Should we as a State provide public funded childcare?

nesf

Should we provide free childcare to parents who want it in the form of Government run creches and so forth? Initially this seems to me to be quite a leftist proposal (i.e. more services) but when you get down to it this is far more centrist than that because the goal surely is to make it easier for the second (or only in some cases) parent to join the workforce. Yes we would pay for this with our taxes but this would be a far better way to spend public money than things like the payment for single payments (don't give them money, give them services that make it viable for them to get a job). Obviously right now we're not really in a position to do this but in the medium term should we follow the example of some of our EU colleagues and provide free childcare?

FlutterinBantam

Initially I would have said no, but after reading your post,would maybe not be as unsustainable as I thought.

The idea of services instead of money handouts is worth more study.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aurelius79

State funded childcare, if run properly with the necessary safety precautions, could only be a good thing. Many children in this country are left with no after-school supervision whatsoever. Gangs of kids roam the streets with nothing to do, inevitably resulting in antisocial behavior.

State run after-school activities could open up new opportunities for these kids through education, sports and arts programs, as well as creating a safe environment for kids to socialize. This could also serve to protect children at risk from abuse or neglect in the home, whether from parents, siblings, or other family members.

For me personally, employment possibilities for lone parents would be a secondary issue but still an excellent incentive to create public-funded childcare.

Edit: The State could even subsidize the program by charging a nominal fee for the care provided. I don't think 20-25 euros a week per child would be asking too much. It would still be a fraction of what parents are currently forced to pay. Of course, welfare recipients and students could be granted assistance with fees.

ei.sdraob

Yes i would be in favour of state run creches/preschool


but on the other hand reduce child allowance payments and various other payments to parents


if the children can be put in creches with professionals, then that frees up time for the parents to do productive work

Sleepy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it's largely on staff and insurance. Premiums are high and staff levels must adhere to a strict ratio in order for the insurance to be valid. The staff themselves are very poorly paid (a little over minimum) so there's not much to be saved on that front. Making savings would require changing the ratios of minders to children and thus the safety of the children...

gerry28

The state could subsidise lower paid families and unemployed people re-entering the work force.

It wouldn't have to be state creches just pay part of the cost to entice people of benefits and back to work.

nesf

Free childcare doesn't necessarily mean State run childcare. It could be run by private enterprise with the State paying for it and the State running inspections similar to how the Dutch Health system works for hospitals.

aurelius79

Sleepy wrote: »

I think it's largely on staff and insurance. Premiums are high and staff levels must adhere to a strict ratio in order for the insurance to be valid. The staff themselves are very poorly paid (a little over minimum) so there's not much to be saved on that front. Making savings would require changing the ratios of minders to children and thus the safety of the children...

Private insurance is a racket. You pay some private firm hundreds or thousands of euros a year and for what? If you ever do need the insurance money, your premiums rise and you end up paying for everything plus premiums anyway. Insurance should be offered by the government to fund state pensions. The private pension scam that took place in this country is absolutely unacceptable.

Child care employees should be paid by the State. They are essentially health care workers after all. Carers should also be paid by the State as health care workers but that's another issue.

When you consider the millions upon millions the State has spent in the last ten years, it's a wonder why we don't have adequate and accessible child care in this country. And this covers every aspect of public social care, not just couples with young children.

Joey the lips

Yes I think we should. Why because it gets more people out working. However where i see the problem might be in the type of jobs. For example with the majority of people working low paid jobs how will the govt bring in tax to pay for this service. Then again if you only allow it to people earning a certain amount will this be fair...No.

So yes I think it would be a great idea. If even for say the first 2 kids or say only 2 kids at a time from one family.

S-Murph

nesf wrote: »

but when you get down to it this is far more centrist than that because the goal surely is to make it easier for the second (or only in some cases) parent to join the workforce. Yes we would pay for this with our taxes but this would be a far better way to spend public money than things like the payment for single payments (don't give them money, give them services that make it viable for them to get a job). Obviously right now we're not really in a position to do this but in the medium term should we follow the example of some of our EU colleagues and provide free childcare?

Except when there are no jobs!

People cant join the workforce when the jobs are not there, its that simple.

So for those in this situation with your proposal implemented, what are they left with, a creche place while they struggle to feed and clothe their children. Lone parents are one of the most vulnerable people in ireland. Giving them a creche place wont solve that any time soon.

Soldie

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes I think we should. Why because it gets more people out working. However where i see the problem might be in the type of jobs. For example with the majority of people working low paid jobs how will the govt bring in tax to pay for this service.

Perhaps the government could pay the crèche staff higher wages so that there's more tax money coming in from them. The government could then use that tax money to fund the service. Foolproof!

Joey the lips

Soldie wrote: »

Perhaps the government could pay the crèche staff higher wages so that there's more tax money coming in from them. The government could then use that tax money to fund the service. Foolproof!

that would make it worse. they are only getting back a percentage of what they are giving out.

wes

Yes, would very much agree with this. It would hopefully encourage more people into the work force, and is a far more sounder investment, than some of the crap the government spends out taxes on.

aurelius79

S-Murph wrote: »

Except when there are no jobs!

People cant join the workforce when the jobs are not there, its that simple.

So for those in this situation with your proposal implemented, what are they left with, a creche place while they struggle to feed and clothe their children. Lone parents are one of the most vulnerable people in ireland. Giving them a creche place wont solve that any time soon.

I'm sure even unemployed parents would appreciate a few hours away from the kids when they're stuck in the house all day. Two hours without the kids to do the shopping could mean the world to some. The children would benefit greatly from social interaction at a young age.

From where I see it, there are no disadvantages to public child care accessible to everyone.

Lollymcd

Would the extra tax needed to fund this only be levied on those with children???

S-Murph

aurelius79 wrote: »

From where I see it, there are no disadvantages to public child care accessible to everyone.

Your right. But when its at a cost of being able to clothe and feed your children, I dont think parents would choose a creche place. The more interaction with their parents the better. Thats been a problem for some time - ie parents leaving their kids in creches while they go to work and having little time for interaction.

Maybe giving parents a choice might solve this issue. Either a heavily subsidised creche place or maintain childrens allowance.

aurelius79

S-Murph wrote: »

Your right. But when its at a cost of being able to clothe and feed your children, I dont think parents would choose a creche place. The more interaction with their parents the better. Thats been a problem for some time - ie parents leaving their kids in creches while they go to work and having little time for interaction.

Maybe giving parents a choice might solve this issue. Either a heavily subsidised creche place or maintain childrens allowance.

I hate to be a downer but many parents don't actually want to spend time with their kids. If they did, they would. Wouldn't it be better for these kids to have them in a safe, educational environment? I'm not talking about boarding schools or anything, maybe 2-3 hours after school, one weekend a month, summer sports camps, etc. Childcare includes young adults too, not just toddlers.

S-Murph

aurelius79 wrote: »

I hate to be a downer but many parents don't actually want to spend time with their kids. If they did, they would.

But many do.

Wouldn't it be better for these kids to have them in a safe, educational environment?

When they are with their parents, they generally are safe.

I'm not talking about boarding schools or anything, maybe 2-3 hours after school, one weekend a month, summer sports camps, etc. Childcare includes young adults too, not just toddlers.

Lets not make big brushtrokes about what parents are or want.

I think parents should be given the option of extra income or a subsidised/free creche system.

The creche system wouldnt suit everyones financial situation and those who cannot gain employment.

We are in a recession afterall.!

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if the children can be put in creches with professionals, then that frees up time for the parents to do productive work

Are you serious ???

Surely if someone decides to have a child, the most "productive work" they can do is bring it up properly ?

I'd be against this, because I shouldn't be penalised with extra taxes for people who have decided to have kids.

If you can't afford them, or your lifestyle doesn't allow for them, then don't have them.

aurelius79

S-Murph wrote: »

Lets not make big brushtrokes about what parents are or want.

I think parents should be given the option of extra income or a subsidised/free creche system.

The creche system wouldnt suit everyones financial situation and those who cannot gain employment.

We are in a recession afterall.!

Sorry, I'm just so used to the U.S. where there are extracurricular activities from an early age. They were usually attached to the school so were free of charge for parents. I also spent a few summers with the YWCA and they were some of my best childhood memories. This country has a serious lack of basic infrastructure when you consider the millions that have been wasted.

nesf

S-Murph wrote: »

Except when there are no jobs!

People cant join the workforce when the jobs are not there, its that simple.

It's not a zero sum system, if more people are genuinely available for work then jobs will tend to be created to meet this demand over the medium term. But, yeah, like I said not something we could introduce now.

S-Murph

nesf wrote: »

It's not a zero sum system, if more people are genuinely available for work then jobs will tend to be created to meet this demand over the medium term. But, yeah, like I said not something we could introduce now.

Well would an option of reduced welfare payments for a creche place be viable in your view, as opposed to one or the other?

nesf

S-Murph wrote: »

Well would an option of reduced welfare payments for a creche place be viable in your view, as opposed to one or the other?

No. It would benefit those who want to get out of the welfare trap but only those and would fail to deal with people making a career out of drawing benefits. Mandatory childcare would be a better option to solve the latter.

Honestly, I don't think mandatory childcare would make it through the Dáil but optional might and even though optional doesn't deal with the welfare career person it would at least help people who want to get out of the trap get out of it. I think the single best way to help lone parents is to help them get back into the workforce and get out of the home. This would be far better than just giving them a straight payment.

S-Murph

nesf wrote: »

No. It would benefit those who want to get out of the welfare. Mandatory childcare would be a better option to solve the latter.

Honestly, I don't think mandatory childcare would make it through the Dáil but optional might and

I think the single best way to help lone parents is to help them get back into the workforce and get out of the home. This would be far better than just giving them a straight payment.

My biggest concern is that those unemployed, and in particular single parents, are some of the most vulnerable people in society. http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/factsheets/Factsheet_LoneParents.pdf

This problem is set to rise given the current economic climate. I think cutting their welfare would not be a good thing to do. If it were optional on the otherhand.

trap but only those and would fail to deal with people making a career out of drawing benefits.....even though optional doesn't deal with the welfare career person it would at least help people who want to get out of the trap get out of it.

To what extent are "career welfare recipients" a problem?

nesf

S-Murph wrote: »

My biggest concern is that those unemployed, and in particular single parents, are some of the most vulnerable people in society. http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/factsheets/Factsheet_LoneParents.pdf

This problem is set to rise given the current economic climate. I think cutting their welfare would not be a good thing to do. If it were optional on the otherhand.

Well, in this case you'd be cutting welfare but providing childcare (and presumably a meal for the kid) in exchange. I do agree that you'd have to be very careful about changes because you are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society in that you're talking about people for whom escaping the welfare trap is extremely difficult if they don't have a parent or something to provide free childcare for them.

S-Murph wrote: »

To what extent are "career welfare recipients" a problem?

The Single Family payment is one of the most abused payments from all accounts. Just too easy to claim that you don't have a partner living with you, proving that you do is very very difficult. As a scheme it's far too easily abused yet at the same time provides much needed help to people in difficult situations which makes it messy to sort out.

T runner

I think the country needs to be more family friendly.

It is a bit of a catch 22 at the moment. The law-makers-Our politicians work long family unfriendly hours (much of it trying to be re-elected). This means that if they have a family at all it is of a very traditional variety with one partner at home house keeping all day . Whatever their setup they tend to be under-experienced in child-raising issues. So they see necessary changes (including child care) only when they are lagging years behind everyone in Europe.

This is a major bottle-neck for the development of the country.
Having adequate family friendly systems means you will have a gretaer number and crucially type of people available for vital jobs including politics.

aurelius79

nesf wrote: »

This would be far better than just giving them a straight payment.

I think this is the single biggest problem with the Irish welfare system. Cash should not be given out as it is now. I think a food credit system should be introduced, responsibility for housing should be moved to the Dept. of Social Affairs and rents paid automatically from your social account, and monetary payments reduced to cover basic luxuries.

jimmycrackcorm

Lollymcd wrote: »

Would the extra tax needed to fund this only be levied on those with children???

Should taxes paid by working parents only be used for services for people with children?

View

If I recall correctly, Labour proposed such a scheme in the 2002 General election. The electorate did not vote for them in any noticeable (increased) numbers at the time. Therefore, it would seem, that at least then the electorate wasn't particularly interested in the concept.

Hence, the answer should be No unless the electorate suddenly have a change of mind on the issue.

narddog

No. The parents should be responsible. After all, it's their child. And that nonsense payment each month, childrens allowance, should be abolished.