Stay at Home Mothers (RTE Program)

Morag

Supports? are you kidding me?
Cos there are soooo many childcare options :rolleyes:

saa

Ah come on girls just go to college get a good job and then when you have a baby get on with it and leave it in a creche.

My partner and I both went to college and can only get minimum wage jobs if they're available so if we have a child one of us would have to stay at home as you can't pay for child day care on certain wages with other child care costs and everything else.

We could both have jobs if we could alternate shifts, I don't want to live like that but I also don't want to live a life without having a child.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

Women and men.

You've not addressed the fact that a person who is unemployed can claim for an adult dependent who is staying at home with the children. Or the fact that tax credits are given for a person at home with the children.
I think encouraging people back to work and off welfare is great. But it needs to apply across the board. Not just to one section of people who stay at home.
The government is effectively saying it's ok to be a stay at home parent, even if you are on benefits but only if you are in a relationship. It is not ok if you are single.
Children of couples deserve to have a parent at home even if the state pays for that. Children of single parents do not.
Great system.

I agree with you for the most part, but they have to start somewhere and politically this might be the easiest place to start.

The problem comes down to couples abusing this payment and pretending to be living apart when in fact they pretty much live as a couple. They need to rework this payment so as to make this less appealing while still supporting women and men who need the payment.


I said women in my post because it's extremely hard for non widowered men to get this payment due to the way our system works.

Morag

Did go to college and got good jobs but the shift engineers are expected to work never matched up with what little and costly child care there is in this country.

confusedone

another poor effort by RTE, glad to see our license fee money being well spent

Squiggler

ash23 wrote: »

Women and men.

You've not addressed the fact that a person who is unemployed can claim for an adult dependent who is staying at home with the children. Or the fact that tax credits are given for a person at home with the children.
I think encouraging people back to work and off welfare is great. But it needs to apply across the board. Not just to one section of people who stay at home.
The government is effectively saying it's ok to be a stay at home parent, even if you are on benefits but only if you are in a relationship. It is not ok if you are single.
Children of couples deserve to have a parent at home even if the state pays for that. Children of single parents do not.
Great system.

I don't know of a single married couple where a non-working spouse qualifies for any Social Welfare payment if the other is working, although many of my friends and acquaintances are in a situation where only one of them has a job (and we count our blessings that even one of us is working). The married tax credit isn't much compensation for being legally responsible for finanacially supporting another person. It is only slightly higher than the single tax credit, another disincentive to married couples for both to be working.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

The supports are there for these women to re-enter the workforce once their children are in school. Even working 5 hours a day etc will qualify them for FIS and FIS will allow these women to even get minimum wage jobs and still provide a good quality of life for their children.

I'm a single parent with one child. Using me as an example, if I earned minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, not paid for lunch break of an hour, I would get the grand total of €302.75.
I would get FIS of €123 per week. So my income would be €425 approx (and that isn't factoring in pesky things like PRSI and the USC charge.
So my rent is €150 per week and my childcare is an average of €85. Leaving the grand total of €190 to pay transport, bills, feed and clothe two people, school expenses etc.
If the government pay an allowance of €188 for me and another €29.80 for a child dependent, then I would actually be living below the very basic standards set by them and working 40 hours a week.

And I live in the country where rent and childcare is much cheaper, so I can on'y imagine how someone would manage in a city.
I work and earn a fair bit above min wage and can manage but the reality of someone trying to pay childcare on minimum wage is stark.

Squiggler if you have a couple where one is working and claiming Family Income Supplement, they could both work and not claim it. A single person can only ever earn one fulltime wage. And from that they have to pay childcare. A couple can either have two incomes and pay childcare or have one and pay no childcare. They are at an advantage. Why not make both work?

If you have a situation where the working person loses their job, they can claim for the other adult even if that adult isn't trying to find work.

iguana

Squiggler wrote: »

I don't know of a single married couple where a non-working spouse qualifies for any Social Welfare payment if the other is working, although many of my friends and acquaintances are in a situation where only one of them has a job (and we count our blessings that even one of us is working).

Afaik, a married or co-habiting person who loses their job will be entitled to 9 months Unemployment Benefit regardless of their working partner's salary as long as they have paid the correct number of stamps. After 9 months they switch to Unemployment Assistance which is means tested, so if their partner has a reasonably decent wage, they won't be entitled to any further payments.

If one partner has always been a stay at home parent they won't have up to date stamps so if the other partner loses their job they will get UB of an amount for themselves plus a supplement for their partner and child/ren. This supplement however is not the equivalent of an extra dole payment, I think it's roughly half of a single person's amount.

Moonbeam

If they get laid off they are entitled to their JSB while they are job searching but limited to 9months.

I think the issue is the treatment of a couple living together as married for social welfare reasons but not for tax.

nesf

iguana wrote: »

Afaik, a married or co-habiting person who loses their job will be entitled to 9 months Unemployment Benefit regardless of their working partner's salary as long as they have paid the correct number of stamps.

If and only if they are not self employed or a director of a company (or a child working for the parent or similar). Believe me it's ****ing rough to be self employed in this country.

stovelid

Yes, because raising the next generation of citizens is such piddling and unfruitful work compared to working in an office all day.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

I'm a single parent with one child. Using me as an example, if I earned minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, not paid for lunch break of an hour, I would get the grand total of €302.75.
I would get FIS of €123 per week. So my income would be €425 approx (and that isn't factoring in pesky things like PRSI and the USC charge.
So my rent is €150 per week and my childcare is an average of €85. Leaving the grand total of €190 to pay transport, bills, feed and clothe two people, school expenses etc.
If the government pay an allowance of €188 for me and another €29.80 for a child dependent, then I would actually be living below the very basic standards set by them and working 40 hours a week.

You're forgetting child allowance.

It's rough I agree, but honestly I've lived on less money than that in the past and while it's not pleasant it's really not much different to what may parents went through when we were very young children in the 80s.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

You're forgetting child allowance.

It's rough I agree, but honestly I've lived on less money than that in the past and while it's not pleasant it's really not much different to what may parents went through when we were very young children in the 80s.

I did it so I know it's possible. But it's making single parents suffer more than married or co-habiting couples which isn't fair but is popular with the public I guess.

Moonbeam

At the moment it is cohabiting couples that suffer most.
I don't agree anyone should have to suffer but I do agree the single parents allowance as it is has to change and fis should be overhauled to include this change so whether there are 1 or 2 parents living in the house that income is similar.


Expectations were different in the 80's,people were used to not having much and most people were in the same boat.

ash23

Moonbeam wrote: »

At the moment it is cohabiting couples that suffer most.
I don't agree anyone should have to suffer but I do agree the single parents allowance as it is has to change and fis should be overhauled to include this change so whether there are 1 or 2 parents living in the house that income is similar.

If the childcare issue was addressed it would be much easier for parents, particularly single parents, to get back to work. If my daughter had been younger when I became a single parent, I probably would have had to give up work.

Moonbeam

I would rather other benefits then childrens allowance most of the time.

Free gp visits for kids,subsidised childcare,school meals,etc etc

Childcare costs are prohibitive for most people in this country whether they are single or not. I know the costs of running creches is very high too and I am a believer that the child minding sector has to be completely regulated.

ash23

Moonbeam wrote: »

I would rather other benefits then childrens allowance most of the time.

Free gp visits for kids,subsidised childcare,school meals,etc etc

Childcare costs are prohibitive for most people in this country whether they are single or not. I know the costs of running creches is very high too and I am a believer that the child minding sector has to be completely regulated.

Indeed, but two wages stretch furthur than one in most cases

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

Indeed, but two wages stretch furthur than one in most cases

The problem is (if you live in one of the main cities) before they are school age you need to have the second income earning quite a bit before it makes it worth having the second income.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

I did it so I know it's possible. But it's making single parents suffer more than married or co-habiting couples which isn't fair but is popular with the public I guess.

It's not a question of suffer. I mean do you think single parents should be given State benefits so they have the same income as a couple earning mid 30K a year? If that was the case, why would any couple get married?

Moonbeam

In Dublin costs are crazy.

1230 for a commuter ticket pa (taxsaver before tax deductions)
2000 for creche for 2 kids

So that is 2100pm before paying mortgage,food clothes,anyhting.

You would need to love working or earn alot to make it worth your while.

Moonbeam

nesf wrote: »

It's not a question of suffer. I mean do you think single parents should be given State benefits so they have the same income as a couple earning mid 30K a year? If that was the case, why would any couple get married?

I don't see what marriage has to do with it besides sharing tax credits?

ash23

nesf wrote: »

The problem is (if you live in one of the main cities) before they are school age you need to have the second income earning quite a bit before it makes it worth having the second income.

Yes but the point again, is that if there's just one income, then the other person is at home so there are no childcare costs. With two wages, even if one is just covering the childcare, the other is there.
One wage covering childcare is more difficult generally unless that one income is massive.

It's not a question of suffer. I mean do you think single parents should be given State benefits so they have the same income as a couple earning mid 30K a year? If that was the case, why would any couple get married?

Love?
No I don't think benefits should ever be the same as what you get working. Why bother working? BUT my issue is that there are being restrictions put in place for single parents of children aged 7 and up which are not applying to married or co-habiting couples.

A single parent of a 7 year old will have no choice but to job seek as they can no longer get the state to support them. Which is fine, I don't really disagree with that. What gets my goat is that a parent whose partner is claiming a state benefit will be able to stay at home and not seek work and live off the state. Or a couple can claim top up benefits even though one chooses not to work. Or that a tax allowance is made for one person to stay at home.
It's unfair.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

A single parent of a 7 year old will have no choice but to job seek as they can no longer get the state to support them. Which is fine, I don't really disagree with that. What gets my goat is that a parent whose partner is claiming a state benefit will be able to stay at home and not seek work and live off the state. Or a couple can claim top up benefits even though one chooses not to work. Or that a tax allowance is made for one person to stay at home.
It's unfair.

Changing that would be declaring war on the traditional one-income family. I don't think any Government would dare do that.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

Changing that would be declaring war on the traditional one-income family. I don't think any Government would dare do that.

Exactly. But everyone agrees when it's done to a single parent. :rolleyes:

Having a stay at home parent is important. Unless there is only one parent and then it doesn't matter.

Moonbeam

ash23 wrote: »

Exactly. But everyone agrees when it's done to a single parent. :rolleyes:

Having a stay at home parent is important. Unless there is only one parent and then it doesn't matter.

I really don't understand what you mean with out finding it offensive to single parents.

Moonbeam

The single parent will still have the same access to job seekers allowance that they had before once the are job seeking so it isn't much different.

ash23

Moonbeam wrote: »

I really don't understand what you mean with out finding it offensive to single parents.

Sorry, the second line was sarcastic. It seems to be the stance that the government is going for. Supporting couples to have one parent at home while forcing single parents out of being stay at home parents.

I think if someone can afford to stay at home, completely unreliant on benefits then that's fine. However if a single parent cannot rely on state benefits to be a stay at home parent, then a married person should also be unable to rely on state benefits to be a stay at home parent.

Moonbeam

They can't either, unless their spouse is on the dole and then are the amounts much different?
I think the problem for alot of people isn't that they can afford to stay at home but more that they can not afford to work.

binxeo

Haven't read the whole thread or watch the entire video, I got as far as the part where she said she thinks "they are lazy spongers" and had to turn it off. I could feel my temper rising. FFS:mad:

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

Why is a single parent expected to go back to work when their child is 7 but a couple where one is on the dole and claiming for the other, do not have to prove both are seeking work?

It's a fair point, although not exactly a gravy train: a homemaking spouse cannot claim for themselves - the 'jobless' spouse simply gets an extra payment. However, you are right that it seems discriminatory in so far as only the 'jobless' spouse is required to find employment, the homemaking one is not.

However, the homemaking spouse is a dependant of the 'jobless' one, and this is the important point; the 'jobless' one may get an extra payment, but they are legally liable to support their homemaking spouse.

Also, if we consider the financial costs to the state, I don't think it makes much difference how you classify them. Two cohabitation 'jobless' people will together (after deductions) get the same as one 'jobless' person with an adult dependant.

Given this, I do think it rather ridiculous in this day and age that if hubby loses his job, that the missus should not be obliged to look for one too. Unfortunately though it would fall foul of article 41.2.1 of the constitution:

"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."

Now that I think of it, a single parent could also claim to be protected by the constitution - but only if she's a woman.

Nonetheless, I do think that the situation that we had, whereby a single mother would not be required to support herself until her child was as old as 23 was utterly ridiculous. By 7 a child is in school for six hours a day, which leaves the parent available for at least part time work. By 14 the child no longer need constant supervision and the parent can work full-time. By 18 the child can vote, so they hardly need mammy to take care of them.

Remember though, just because you are expected, when your child is 7, to seek employment, that does not mean you'll be forced to do so - it's actually very difficult to force anyone on JSA to get a job. A single parent of a 7 year old cannot take on a full-time, year-round job, after all. But they can attempt re-enter the job market, retrain and seek part time roles. So overall, nothing really changes other than the fact that they have to at least justify why they're not supporting themselves financially.

Because otherwise, what do you think happens to single parents who have been nothing else for twenty years? Once the child is 18 or 23, they would have reverted to being unemployed anyway and then what? The rest of their lives on social welfare or do the children become their 'pension plans'?

Moonbeam wrote: »

I think the problem for alot of people isn't that they can afford to stay at home but more that they can not afford to work.

I think it important that you do not confuse can not afford to work with not worth their while to work. Such is the bizarre system of benefits in Ireland, coupled with increasingly Americanesque working conditions, child care costs and poor take-home pay, that it's very easy to be worse off working than not.

I remember once calculating, shortly after leaving college, that the Dole amounted to about £10k p.a., for a single person with no dependants, when you took everything into account. A graduate job would have been little more; £12k - £14k. Before tax, naturally. So work 40+ hours per week for an extra £2k - £4k (gross)? Or £10k for turning up to pick up your rent allowance cheque and another trip to sign on, both once a month? And that's before nixers...

Add family versus childcare costs into the mix and the opportunity costs get sillier.

So it's not that many cannot afford to work, but that they're actually financially better off not doing so. Not blaming them for this, TBH, but a SW system that is frankly foobar.