ERSI: Cost of working 'too high'

Monty Burnz

starbelgrade wrote: »

In short, I don't think anything that they write can be taken as gospel as they are a non-independent review body of over-paid public servants who have a vested interest in protecting their own salaries.

I agree with what you are saying in this post, and indeed - as I've linked - Richard Tol has questioned their independence in the past.

saintsaltynuts

Rabidlamb wrote: »

One the back of this new found info I'm trying to get let go from my job.
My job must be made redundant, correct, I can't just be sacked.
Already looking forward to breakfast TV & Jeremy Kyle, roll on the gravy train, choo choo.


Ah yeah its great craic altogether i'd fully recommend it.

seamus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I looked at the report.

Morlar wrote: »

So did I - it's on this page if anyone is interested:

Great, so then you can see how plainly obvious it is that it's not a report by the ESRI containing any recommendations, criticisms, policies, or otherwise any information which could be considered useful for a government?

In short, that it's an academic paper analysing statistical variances within a population, and the media who jumped on this as a proclamation that people on the dole were better off are just guilty of sensationalism and scare-mongering?

mathie

The report mentioned childcare costs can bu "up to" 30% of a take home pay.
Our creche is 800 - 1000 a month depending on childs age (its just dropped from 1000 to 800)

So the average wage is nearly 4K a month?

Nothingbetter2d

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be fair, the only jobs the government 'puts' somewhere are state employees. If Google turn up to open an office, they can't somehow send them down to Termonfeckin or something.

no but they could have given more tax incentives for companies to choose out of dublin locations

Nothingbetter2d

mathie wrote: »

The report mentioned childcare costs can bu "up to" 30% of a take home pay.
Our creche is 800 - 1000 a month depending on childs age (its just dropped from 1000 to 800)

So the average wage is nearly 4K a month?

to be far thats 30% of combined take home pay of both parents 4k is easily achievable with 2 decent incomes

Bannasidhe

starbelgrade wrote: »

- The academia of Ireland are the highest paid in Europe. .

*opens online banking. Checks bank balance expecting loadzamoney cos I are an academic. Sadly disappointed.*

Another myth - there is a top tier within the Irish universities who get paid silly money most of whom have administrative posts rather then teaching posts.

The actual teaching staff earn far less then people imagine - lecturer salaries start at 35k that's with a PhD. Senior lecturers get just over 70k - to reach these heady heights one needs to have a proven track record of publications, supervision of post-graduates, teaching, and admin work on modules/committee/exam boards plus of course a PhD.

Some Irish universities hire lecturers on 8 month fixed term contracts - Sept to May paying a pro-rata of 35k - there is no guarantee one's contract will be renewed. These academics then have no option but to claim the dole for the remaining months.

Due to the cut-backs and hiring freeze even these are becoming rare so unless one has been in post since about 2006 and has a permanent contract the best an academic can hope for now is a few hours teaching paid at an hourly rate (I think it's 43 euro an hour) but at least in the case of UCC max number of hours is capped per week at 6. Naturally, such hours are only available during teaching semesters so Oct-Dec/Jan - April. If these precious teaching hours occur over 2 days, these highly paid academics can claim the dole for the other days - if they occur over 3 days - no dole.

Edit to add: If on an hourly rate, the lecturer does not get paid for prep time only teaching time - so that 43 per hour also has to cover the hours spent researching and writing the lecture so at best it works out at a max of 20 per hour in reality it's more like a 10/15 an hour. It also doesn't include answering student enquiries or the correction of assignments, scripts etc - the former is unpaid, the latter is paid in a lump sum around August, I think the rate is about 1.90 per 1,500 word essay/90 minutes exam script up to about 7 euro per dissertation/thesis. Time spent correcting takes between 30 minutes to an hour for the 1,500 word/90 minute exam - it takes half a day or more to correct a dissertation. If it is an essay/dissertation then sources/data/methodology etc all have to be checked and verified, if it is an exam script one has to deal with often funky handwriting and pages of waffle all of which must be read in case there is a nugget of relevant info hidden in the stream of conciousness. Some universities are now moving to stop this extra payment for correcting. Anyone at senior lecturer level or above does not qualify for this payment.

There is huge wastage in Irish universities, I do not dispute that for a second, I see it every day and it drives me spare. Some people get paid silly money, I do not dispute that, I do not see those people everyday as they are 'busy' in meetings about meetings about who is on which committee. Most of the teaching staff are earning the 'average industrial wage' and bringing lunch to work to save money to pay the mortgage just like everyone else.

OldNotWIse

mathie wrote: »

The report mentioned childcare costs can bu "up to" 30% of a take home pay.
Our creche is 800 - 1000 a month depending on childs age (its just dropped from 1000 to 800)

So the average wage is nearly 4K a month?

"up to" refers to the extreme - it doesnt mean it's the average

christmas2012

BattleCorp wrote: »

I have lived on the dole, and to be honest, I didn't like it. That said, I am not much better off working either.

Can you honestly say you are better off on the dole,youre working now,and i can bet your standard of living is higher than someone who could barely afford the expensive dentist on the dole,there is lots of medical treatments that when youre on the dole you a) wait longer for or b) are not qualified for

Bell Butter

christmas2012 wrote: »

Can you honestly say you are better off on the dole,youre working now,and i can bet your standard of living is higher than someone who could barely afford the expensive dentist on the dole,there is lots of medical treatments that when youre on the dole you a) wait longer for or b) are not qualified for

Same applies when you;

a) are earning too much for a medical card. (which is not much these days)

b) cant afford medical insurance.

hondasam

christmas2012 wrote: »

Can you honestly say you are better off on the dole,youre working now,and i can bet your standard of living is higher than someone who could barely afford the expensive dentist on the dole,there is lots of medical treatments that when youre on the dole you a) wait longer for or b) are not qualified for

You are under the impression everyone who is working is earning big money when the reality is most are just getting by every week.
If I need to go to the doctor it costs me €60 and the dentist a lot more than that. How can you think just because someone works they can afford all these things?

yore

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who did? The people I mentioned who attend the capuchin day centre for free meals come from all sorts of backgrounds. But yes there are also people earning just 188 who are in poverty due to various circumstances.

I didn't say you did. I was reinforcing your point, not disputing it. Perhaps I should have included the words "automatically" in the post.

Some who get the 188 a week, also have most of that 188 purely as discretionary spending money. Maybe not many, but some of them are in that situation!

Edited my stupid spelling mistake!

yore

hondasam wrote: »

You are under the impression everyone who is working is earning big money when the reality is most are just getting by every week.
If I need to go to the doctor it costs me €60 and the dentist a lot more than that. How can you think just because someone works they can afford all these things?

The grass is always greener for those with a self-pitying "poor me" attitude

Ray Palmer

A few things could be done to reduce welfare dependency in the future and gain revenue
1. Legalise abortion
2. Give the pill out for free
3. Give fathers rights and make them financially responsible
4. Increase tax inspectors
5. Simplify the tax and benefit systems

The problem is public opinion would balk at some of them.

Benefits will be cut as it is easy. While replacing the systems would be cheaper than a new currency it requires will from the government who want to stay in power.

starbelgrade

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A few things could be done to reduce welfare dependency in the future and gain revenue
1. Legalise abortion
2. Give the pill out for free

In other words, stop poor people having sex.

laugh

Those measures could lead to more sex?

yore

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A few things could be done to reduce welfare dependency in the future and gain revenue
1. Legalise abortion

Are you serious?

Sure why not save a few bob instead by making all parents bring their kids in to an interview at 2 years old and if they are assessed as too poor, the social can "euthanise" the kid? :rolleyes: To me that's the same thing as what you are proposing and implying.

I'll probably get an infraction for this, but that is one fu$king idiotic suggestion to make.

seamus

yore wrote: »

Are you serious?

Sure why not save a few bob instead by making all parents bring their kids in to an interview at 2 years old and if they are assessed as too poor, the social can "euthanise" the kid? :rolleyes: To me that's the same thing as what you are proposing and implying.

I'll probably get an infraction for this, but that is one fu$king idiotic suggestion to make.

That's not what he's proposing. He's simply saying that if it were possible to legally obtain an abortion for crisis pregnancies, then it's possible there would be less welfare dependence on the state.

However, since this is predicated on poorer people being more likely to have a crises pregnancy and abort it, I would need to see figures that such a measure would work.
My suspicion is that poorer people are no more likely to have crisis pregnancies, but they're probably less likely to abort it even when abortion is available.
This is because single parenting and young mothers carry far less of a stigma in lower socio-economic classes, and in many cases are seen as preferable to traditional co-habiting 20-30-something parents.

I could be wrong though.

CruelCoin

yore wrote: »

Are you serious?

Sure why not save a few bob instead by making all parents bring their kids in to an interview at 2 years old and if they are assessed as too poor, the social can "euthanise" the kid? :rolleyes: To me that's the same thing as what you are proposing and implying.

I'll probably get an infraction for this, but that is one fu$king idiotic suggestion to make.

Legalising abortion would open this up as an alternative to poor parents than trying to raise a kid they cannot afford.

You're being a little dramatic. Abortion is legalised many other places with no hint of the euthanising you imply will come with it.

CruelCoin

seamus wrote: »

That's not what he's proposing. He's simply saying that if it were possible to legally obtain an abortion for crisis pregnancies, then it's possible there would be less welfare dependence on the state.

However, since this is predicated on poorer people being more likely to have a crises pregnancy and abort it, I would need to see figures that such a measure would work.
My suspicion is that poorer people are no more likely to have crisis pregnancies, but they're probably less likely to abort it even when abortion is available.
This is because single parenting and young mothers carry far less of a stigma in lower socio-economic classes, and in many cases are seen as preferable to traditional co-habiting 20-30-something parents.

I could be wrong though.

Also, poorer sections of society are far more religious on average than wealthier parts of society.
Poorer people will more often bow to the religious teachings of "abortion is bad, mmmkay?"

steddyeddy

CruelCoin wrote: »

Legalising abortion would open this up as an alternative to poor parents than trying to raise a kid they cannot afford.

You're being a little dramatic. Abortion is legalised many other places with no hint of the euthanising you imply will come with it.

Legalising abortion with the view to reduce the welfare system is something out of a dickens novel.

Ray Palmer

seamus wrote: »

However, since this is predicated on poorer people being more likely to have a crises pregnancy and abort it,

thanks for understanding that I wasn't suggesting poor people shouldn't have children. You did miss that it is about who is actually likely to end up financially dependent on the state.
Single parents cost the state a lot. They are the most likely to be in poverty. It isn't where they are from but where it leads.
It also leads to a dependency as meeting a new partner is restricted as if you go to marry or move in together benefits are lost.

Not saying all single parents get in this situation just odds are stacked that way. The children have even worse odds against them.

Generally these are not planned pregnancies. Hence I suggest prevention also

Bannasidhe

hondasam wrote: »

You are under the impression everyone who is working is earning big money when the reality is most are just getting by every week.
If I need to go to the doctor it costs me €60 and the dentist a lot more than that. How can you think just because someone works they can afford all these things?

People seem to be under the impression that the medical health card is some golden ticket to fabulous healthcare when in reality although it does allow for GP visits and a minimal payment for prescriptions it also places people at the mercy of the ever increasing waiting lists. I know for a fact that although we, as a country, are facing a diabetes crises and people are being urged to get tested, the waiting time for diabetic clinics in Cork is currently 2 years, there is an 18 month waiting list to get on the waiting list to see a specialist - average time on that waiting list is 2 years. This is the reality of the wonderful medical health card - wait 3/4 years to see a specialist after being diagnosed with a chronic illness which can lead to blindness, brain damage, amputations and death if not treated properly or find the cash (70-120 per visit) to pay privately out of a basic income of 188 per week.

Three friends of mine were diagnosed with breast cancer last year- all as a result of Breast Check - one has a medical health card having been laid off as a result of the cutbacks in Universities (she was a lecturer), one has health insurance, one had no insurance but was in a position to pay privately. Two have completed their treatment and are remission, the other is still waiting for treatment having had her initial biopsy exactly 12 months ago - guess which one is which. She has just been told that due to the delay she will most likely have to have a mastectomy - when she finally gets treatment that is.

A few years ago I had to have my gall bladder removed. I was working but didn't have a health insurance. It cost me 630 euro - waiting time a very painful 3 months. If I had been reliant on a medical health card I would have been waiting at least 2 years like my 77 year old mother was told it would take - we paid for her to go private.

Dental cover has been slashed - with a limit on the number of fillings and extractions per year. Any dental treatment designed to 'save' a tooth is not covered except in extreme cases. My son had the misfortune to be laid off 6 months before his impacted wisdom teeth erupted. He is still waiting for the HSE to approve their extraction - 16 months after his dentist applied for approval as it was deemed an emergency.

Those on low income can apply for a GP visit medical card. Those in employment with certain chronic conditions (such as diabetes) can get their meds free via the Long Term Illness Scheme.

Those on a low income with children can apply for Family Income Supplement.

The issue here, which many people prefer to ignore in order to paint an inaccurate picture of life on SW as some lifestyle paradise, is the insane cost of childcare and commuting which in addition to all the levies and stealth taxes is bleeding working parents dry.

Where is the subsidised childcare or tax rebates for childcare costs? The After School Clubs so parents don't have to pay someone to collect their kids from school and mind them until the parents get home? A decent, affordable and reliable public transport system outside the main urban areas?

All of these are possible and vital if the government really wants to encourage people on SW to be able to afford to take low wage jobs instead they pillaged the National Pension Fund to create the ridiculous Jobs Bridge Scheme where people can spend 9 months 'learning' how to wash a car or stack a shelf for an extra 50 euro a week paid for by the State.
This begs the question - if it is so expensive to just go to work how are Jobs Bridge Interns meant to afford it on an extra 50 euro a week?

I was a single parent and I worked - the difference was it was in the UK and my employer provided subsidised child care - not just for me, for every resident on the estate I lived on, and subsidised transport (paid half the cost of an annual travel pass for bus/Tube/Rail). The local Primary school had a low cost After School Club, the local authority funded summer playschemes which ran for the 6 weeks of the holidays - cost per child was £1 a day. The Community Centre where I worked was one of just many such facilities that offered accredited training courses with free childcare.
The local authority also funded a fully insured mobile creche service which provided childcare for community groups.

When I worked in Oz I got a tax rebate of $10,000 as I had a child, plus a refund for any work related expenses as long as I had receipts. This included tools of my trade (I was a chef), transport, uniforms and mandatory pension/union contributions.

Hannibal Smith

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I find that two thirds of what I spend on food is for things like Lindt chocolate, beer, wine, olives and salsas and fancy stuff I don't even need - and I still only spend about €60 on food.

60 quid on one person a week? That is huge! I spend 70-80 (depending on nappies etc) quid on a family of four a week and I'm even trying to cut that back!

Ray Palmer

seamus wrote: »

However, since this is predicated on poorer people being more likely to have a crises pregnancy and abort it,

thanks for understanding that I wasn't suggesting poor people shouldn't have children. You did miss that it is about who is actually likely to end up financially dependent on the state.
Single parents cost the state a lot. They are the most likely to be in poverty. It isn't where they are from but where it leads.
It also leads to a dependency as meeting a new partner is restricted as if you go to marry or move in together benefits are lost.

Not saying all single parents get in this situation just odds are stacked that way. The children have even worse odds against them.

Generally these are not planned pregnancies. Hence I suggest prevention also

hyperborean

Ray Palmer wrote: »

thanks for understanding that I wasn't suggesting poor people shouldn't have children. You did miss that it is about who is actually likely to end up financially dependent on the state.
Single parents cost the state a lot. They are the most likely to be in poverty. It isn't where they are from but where it leads.
It also leads to a dependency as meeting a new partner is restricted as if you go to marry or move in together benefits are lost.

Not saying all single parents get in this situation just odds are stacked that way. The children have even worse odds against them.

Generally these are not planned pregnancies. Hence I suggest prevention also

Funnily enough, I get it......maybe as part application for social services process an agreement for temporary sterilisation should be signed by the applicant?

e.g, Q: you want help? A: yes! A:well keep your legs shut till you can afford to take care of kids yourself!

Hannibal Smith

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

I really don't get you people sometimes...

Ireland has the highest birth rate in Europe and so many here complain about the lack of subsidised child care. Why don't you just think before popping all these creatures into the world?
I have never come across such a self-entitled bunch such as Irish parents (with exceptions of course). Costs are being cut in all sectors but it seems that once it comes to childcare the whole country turns into apocalyptic chaos.

:mad:
[rant]
Are you serious? Have you seen what other european countries give re childcare? I have a friend in Finland, whichever of the parents decides to stay at home with the children gets a child home care allowance paid for the first 3 years of the child's life, and she can return to her job when the 3 years is up. In germany another friend of mine has completely free childcare, full time. I pay 715e for one child for 3 days a week! I'm sure the taxes in these countries are higher to finance these kinds of circumstances, but where the hell have all the taxes gone that this country raked in during the boom years? If this country was able to manage its finances at all, I'm sure something could be done.

Why should people lose out on having kids, if that's what they want? Plenty of us have sacrificed careers and all of our salaries to get this. It's such an immature attitude this anti-parent stuff people trott out and it's sad if any person should feel they can't have a child because of their financial situation. The basic of employment rights (maternity wise) is to protect a person's decision to have a child and to make sure they don't lose out because of that decision. That right should filter through all sections of society.

And while I'm on it...this whole 'i don't have kids, but child benefit comes out of my taxes' thing really gets on my wick! I'm not sick, I have my own private health insurance, but I still had portions of my wages put towards health care, for one example. We live in a state where we all give a portion of what we earn to help those lets fortunate, lets stop being greedy, self serving, penny pinching so and so's and get the hell over ourselves

[/rant]

CruelCoin

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

60 quid on one person a week? That is huge! I spend 70-80 (depending on nappies etc) quid on a family of four a week and I'm even trying to cut that back!

20 quid each for a week is very very tight, but perfectly do-able.

It's a bit looked down upon, but make good use of the discounted fridge in Tesco.
I earn a good wage and still go to this every time i'm in the place. Big tub of salad pasta for 11cent anyone? om-nom-****ing-nom.
Also, we do a loot of curries here, and meats with a bit more fat and bones end up here, which are vital in a good curry.

Monty Burnz

steddyeddy wrote: »

Legalising abortion with the view to reduce the welfare system is something out of a dickens novel.

Or, to look at it another way, forcing poor people to have children they don't want because they can't afford to 'get the boat' like wealthier people is like something out of a Dickens novel.

Monty Burnz

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

60 quid on one person a week? That is huge! I spend 70-80 (depending on nappies etc) quid on a family of four a week and I'm even trying to cut that back!

Yeah, but you'll notice that I said I spend two thirds of it on frivolities.

Because I'm worth it.

Bannasidhe

irelandrover wrote: »

You want taxes for everyone raised so that your childcare is cheaper and accuse other people of being greedy.

Those children will be paying the taxes to fund the State in 20 years and still paying off the bail out - as will their children.

Perhaps anyone over the age of retirement should not be allowed to benefit from the taxes paid by other people's children with those who had no children entitled to feck all.
:pac:

Hannibal Smith

CruelCoin wrote: »

20 quid each for a week is very very tight, but perfectly do-able.

It's a bit looked down upon, but make good use of the discounted fridge in Tesco.
I earn a good wage and still go to this every time i'm in the place. Big tub of salad pasta for 11cent anyone? om-nom-****ing-nom.
Also, we do a loot of curries here, and meats with a bit more fat and bones end up here, which are vital in a good curry.

Has to be done I'm afraid Dunnes Stores 'absolute value' tabs around the aisles helps alot

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yeah, but you'll notice that I said I spend two thirds of it on frivolities.

Because I'm worth it.

Sure you might as well enjoy it, you've earned it

scamalert

im working 2-4 days a week making about 170 to 250 average, weekly expenses are 30 petrol to commute to work 40e for food and beverages,that leaves me with 100e which i save and spend monthly on internet car insurance taxes,which leaves me with about 300 by the end of the month in savings,but i am over 26 now and still live with my parents,not to mention with $hit having to be put up at work to please others.In other words life is great being a peasant if had to live by myslef probably would be scraping bins on 170 a week with dole or without it,no matter what others say but dole for a single person is a one way ticket to root.

seamus

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

And while I'm on it...this whole 'i don't have kids, but child benefit comes out of my taxes' thing really gets on my wick! I'm not sick, I have my own private health insurance, but I still had portions of my wages put towards health care, for one example. We live in a state where we all give a portion of what we earn to help those lets fortunate, lets stop being greedy, self serving, penny pinching so and so's and get the hell over ourselves

What the anti-child brigade don't really seem to realise is that other people's kids will be paying their pensions when they retire, not to mention paying for their utilities, transport, entertainment, etc etc etc.

In reality we should be following the example of the rest of europe and providing incentives for working people to have more children. In fifty years' time, Germany, France and all the old guard of europe will be begging the Irish to keep pumping in money to pay the pensions of their aged workforces.

irelandrover

seamus wrote: »

What the anti-child brigade don't really seem to realise is that other people's kids will be paying their pensions when they retire, not to mention paying for their utilities, transport, entertainment, etc etc etc.

In reality we should be following the example of the rest of europe and providing incentives for working people to have more children. In fifty years' time, Germany, France and all the old guard of europe will be begging the Irish to keep pumping in money to pay the pensions of their aged workforces.

I think saying people are anti-child is not on.
I don't think my taxes should be raised to help pay someone elses childcare. that doesnt make me anti-child. I think people should pay for their own children

Bannasidhe

irelandrover wrote: »

I think saying people are anti-child is not on.
I don't think my taxes should be raised to help pay someone elses childcare. that doesnt make me anti-child. I think people should pay for their own children

Then by exactly the same token why should those children and their children pay for your old age?

irelandrover

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then by exactly the same token why should those children and their children pay for your old age?

I didn't say they should. I pay into a pension fund for my old age.

Bannasidhe

irelandrover wrote: »

I didn't say they should. I pay into a pension fund for my old age.

That will pay for everything will it? Hospitals, roads, the drugs to deal with all of your age related ailments? That's some pension fund you have there.

BigFatGiant

Its hard to live on the dole since it has been cut back in the Budgets over the last few years. I'm currently limiting myself to 4 foreign holidays this year. Thats only once every 3 months. How is a person expected to live like this???

CruelCoin

scamalert wrote: »

im working 2-4 days a week making about 170 to 250 average, weekly expenses are 30 petrol to commute to work 40e for food and beverages,that leaves me with 100e which i save and spend monthly on internet car insurance taxes,which leaves me with about 300 by the end of the month in savings,but i am over 26 now and still live with my parents,not to mention with $hit having to be put up at work to please others.In other words life is great being a peasant if had to live by myslef probably would be scraping bins on 170 a week with dole or without it,no matter what others say but dole for a single person is a one way ticket to root.

If it makes you feel any better, you could always call yourself a Pleb instead. Same thing but sounds better.

Hannibal Smith

irelandrover wrote: »

I think saying people are anti-child is not on.
I don't think my taxes should be raised to help pay someone elses childcare. that doesnt make me anti-child. I think people should pay for their own children

Unfortunately we don't get a say in what our taxes go to. As I said before, I don't have any sort of illness benefit, and have always had private health insurance, so why should any of my salary have gone to the health system?

We haven't contributed to the banking crisis, so why do we have to pay a USC?

It's a ridiculous argument and the point is completely misunderstood. The reason for child benefit is because it's a constitutional right that all children of the state be treated equally. Not that all parents get a windfall for having a kid, but that no child is treated preferentially to any other.

irelandrover wrote: »

I didn't say they should. I pay into a pension fund for my old age.

Lucky you, we can't afford one :pac:

Bannasidhe

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Lucky you, we can't afford one :pac:

because you are too busy paying to raise the future funders of the State - how selfish of you.

Bannasidhe

CruelCoin wrote: »

If it makes you feel any better, you could always call yourself a Pleb instead. Same thing but sounds better.

or call yourself a member of the Hoi Polloi.

the_syco

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the government do not do enough about the extortionate cost of childcare for one. it's a major hurdle for working parents.

Blame sue happy parents. I'd say the cost of insurance is pretty high.

Min wrote: »

We need the emigration

Unlike the 80's when only Ireland was up sh|t creek, now everywhere else is as well.

Ray Palmer

Suggesting ways to reduce children born into creating poverty is not anti children. If anything it is for the benefit of children.
Children of poverty are likely to remain in poverty and be a drain and not contribute to the economy. The people who will pay for them will be the other children.
The idea that poorer people are more religious is funny. Lip service without living by religion. If they were they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. Yes moral issues with abortion but not contraception.

Bannasidhe

the_syco wrote: »

Blame sue happy parents. I'd say the cost of insurance is pretty high.

Not all childcare providers pay insurance - for example childminders who mind the children in the children's home. Many parent's employ someone to collect their children from school and mind them in the children's home until the parent's get back from work and of course this becomes full-time during the months long summer holidays also in the parent's home.

I don't know how much the public liability insurance costs for childcare providers is but I am part of a group that organises camping holidays for inner city children, we provide a daily kids club and take children of any age, (although an adult has to be present with under 3s) and our public liability insurance is less then 400 euro a year.

RaRaRasputin

seamus wrote: »

What the anti-child brigade don't really seem to realise is that other people's kids will be paying their pensions when they retire, not to mention paying for their utilities, transport, entertainment, etc etc etc.

In reality we should be following the example of the rest of europe and providing incentives for working people to have more children. In fifty years' time, Germany, France and all the old guard of europe will be begging the Irish to keep pumping in money to pay the pensions of their aged workforces.

Ireland pumping money into an other country? That was the joke of the year so far...but dream on if the world looks rosier to you then.

RaRaRasputin

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

:mad:
[rant]
Are you serious? Have you seen what other european countries give re childcare? I have a friend in Finland, whichever of the parents decides to stay at home with the children gets a child home care allowance paid for the first 3 years of the child's life, and she can return to her job when the 3 years is up. In germany another friend of mine has completely free childcare, full time. I pay 715e for one child for 3 days a week! I'm sure the taxes in these countries are higher to finance these kinds of circumstances, but where the hell have all the taxes gone that this country raked in during the boom years? If this country was able to manage its finances at all, I'm sure something could be done.

Why should people lose out on having kids, if that's what they want? Plenty of us have sacrificed careers and all of our salaries to get this. It's such an immature attitude this anti-parent stuff people trott out and it's sad if any person should feel they can't have a child because of their financial situation. The basic of employment rights (maternity wise) is to protect a person's decision to have a child and to make sure they don't lose out because of that decision. That right should filter through all sections of society.

And while I'm on it...this whole 'i don't have kids, but child benefit comes out of my taxes' thing really gets on my wick! I'm not sick, I have my own private health insurance, but I still had portions of my wages put towards health care, for one example. We live in a state where we all give a portion of what we earn to help those lets fortunate, lets stop being greedy, self serving, penny pinching so and so's and get the hell over ourselves

[/rant]

Bla, bla, bla, here we go again. Someone dared to criticise the whole order of parenthood. You are right, there are many people who need support, and that is what we pay our taxes for. What pisses me off is that everyone goes crazy once you even approach any childcare issue. What is the need for 4 children or more? In times like this it is nothing but selfish nonsense. Sick and disabled people need equal support and so do those who lost their jobs and are trying to get back into the market....it's not all about children.

Bannasidhe

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Ireland pumping money into an other country? That was the joke of the year so far...but dream on if the world looks rosier to you then.

Maybe not money - but very possibly people

But longer-term, the biggest threat to the European Union has less to do with government policy than what is–or is not–happening in the bedroom.

In particular, southern Europe’s economic disaster is both reflected — and is largely caused by — a demographic decline that, if not soon reversed, all but guarantees the continent’s continued slide. For decades, the wealthier countries of the northern countries — notably Germany — have offset very low fertility rates and declining domestic demand by attracting migrants from other countries, notably from eastern and southern Europe, and building highly productive export oriented economies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/30/whats-really-behind-europes-decline-its-the-birth-rates-stupid/

The Central Statistics Office predicts the downward trend in the average number of children is likely to prevail – although we have seen a recent blip in an upward direction – and says Ireland could reach the European norm of 1.5 children per woman. This is significantly less than the population replacement level of 2.1. Several European countries, including Italy, Germany, Hungary and Poland, have lower rates of about 1.3, considered “lowest low” in demographic terms.

One might ask why this issue is important. The simple answer is if we do not have enough children, we won’t have enough workers to pay for the health services and pensions which will be needed by our increasingly ageing population. While Ireland is not faced with this problem now, it is likely to be an issue down the road and something we would be wise to consider now in terms of our social policies and our goals as a society.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0106/1224309890406.html

Unavailable for Comment

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

What pisses me off is that everyone goes crazy once you even approach any childcare issue. What is the need for 4 children or more? In times like this it is nothing but selfish nonsense. Sick and disabled people need equal support and so do those who lost their jobs and are trying to get back into the market....it's not all about children.

Eh, Ireland already does support all those people.

However if we were to follow your logic and begin to categorize people according to their potential "value" to society then it's only a short skip and a hop from there to ranking the disabled in terms of their disability.

Would your standards not see it as selfish nonsense to fund the life a severely disabled person who can never give back the investment? How is their existence any less selfish than a fourth child's?

It's a horrible world you envisage.