removed]

What do people think?

I have one child and would qualify for nothing.. therefore think it would be unfair as I can see childcare costs rising. As it is I pay 680 a month for one, if i had a second even with 70 a week extra I would have to give up work. therefore still not benefiting.

 

[RainyDay]

I believe it is very unlikely that any such biased proposal that restricts benefit to families where both parents are working outside the home will be passed.

 

[podgerodge]

Didn't they give tax breaks to couples who both worked outside the home?

Anyway (and I'm biased cos we have no kids nor do we want to have any) why should you get any childcare allowances - you chose to have kids knowing they cost money. I chose not to and have more money. Why should I pay for your kids.

 

[Loaded1973]

Same old argument of.... Who will pay your pension when you retire, Our children who have grown up and are paying taxes. And there are NO tax breaks for families where both parents are working.

 

[RainyDay]

Didn't they give tax breaks to couples who both worked outside the home?

Yes, and it's exactly because the rumpus that occured when McCreevy brought in his demutualisation measure that leads me to predict that it won't happen again.

Anyway (and I'm biased cos we have no kids nor do we want to have any) why should you get any childcare allowances - you chose to have kids knowing they cost money. I chose not to and have more money. Why should I pay for your kids.

Should we take this approach to it's ultimate extent - My house is never going to be robbed, so why should my taxes pay for the Gardai to protect your house? I'm never going to drive to Donegal, so why should my taxes pay for roads in Donegal?

 

[podgerodge]

My house is never going to be robbed, so why should my taxes pay for the Gardai to protect your house? I'm never going to drive to Donegal, so why should my taxes pay for roads in Donegal?

You have no choice over whether your house will be robbed. You have a choice whether to have kids or not. Taxes are paid to the government who decide what roads will be built in the country as a whole. You are paying for the upkeep of the country where everybody can theoretically benefit from the roads. Childcare handouts only benefit people with kids.

Anyway, rightly or wrongly, it bores me to hear parents whinging on about the costs of childcare - one thing is for sure - they did know about the costs before they had the children didn't they - or did this only dawn on them afterwards?

 

[RainyDay]

Taxes are paid to the government who decide what roads will be built in the country as a whole.

Taxes are paid to the government who decide what roads will be built/ social models will be supported in the country as a whole.

Not much difference in approach here....

 

[fobs]

Childcare handouts only benefit people with kids

We cannot pick and choose the taxes we pay. I don't agree with stud farms getting tax breaks but I cannot pickl and choose what taxes to pay! You elect a government which has to cater for all. If everyone had your attitude and chose not to have kids then who would support us whewn we are older! Economies all over Europe are trying to encourage people to have more kids (see France as an example). I don't see the problem in people getting tax breaks for Childcare but it should be done in the form of increased child benefit so everyone with kids benefits and whatever form of childcare you use including SAHM is being helped. Also this method needs the least admin costs.

 

[Henny Penny]

I don't see why the tax payer should have to bear the cost of childcare. If people choose to work surely their employer should bear some of the cost of the childcare?

 

[Guest127]

As someone who had 2 children but are not longer children, the biggest gripe I had was when Alan Dukes stopped the child relief ( before credits) in the budget (1983 I think). This effectively meant that a husband and wife with no children had exactly the same tax relief as a couple with 1 2 3 4 etc kids, no difference whatsoever. Even in US children attract tax relief. I think that couples with children should get tax credits for them. Child Benefit is seperate altogether. Always puzzled me why children of single parents on the other hand did have tax relief.

 

[RainyDay]

If people choose to work surely their employer should bear some of the cost of the childcare?

Do you reckon the non-parent employees will be OK with their parent colleagues getting additional benefits (i.e. childcare) for doing the same work?

 

[TarfHead]

Do you reckon the non-parent employees will be OK with their parent colleagues getting additional benefits (i.e. childcare) for doing the same work?

Give me a break !

A colleague of mine spends about one hour per day, every day, less time at his desk than I do cos he's off on smoking breaks. You won't find me pontificating about his right to have paid personal time that is not available to me.

Anyway I digress.

Giving me, a father of 2 under age 6, who used to pay €16,000 p.a. from after-tax income for full-time childcare, a tax break does not impact upon DINKies. I still would have, ceteris paribus, less disposable income than a DINKy.

And when my wife and I decided to try to start a family, it wasn't cos it represented a prudent financial decision .. thankfully.

 

[podgerodge]

A colleague of mine spends about one hour per day, every day, less time at his desk than I do cos he's off on smoking breaks.

Ahh but addicts, such as I am, always make sure we get our work done in the time available - even if that time is reduced by an hour a day. We just work harder than our non addicted colleagues in order to ensure we get our fix!!

 

[michaelm]

[broken link removed]
What do people think?

This plan is ICTU nonsense that should be ignored by the government; and I don't see what it's got to do with IBEC as presumably the employers aren't going to part fund it. What needs to happen is the scrapping of Individualisation and the introduction of child tax credits.


The Irish media, the Times in particular, seem to be pushing the bogus idea that all these mothers really want to leave their kids in care all day every day and go out to work. The reality for many mothers is that they would sacrifice one income but because the tax system further penalises single-income families they simply can't take the increased financial. The government should realise that what's good for families is good for society and the state and they should stop discrimination against single-income families.

 

[TarfHead]

.. What needs to happen is the scrapping of Individualisation and the introduction of child tax credits .. because the tax system further penalises single-income families .. and they should stop discrimination against single-income families.

Help me out here. How does the current system discriminate against single-income households ? I am not challenging your assertion - I genuinely do not get your point.

There are 4 of us, plus a mortgage, plus 2 cars, plus all of the other bells and whistles of modern life hanging off my single-income, which according to the Shinners, just about puts me in the top 13% of income-earners (as reported by the Sunday Times) and yet we haven't a pot to pi$$ in come end of month.

 

[michaelm]

Help me out here. How does the current system discriminate against single-income households ? I am not challenging your assertion - I genuinely do not get your point.

Your family has a 'Standard Rate Cut-Off' point of €38,400 after which tax is calculated at the higher rate where as a double income family has a 'Standard Rate Cut-Off' point of €58,800.

 

[sherib]

Originally posted by podgerodge
Didn't they give tax breaks to couples who both worked outside the home?

Not a tax break simply equality of taxation for two people who happen to be married - the same taxation as when the couple were single. Anything less would be unjust. I was told recently that there was a time when a married couple, with both working, paid more tax than two single people. That was an inequity on which the Supreme Court ruled.

The problem with taxation in pre individualisation days was that it particularly and substantially benefited single income families with high earnings which wasn't fair either. That kept high income earners out of the highest tax band which approached 70% when PRSI and Levies were included. There was little or no benefit to single income families with low earnings which, I think, was the reason Charlie McCreevy introduced individualisation. Another inequity was that this double tax relief didn't cease when the children became adults; this meant that all taxpayers were subsidising single income high earners - hardly just. It should not be forgotten that the same double mortgage interest relief is granted to couples whether one or both are working. I don't believe this occurs in other jurisdictions including the UK.

Many young couples today will have no option but to remain in the workforce when they start raising a family due to the ever rising costs of housing and living. This appears to be the price our society will have to pay for our booming economy and high expectations. It's a high price but, given a choice, how many (especially young women) would want to roll the clock back? It is noteworthy that the proposed €70 per week payment will exclude families with incomes in excess of €120,000, unlike Child Benefit which is paid to both the highest and lowest income families irrespective of need.

 

[daltonr]

Who will pay your pension when you retire

I will of course! Who did you think would pay??????

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

I presume they meant who will fund the state pension payable to you if/when you eventually claim it. And I guess the obvious possibilities would be the taxpayers of the time or Government borrowing.

 

[quarterfloun]

We had children when we wanted them, we never have had a lot of money, a flash car or a big house. My wife stayed at home with the children (her and my preference) and the two children we now have are raised as our children and not the childminders. This is not to say our children never went to nursery & playgroup as these are important social activities for both children and mother alike. If we had had childminding paid for it would not matter as we would have still done the same thing. But for those of you who choose (and I will accept that there are those with NO choice) to work stop griping about the costs. If your house in Dublin costs too much - move. We did, we left London for Milton Keynes. If the repayments on the BMW are too high then get a Ford. This is about making informed choices - if you are going to have children you know it's expensive. Two will cost more than one. The childrens allowance and tax allowances for children meant we kept our heads up - only just but we did it by budgeting and using friends and occasionally doing a private job. Be inventive - before we had our 2nd child the 3rd bedroom was an office - we claimed back tax on my PAYE on a business that lost money for two years. It was not illegal as I did about 4 or 5 private jobs a year I paid tax on and the added benefit was that it stopped the "I know you can fix computers" mob getting freebies.