Should the state help defray childcare costs?

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?! :confused:
Click to expand...

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:(
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
DrMoriarty said:
Yeah, but why should my kids (I paid for them!) contribute to "bloody" other people's pensions, too? :D

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. :D
Click to expand...

You're looking at it the wrong way - you should see it as your kids as contributing to their own bloody pensions.:p
 
ClubMan said:
Do you have any links to the research in question?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...???
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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..
Click to expand...


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


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?
 
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! :D ) 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.
 
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! :D ) 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
legend99 said:
Has there ever been talk about the tax position penalising single income married couples with kids as being unconstitutional does anyone know???
Click to expand...
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.:)
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top