The Budget

Hobbes

therecklessone wrote:

Rather than risk the ire of stay at home parents they're handing the cash out regardless of childcare needs. Very poor IMO.

Until you have a child or two they become wallet eaters. 1000 is not much but it is better then 0.

therecklessone

My problem with the payment is that it is part of a childcare package but is not dependant on actually having to pay for childcare.

If you have a child you get the money. There are other ways to support the costs of raising a child (and they utilised the most obvious in raising childrens allowance). I don't begrudge parents the extra few quid, but I do think if you decide that your aim is to address the cost of childcare then you should target your spending to achieve just that.

Culchie

My main 'beef' with the budget is the extra payments to the unemployed. It was too generous.

In a society where there is a shortage of workers, no-one but no-one should be unemployed at the moment, other than through their own choice.


'Society' doesn't mean because some layabout is too lazy to get out of bed and get a job (thousands of them out there) that we should be paying for his upkeep, whilst we are up at 6.30am driving through crappy traffic, paying out taxes etc...

'Society' means that you give this same individual every chance, training, support etc.... to better his life and that of his family by full time employment.
If he throws that back in your (and the Irish people's) face .... then fair enough he made his own decision, but sorry, it's paddle your own canoe time.

'Society' means look after those who need it, sick, handicapped, elderly ..... not throwing money at layabouts.

Cork

Culchie wrote:

'Society' means look after those who need it, sick, handicapped, elderly ..... not throwing money at layabouts.

Yes. Long Term unemployed need training. Welfare is no answer,

Elmo

Yes. Long Term unemployed need training. Welfare is no answer,

Well then the government need to look a ways of reducing the number of Layabouts in this country. And they have had the best amount of time to look at new ways to deal with that part of our "society" for the last 7 years and have yet to come to any good answer or conclusion.

Sometimes it is hard for people to get into work. The long term unemployed will find it difficult because times have changed. Anyone over 50 who was made redundant in the last number of month will find it difficult to get a job because of their age.

And then their are the kind of people who talk about layabouts in this country but support Irish Ferries stance on bad working conditions, bad pay and unsoficated social practices.

Its time we all realised that their is alot more then just being lazy when people are unemployed.

Culchie

Elmo wrote:

Well then the government need to look a ways of reducing the number of Layabouts in this country. And they have had the best amount of time to look at new ways to deal with that part of our "society" for the last 7 years and have yet to come to any good answer or conclusion.

Sometimes it is hard for people to get into work. The long term unemployed will find it difficult because times have changed. Anyone over 50 who was made redundant in the last number of month will find it difficult to get a job because of their age.

And then their are the kind of people who talk about layabouts in this country but support Irish Ferries stance on bad working conditions, bad pay and unsoficated social practices.

Its time we all realised that their is alot more then just being lazy when people are unemployed.

Let's re-train the long term unemployed, offer them support and job opportunities, there's thousands of them. Put jobs on a plate.

But let's tackle the layabouts as well, they turn down work.....fine, slash the benefit.

Elmo

Let's re-train the long term unemployed, offer them support and job opportunities, there's thousands of them. Put jobs on a plate.

But let's tackle the layabouts as well, they turn down work.....fine, slash the benefit.

Hence the budget does really make much of a difference anymore it's what you actually Do with the money. Your policies will make the next election. IMO.

Cork

Let's re-train the long term unemployed, offer them support and job opportunities, there's thousands of them. Put jobs on a plate.

Vast amounts of money are being ploughed into FAS. But still we have long term unemployed.

Hobbes

therecklessone wrote:

but I do think if you decide that your aim is to address the cost of childcare then you should target your spending to achieve just that.

Well they allowed people who look after children (3 or less) to get tax relief from working. You could pay for an au pair.

Elmo

But still we have long term unemployed.

There are many who are unemployable. You can see them all over the place. That's me being pompous but it is true.

Also we are living in an era when many Scroungers (or what ever you call those kind of people) are saying

"... those immagrants and Refugees are gettin free housing, food and we're not ........ blah blah blah"

most of whom are living in housing provided by the government and which have rent subsadised by the government. Of course they pay their "RENT".

Hotblack Desiato

If you're 'unemployable' (whether through drugs, alcohol or sheer laziness) then you should be faced with a choice, either get your act together or get your dole cut off.
We're bringing in people (often very well qualified) from the corners of the globe to sweep the floors in Spar, because our dole moles think this work is beneath their dignity. FFS, this is nuts.

therecklessone

Hobbes wrote:

Well they allowed people who look after children (3 or less) to get tax relief from working. You could pay for an au pair.

Again, thats a form of childcare, as is getting a family member to mind your child.

I'm talking about situations were a child is cared for in the home by a parent, i.e. no money changes hands.

Hobbes

Then the parent gets an extra 1000 for nappies.

TempestSabre

Cork wrote:

Vast amounts of money are being ploughed into FAS. But still we have long term unemployed.

We have the lowest rate of unemployed we ever have, and your still moaning about the unemployed. FAS run vast amounts of training courses. All of the apprentices go through FAS, almost 30,000 of them at any one time. You'l always have long term unemployed for a wide range of social and economic reasons.

People would be better wondering how their taxes get mis spend on govt projects and high paid jobs that don't achieve anything, than picking on the poorest elements of society.

Elmo

I'm talking about situations were a child is cared for in the home by a parent, i.e. no money changes hands.

That's not to say that the stay at home parent doesn't have a very important job.

Mothers and Fathers that stay at home are giving up working in order to bring up their kids. I mean when two parent go out to work and earn between them 60,000 they will get tax releif

yet your telling me that because one stays at home and the earner in the house gets 30,000 that they are not intitled to this tax credit?

therecklessone

Elmo wrote:

That's not to say that the stay at home parent doesn't have a very important job.

When did I say different?

Elmo wrote:

Mothers and Fathers that stay at home are giving up working in order to bring up their kids. I mean when two parent go out to work and earn between them 60,000 they will get tax releif

yet your telling me that because one stays at home and the earner in the house gets 30,000 that they are not intitled to this tax credit?

Its not a tax credit, its a direct, non-taxable payment of €250 per quarter paid for every eligible child.

The Minister's preamble to his childcare package said the following:

Brian Cowen wrote:

A five-year strategy is being introduced to increase substantially the supply of childcare places and to assist parents with the costs of childcare.

Thats the aim of the package. So why give financial assistance to people in a childcare package who don't pay for childcare? Why am I not getting any cash, I'm single with no children so obviously won't be spending it on childcare, but what the hey...gimme gimme gimme...

Its an example of the people who (mis)control public spending because they are unwilling or unable to make an unpopular decision.

Here's what I said before:

therecklessone wrote:

If you have a child you get the money. There are other ways to support the costs of raising a child (and they utilised the most obvious in raising childrens allowance). I don't begrudge parents the extra few quid, but I do think if you decide that your aim is to address the cost of childcare then you should target your spending to achieve just that.

Elmo

Again, thats a form of childcare, as is getting a family member to mind your child.

I'm talking about situations were a child is cared for in the home by a parent, i.e. no money changes hands.

Your talking about stay at home parents. That don't get paid for minding their children. WHERE NO MONEY CHANGES HANDS.

That family have decided to have a stay at home parent. To differenciate between a family with two earners is totally unfair. Just because they get someone to mind their kids.

Again one family earns 30k with 1 parent working
while another family earns 60k with 2 parents working plus the cost of childcare.

Where is the difference? I would think the family earning 60k are better off.

Just because you don't pay for childcare doesn't mean children doesn't cost money.

A stay at home Mother or Father are providing FREE childcare, and are NOT dependent on the state.

My problem would be if everyone is entitled to the scheme. Also the scheme is for the Under 6's only. So this will only effect some parents.

therecklessone

Elmo wrote:

Your talking about stay at home parents. That don't get paid for minding their children. WHERE NO MONEY CHANGES HANDS.

I know, stop shouting.

Elmo wrote:

That family have decided to have a stay at home parent. To differenciate between a family with two earners is totally unfair. Just because they get someone to mind their kids.

No its not. The financial assistance is intended to alleviate the pressure on parents who have to pay for childcare, are you denying that? Look at the Minister's preamble to the childcare provisions again. Hell, the title of the payment (Early Childcare Supplement) should be a dead giveaway.

Elmo wrote:

Again one family earns 30k with 1 parent working
while another family earns 60k with 2 parents working plus the cost of childcare.

Where is the difference? I would think the family earning 60k are better off.

Thats point scoring and nothing else. Some people do better out of budgets than others, that the way budgets work. The Minister is supposed to identify spending requirements and target public spending to address those issues. So when he decided to take those on the minimum wage out of the tax net (for example) it wasn't so that they'd get one up on PAYE workers on the average industrial wage. Its the prioritisation of public spending.

Elmo wrote:

Just because you don't pay for childcare doesn't mean children don't cost money.

I won't deny that. But thats not why the Minister introduced the measures in this years budget.

Elmo

Early Childcare Supplement

Just because you beleive that Childcare is something that means phisically getting someone into provide childcare and paying for them doesn't mean that is what the Minister means.

Perhaps he has the good sence to understand that Childcare is not just about paying a cresh, but also about all the other aspects of Childcare. Staying at home cost perants just as much as paying for Creshs and childminders, perhaps even more.