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
one-to-one attention for under-twos should be provided in all care settings.
Be of good cheer, Chamar — there is another way!Chamar said:These bloody people who think the government should pay for the looking after of their 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.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)
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?
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 ...
Lets face it, you dont require a degree to become a parent
Yeah, but why should my kids (I paid for them!) contribute to "bloody" other people's pensions, too?macshaned said:If someone has had kids, they are then around to support the parents in old age.
...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.
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.
- 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.
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.
According to my reading of Article 41.2 of the Constitution that's precisely what our state seems to expect of them: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.
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.
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?
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: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.
Are you saying that middle class people who can't afford to have children should not but those that are less well off should?!That's life people - deal with it. If you can't afford them you shouldn't have them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?