Should the state help defray childcare costs?
- Thread starter legend99
- Start date
Indeed. I didn't say I was convinced it was unconstitutional - although it may be. Unfortunately, partly due to 'Individuation', I operate on a shoestring family budget and therefore I'm not in any position to take such cases; but thanks for the suggestion anyway.Sherman said:
J
JaneyL
Guest
For a country that still is largely intolerant of a woman's right to control their own fertility, I'd say that child care provision is still very poor.
I say all this as a working mum who has just arrived in the country
I say all this as a working mum who has just arrived in the country
Check out the snippet of the constitution that I posted earlier to see what the state officially expects of women!JaneyL said:
J
JaneyL
Guest
Thanks for that Clubbie. I'm glad to see that not all Irish men have conservative attitudes.
There's hope for us yet
There's hope for us yet
In defence of Article 41, the wording may be dated but, in my view, the intent is worthy. The APOCC will likely recommend cosmetic changes replacing 'woman' and 'mother' with 'parent' in an attempt to lessen the apparent embarrassment felt by some forward thinking PC citizens in relation to the Article.ClubMan said:Check out the snippet of the constitution that I posted earlier to see what the state officially expects of women!
Actually - according to this it seems that I'm an ultra conservative so get back to your duties you brazen hussey!
michaelm - you should have explained that APOCC is the All Party Oireachtas Commission on the Constitution for mugs like me who had to Google it! To be honest I personally don't see anything wrong with modifying the wording along the lines that you mention. Something that is more inclusive of the varying sorts of "family" and less strictly defined gender roles in our society these days would be welcome. Why is "PC" invariably used in a pejorative sense these days?
michaelm - you should have explained that APOCC is the All Party Oireachtas Commission on the Constitution for mugs like me who had to Google it!
To be honest I personally don't see anything wrong with modifying the wording along the lines that you mention. Something that is more inclusive of the varying sorts of "family" and less strictly defined gender roles in our society these days would be welcome. Why is "PC" invariably used in a pejorative sense these days?just to go back to the original point if the state allowed a tax credit for childcare or some proportion of it how is someone who chooses to stay at home to mind their kids funding it ? If two parents go to work both are paying into the system. If they get a tax credit they may pay a little less into the system but nonetheless both are paying into the system. If one parent stays at home then only one is paying into the system and at that is paying less because of the home carers tax credit ergo the couple both working are funding the system and helping the parent staying at home to do so. Also I know of a lot of parents who chose to stay at home and do so by claiming social welfare for the first fifteen months and I am not saying that anyone here has done that before I get jumped on but I do know a lot who have done it. Childcare is a cost of going to work. If you get a credit for it you are still funding the system. If you stay at home you are not funding the system. angie
In fact those at home rearing children are the lifeblood of the system. Put as simply as I can, families with a single income pay the higher tax rate at a substantially lower income level, and are afforded less tax credits, than families with two incomes; this is discriminatory. Some will correctly point out that having a child is a personal choice and that parents should stop whining and deal with it however from the States point of view there is no choice, in that children must be born to maintain a stable population (I read somewhere that an average of 2.1 children per woman is required); so it is imperative that the State support families and child rearing.angie said:
ok fair enough everyone pays indirect taxes including the working parents. The point I am trying to make perhaps not clearly enough is that two working parents pay more tax even if there is a tax credit for some percentage of childcare. If one stays at home they are paying less tax.
You seem to assume that two salaries are always greater than one. This isn't true. 2 x 30k salaries are less than 1 90k salary.angie said:
Don't let the thread descend into a SAHM's vs working mum's slagging match. It's not an 'either/or' choice. The state needs to do a better job of supporting all parents.
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
Simply not true. If my salary were halved and my wife went out and took up paid employment for an equivalent salary — thereby restoring our total combined income to its former level — we would pay approximately €5,200 p.a. less income tax than I do — whether or not we had children!angie said:
That's why individualisation is inherently discriminatory, as michaelm has just pointed out. The only way to bring some degree of equity into the equation is to means-test both CB and eligibility for any proposed tax credits for childcare costs.
There is also more to the whole 'childcare' debate than money......
If funding the system was the only important factor then a mother would be back to work as soon as she was out of the bed and we'd all work till the day we dropped
Its also about the kind of society we want and we need to focus on the child primarly and whats best for them. Focusing on rearing well rounded, well educated children is favourable for us all in the long run.
If funding the system was the only important factor then a mother would be back to work as soon as she was out of the bed and we'd all work till the day we dropped
Its also about the kind of society we want and we need to focus on the child primarly and whats best for them. Focusing on rearing well rounded, well educated children is favourable for us all in the long run.
It seems to me that there are inconsistencies in how children are recognised by the state.
If I were a recipient of Social Welfare with children I would be paid more than those without children. The also have most of the rights of adult citizens (with the exception of the vote etc..).
The majority of things that are bought for them attract VAT most of which is charged at 21%, and they are expensive. They attract lots of Doctors bills, Dentists and other costs all of these people who in return pay tax on their incomes.
Why not grant children tax-free allowances when they are born that can be utilised by the parents while their children are dependant on them? Children are an investment in the future, right? The majority of them will go on to become taxpayers won’t they?
If I were a recipient of Social Welfare with children I would be paid more than those without children. The also have most of the rights of adult citizens (with the exception of the vote etc..).
The majority of things that are bought for them attract VAT most of which is charged at 21%, and they are expensive. They attract lots of Doctors bills, Dentists and other costs all of these people who in return pay tax on their incomes.
Why not grant children tax-free allowances when they are born that can be utilised by the parents while their children are dependant on them? Children are an investment in the future, right? The majority of them will go on to become taxpayers won’t they?
Didn't tax free allowances for children come into play with things like covenants in the past - i.e. the child could claim back standard rate tax on the donation and the donor could claim the difference between standard rate and the high rate? Great scheme - I think I have a covenant out for each of my many nephews and nieces at the time!Bonafide said: