Indo today

seventeen sheep

eviltwin wrote: »

We should be doing what we can to encourage parents to stay at home. Its not ideal that children spend their days in creche. One parent should be at home where possible. I would like to see help given to working families to allow them to do that. While I agree childcare is a huge cost it shouldn't be a priority.

It's not ideal in some families that children spend their days in creche. In some families one parent should stay at home where possible.

In other families, where both parents are working, it's not suitable (or ideal) for one parent to quit their job. After all, they might only have made the decision to start a family on the basis that they can comfortable afford it. And some parents do actually enjoy having a working life outside of the home, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of this. Similarly, many children will be far better off in a creche than spending all their time at home (particularly with single children.)

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

Not everyone wants to stay home. I and my husband grew up with two working parents and we appreciate the benefits this gave us. Neither I or my husband have any inclination towards being stay at home parents, and I wouldn't want to be put under pressure to feel I had to stay home. I know I'm a better parent because I work outside the home and I don't know how parents stay home full time-I take my hat off to them because I don't think I would be able for it. A year of maternity leave was enough for me.

Most women I've spoken to would prefer a balanced approach, myself included. Getting out and conversing with adults, keeping CPD and skills updated but having the option to work from home more, or reduce their working week a bit so that the crèche hours aren't as long for young children.

eviltwin

seventeen sheep wrote: »

It's not ideal in some families that children spend their days in creche. In some families one parent should stay at home where possible.

In other families, where both parents are working, it's not suitable (or ideal) for one parent to quit their job. After all, they might only have made the decision to start a family on the basis that they can comfortable afford it. And some parents do actually enjoy having a working life outside of the home, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of this. Similarly, many children will be far better off in a creche than spending all their time at home (particularly with single children.)

I can't imagine there are many families out there putting their kids into creche for 8am so they can be in work for 9 and not getting them until 6 or 7 find that ideal. I was on that hamster wheel for years and its not living.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't imagine there are many families out there putting their kids into creche for 8am so they can be in work for 9 and not getting them until 6 or 7 find that ideal. I was on that hamster wheel for years and its not living.

But the point is that once you create an incentive to stay at home this can become an expectation, like how the marriage bar which strictly speaking only applied to civil servants became standard in lots of other places. Just because you don't see why parents do x or y doesn't mean they don't have valid reasons for doing it. Maybe they're building up a business so they can pay for private schools or university fees in the future so they trade off the time now.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It wouldn't be more expensive to stay at home, it would be cheaper to work though.

You don't see how that's the same thing?



Let's run some numbers... I've used the deloitte tax calculator for 2015.

Current situation
Couple A, both working, two children in creche. (assuming creche~1200 per month)
Gross earnings - 80k.
Monthly Net Income €5,086.00
Monthly Net Income less Creche €3,886.00


Couple B, one working, same earning power as couple A, but one stays at home.
Gross earnings - 55k.
Monthly Net Income €3,443.00

Difference between couple A and couple B currently = 443 euro per month extra for couple A. Couple B decides it's not worth it for spouse to go to work for 443 euro, happy to stay at home.


Proposed situation with a creche subsidy of 300 euro per month per child... I've picked that number from the air
Couple A, both working, two children in creche. (assuming creche~1200 per month, subsidy = 600)
Gross earnings - 80k.
Monthly Net Income €5,086.00
Monthly Net Income less Creche €4,486.00

Couple B, one working, one at home, all the same.
Gross Earnings 55k.
Monthly Net Income €3,443.00


Difference between couple A and couple B with a subsidy in place = 1043 euro per month extra for couple A. Couple B thinks... wow, that's a lot of money there, harder for us to justify staying at home.


With subsidy, there is a net loss of 1043 euro a month for the stay at home parent family, instead of the previous net loss of 443 euro.



I want us all to have a relatively equal choice between both working, or staying at home. Without the government intervening in shoving us one way or another.

lazygal

Neyite wrote: »

Most women I've spoken to would prefer a balanced approach, myself included. Getting out and conversing with adults, keeping CPD and skills updated but having the option to work from home more, or reduce their working week a bit so that the crèche hours aren't as long for young children.

But loads of people would prefer a more balanced approach to work that has nothing to do with having children-maybe they have to care for a family member or want to work on personal projects. Between maternity leave and parental leave, there's a fair amount there already. I'm not saying the system is perfect, because it isn't, but just because you might prefer X or Y doesn't mean the government has to make it so. I look on working while my children are young as an investment in me and my family. It has its drawbacks but the benefits outweigh them for me, and this is only a short time out of a long working life, especially given the shifting retirement age.

pwurple

Sligo1 wrote: »

Ever tried your hand at politics pwurple?? .

Thanks Sligo1, but no chance! I'd be bald from tearing my hair out.

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

But loads of people would prefer a more balanced approach to work that has nothing to do with having children-maybe they have to care for a family member or want to work on personal projects. Between maternity leave and parental leave, there's a fair amount there already. I'm not saying the system is perfect, because it isn't, but just because you might prefer X or Y doesn't mean the government has to make it so. I look on working while my children are young as an investment in me and my family. It has its drawbacks but the benefits outweigh them for me, and this is only a short time out of a long working life, especially given the shifting retirement age.

I was speaking for myself. I agree that there should be more flexibility in relation to all types of family requirements. The area of caring for our elderly and disabled I'd also welcome wholeheartedly. But this thread is about childcare specifically.

Pawwed Rig

Neyite wrote: »

Even encouraging employers through tax breaks and incentives to be more flexible and family friendly would help greatly.

I feel that having maternity leave transferrable between partners would level the playing field for all employees and prevent women's careers stalling or stagnating. It would also discourage employers from discriminating when hiring women in their mid-twenties to late thirties. Yes yes, I know its illegal but it does happen, just the male is a better 'fit' for the company yanno. In a family where the mother is the primary earner this flexibility in leave-taking would be of huge benefit.

I've been banging this drum for years. Where maternity leave is transferable it would reduce the perceived risk involved for an employer of hiring a woman along with allowing for (what imo) the basic rights of a father to spend time with his child. It is a win win for a family but there would have to be an obligatory portion for each or else employers would be putting alot of pressure on people not to take their entitlements.

There is no reason for maternity leave to be the sole domain of the woman other than the sexist assumption that man = provider and woman = carer.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

You don't see how that's the same thing?

I do, I was highlighting more that it depends on how you look at it

According to a recent Growing Up in Ireland report, just 27% of children being cared for outside the home are in crèches.
The remainder in care are minded by relatives or minders.

This sounds like a pre election sweetener alright.

ariana`

Neyite wrote: »

Two points that strike me: A tax relief at source to me is a bad idea. We had that with health insurance and all the insurance companies did was ramp up the premiums so that people were paying similar amounts anyway.

Creche's will do the same when they know you can claim tax relief, citing increases in operating costs etc. End result, you'll still be paying the guts of what you do now shortly. Another similar example is rent allowance - Landlords put up the rent knowing it gets subsidised. So rents stay high regardless. That's why a tax credit would suit better. It might cover one parent to work part time, or to stay at home entirely. The only drawback I can see with the tax credit system is that you cannot transfer unused credits unless married so that would need to change.

The other point is that there are many single adult families. So they cant opt to stay at home. To offer a benefit only to two-parent households is discriminatory to them.

It's unfortunate but service providers will always try to make more if there's more money to be made! There's talks of 2nd free pre-school year but for example my experience of the free pre-school year in my kids' creche

My expectation was they would deduct the amount they were given from the Dept from my weekly fee and charge me the remainder.

But instead they deducted the 3 hours (15 hours weekly) from the number of hours my child spent there and charged me an hourly rate for the remaining hours.

So ok my fees went down but not by nearly as much as i expected and so while a 2nd ECCE year would still be a help, it wouldn't be as big a help as the Dept. intends because the service provider can twist it to benefit themselves.

pwurple

ariana` wrote: »

It's unfortunate but service providers will always try to make more if there's more money to be made! There's talks of 2nd free pre-school year but for example my experience of the free pre-school year in my kids' creche

My expectation was they would deduct the amount they were given from the Dept from my weekly fee and charge me the remainder.

But instead they deducted the 3 hours (15 hours weekly) from the number of hours my child spent there and charged me an hourly rate for the remaining hours.

So ok my fees went down but not by nearly as much as i expected and so while a 2nd ECCE year would still be a help, it wouldn't be as big a help as the Dept. intends because the service provider can twist it to benefit themselves.

That's bloody cheeky. Mine took it off the monthly amount.

ariana`

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no reason for maternity leave to be the sole domain of the woman other than the sexist assumption that man = provider and woman = carer.

I suppose it is because the woman carried the child and is also recovering herself for part of the maternity leave. And women traditionally would be needed to be on hand to feed the baby. But I agree this is out of date now. There should be a period e.g. the first 6-8wks that the woman must take but after this it should be transferrable but i think this is a bit new age for our Govt. This isn't even being done in countries like Sweden yet, or is it?

Neyite

ariana` wrote: »

I suppose it is because the woman carried the child and is also recovering herself for part of the maternity leave. And women traditionally would be needed to be on hand to feed the baby. But I agree this is out of date now. There should be a period e.g. the first 6-8wks that the woman must take but after this it should be transferrable but i think this is a bit new age for our Govt. This isn't even being done in countries like Sweden yet, or is it?

No, it is. I'd love it if we had anything resembling the Swedish model. From the link:

How many parent leave days are you entitled to?
Parents are entitled to 480 days of parent leave for each child. If you have twins you are entitled to an additional 180 days.
How are these days divided between parents?
Parents are encouraged to split these days equally between them. If you do this, you will be entitled to an additional equality bonus.
However, it is possible for one parent to take up to 420 days of the 480 days. To do this the other parent has to ‘give these days’ to the other parent.
The only exception to this rule is for single parents with sole custody. In these cases, the parent can take all 480 days leave.
Can both parents take parent leave at the same time:
Yes. During the first 3 months of the new baby’s life, the father is entitled to be home for 10 days. These days are in addition to the 480 parent days.
In addition to these first 10 days, both parents are able to be home together for 30 days during your child’s first year. These are called ‘double days’ because you get 2 days of parent leave deducted – one day for each parent.
Can an employer deny parental leave?
No. Parental leave is a legal right for all parents in Sweden. This means a company cannot deny your request for leave for any reason. Companies, in addition to the 480 parent leave days per child, are also entitled to allow you to reduce your working hours by an additional 25%.
Note: You can reduce your working hours up to 25% even if your parental leave days have been used up, however, you will not be compensated for these reduced working hours.
Let’s Talk Money

How much money?
Now things start getting much more complicated. Your parental leave payment really depends on your personal circumstances, your immigration status, the amount of days you have been living and/or working in Sweden, your salary, and whether you have been working for the last 240 days.
Basic Level of Benefit (even if you have not worked in Sweden)
As long as you are a legal resident of Sweden you are entitled to the basic parental leave payment which is 180 SEK a day. This means you are eligible even if you have not been earning money in Sweden prior to your child’s birth. However, if you receiving parental benefits from other countries, this amount will be docked from your Swedish benefit.
Parent leave payment range:
If you are a legal resident of Sweden, have been legally working here for the last 240 days then in most cases you will be entitled to 80% of your salary for the first 420 days of your parent leave. The maximum daily payment is capped at 910 SEK a day.

The 6 month paid maternity in Ireland corresponds to the government initiative to encourage breastfeeding to six months, so in theory, we get the maternity leave to feed our child. Not necessarily to recover or to look after them. In the late 80's maternity leave was about 3 months long.

seventeen sheep

ariana` wrote: »

It's unfortunate but service providers will always try to make more if there's more money to be made! There's talks of 2nd free pre-school year but for example my experience of the free pre-school year in my kids' creche

My expectation was they would deduct the amount they were given from the Dept from my weekly fee and charge me the remainder.

But instead they deducted the 3 hours (15 hours weekly) from the number of hours my child spent there and charged me an hourly rate for the remaining hours.

So ok my fees went down but not by nearly as much as i expected and so while a 2nd ECCE year would still be a help, it wouldn't be as big a help as the Dept. intends because the service provider can twist it to benefit themselves.

So do the government pay a set rate per child to any childcare facility? Does it differ with location? If so, what is the rate?

Sorry - my baby isn't near that stage yet, so I haven't looked into the scheme. I kind of took it at face value, that he'd get three hours per day free. Seemingly not.

ariana` wrote: »

I suppose it is because the woman carried the child and is also recovering herself for part of the maternity leave. And women traditionally would be needed to be on hand to feed the baby. But I agree this is out of date now. There should be a period e.g. the first 6-8wks that the woman must take but after this it should be transferrable but i think this is a bit new age for our Govt. This isn't even being done in countries like Sweden yet, or is it?

It is, as far as I know? In all of the Scandinavian countries.

pwurple

seventeen sheep wrote: »

So do the government pay a set rate per child to any childcare facility? Does it differ with location? If so, what is the rate?

Sorry - my baby isn't near that stage yet, so I haven't looked into the scheme. I kind of took it at face value, that he'd get three hours per day free. Seemingly not.

If it's just the 3 hours a day, then it is free.... within school term. So doesn't include mid-terms, christmas, easter, summer etc. If you have them in 4 hours a day, or during midterms etc, then you negotiate that with them.

It is, as far as I know? In all of the Scandinavian countries.

And canada, new zealand, australia too maybe?

ariana`

seventeen sheep wrote: »

So do the government pay a set rate per child to any childcare facility? Does it differ with location? If so, what is the rate?

Sorry - my baby isn't near that stage yet, so I haven't looked into the scheme. I kind of took it at face value, that he'd get three hours per day free. Seemingly not.

There are 2 different rates paid to the childcare/educational facility depending on the qualification of the teacher. My creche get the higher rate which is in the region of €63.xx (open to correction on this) per week. Instead of deducting €63.xx per week from my weekly bill, they deducted 3 hrs per day from his hours and recalculated his weekly fee using an hourly rate, (instead of the daily/half-daily rate). So technically he did get his free 3 hrs per day that he was entitled to, but the childcare facility managed to gain the maximum payment possible for him between what they got from the govt. and what they got from me

meeeeh

When Sweden is being cited as an example, it also has the highest rate of working mothers. (Source: http://europa.eu/epic/countries/sweden/index_en.htm )
If you increase the female productivity, decrease financi reliance on the partner which means greater independence and so on, I am sure there is a lot easier to offer better leave conditions. It might be my cultural background but I really dislike the concept of stay at home parents because it just perpetuates inequalities in society and I think state should try to discourage it as much as possible. I really don't understand how subsidized childcare would discriminate stay at home parents. Nobody is forcing them not to work.

iguana

meeeeh wrote: »

Nobody is forcing them not to work.

They do work. They do the work of looking after their children. A job that a huge amount of parents actually want to do and that many are forced not to do because they can't afford it. It is desperately unfair to create a situation whereby single income families are subsidising double income families which is in part what state sponsored childcare means. The former tax credit system pwurple has described or even the more recent Early Childcare Supplement, where all families received a grant for each preschool child, was fairer as families could either use the extra income to supplement a single income to help allow one parent provide the childcare, or it allowed other families to subsidise the payment of a third party for provision of childcare. It allowed choice and helped families do what suited them as a family rather than pushing every family in the same direction.

I know it's just anecdote but at least half of the working mothers I know hate it and are desperate to be at home with their children. While lots have a career they love and others feel stir crazy at home and need their time in the workplace to give their lives balance, many women and quite a few men deeply desire to spend their days being the fulltime career of their child but can absolutely not afford to. Their choice needs to be respected in the same way as that of working parents.

meeeeh

I meant as work in paid employment. Which means also a lot less chance to find yourself at the risk of poverty. Higher contribution in taxes for all those things that state subsidies like health. One working parent families will be more likely on medical cards, their tax credits are shared and so on so they are already subsidized.

There is no denying that bringing kids up is work but if one person takes care of five it is way more efficient than one being in charge of two. Everyone like to put Scandinavia as model of equal and socially just society but it is forgotten that those countries have very high female participation in labour market.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

I really dislike the concept of stay at home parents because it just perpetuates inequalities in society and I think state should try to discourage it as much as possible.

This is a very negative view of parents who decide to stay at home to raise their children. I am not a stay at home parent, but there is no reason to think that if I was I would be any less equal than my husband or anyone else. How does the choice to stay at home perpetuate inequalities? And what inequalities are you talking about? Financial? Educational? Social status?

The state should provide parents and all citizens with a choice-but I don't think it should be so prescriptive as to decide it knows best for all families and only encourage one method of bringing in an income, such as a two working parent model.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

There is no denying that bringing kids up is work but if one person takes care of five it is way more efficient than one being in charge of two

Me and my husband are the ones doing the 'bringing up'. Not the minder or anybody else. We make the decisions about their welfare, their education, their social lives etc. I think you might be mistaken about what 'bringing kids up' actually involves, and efficiency and making women feel that they have to enter the labour market to the exclusion of their own feelings on the matetr isn't the most compassionate way to approach the issue of children.

meeeeh

I would like to see how much female equality increased in Ireland once the working married woman ban was abolished. Once one partner is financially dependent on the other is in a lot more risky position. I know it is not popular thing to say but to afford welfare state you need as many people to contribute taxes. Encouraging people to stay at home and then expect subsidized childcare and more generous leave just doesn't work.

Oh and thanks for telling me what bringing up kids means. I just leave mine with child minders, how would I possibly know.

Pawwed Rig

iguana wrote: »

It is desperately unfair to create a situation whereby single income families are subsidising double income families which is in part what state sponsored childcare means.

To follow your point to the logical conclusion means noone subsidises anyone thereby abolishing the welfare state.
Anyway a tax credit just give ME some of the income I earned back. It is not as if I am asking the goivernment to provide for me.

lazygal wrote: »

making women feel that they have to enter the labour market to the exclusion of their own feelings on the matetr isn't the most compassionate way to approach the issue of children.

But forcing men into a provider role rather than a carer role is ok?

iguana

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To follow your point to the logical conclusion means noone subsidises anyone thereby abolishing the welfare state.

In this case though, people with less, a single income family, are being expected to subsidise people with more, a family with two incomes. It is utterly unfair and it creates a situation which removes choice from many families.

Pawwed Rig

iguana wrote: »

In this case though, people with less, a single income family, are being expected to subsidise people with more, a family with two incomes. It is utterly unfair and it creates a situation which removes choice from many families.

But the single income family are getting to spend the time with their children. They have a choice whether they want to work or not, the choice that is not available to many families where both parents are working.

A good example is that we are currently (3 of us) in a one bed apartment. Were we social welfare tenants (who I am subsidising) our accomodation wouldn't be deemed to be suitable and we would be upgraded to a larger place.
We are also subsidising disabled people, pensioners, lazy people, sick people, public servants etc etc etc.

It really depends on how you look at your own income. Does your income belong to the government who give you a little bit to live on or does it belong to you and you give to contribute to society.

Edit - and just coz you have 2 incomes does not mean you have more.

pwurple

I guess it does depend on where you think the govt role should lie. Whether it is to encourage people into certain roles, by providing incentives or penalties... Or you prefer a free market approach where people fend for themselves a bit more. I'm often torn on these... I'm all for reducing plastic bags or encouraging people to save water, but this one. I just think there's no major benefit. Someone has to look after children during the day. Why not a parent if they prefer.

I know what plenty of women have experienced though in the last few decades. Their working lives have been booted about like a political football. Forced out of their jobs when they got married in the 70's... And when tax system changed drastically in the 90's, hunted back into that system after being housewives for two decades, to keep the family income at the same level. This time with training out of date by two decades.

Those choices were made for them, at a policy level.

I want families to be able to choose more neutrally, what they prefer. If some prefer to work, great, let's support that. If some prefer home, support that too. Instead of phunting women (and it IS predominantly women affected) back and forth between roles as whims occur to the current legislator.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

We are also subsidising disabled people, pensioners, lazy people, sick people, public servants etc etc etc.

It really depends on how you look at your own income. Does your income belong to the government who give you a little bit to live on or does it belong to you and you give to contribute to society.

Edit - and just coz you have 2 incomes does not mean you have more.

I don't think many people are bothered about paying for services or helping those worse off.

But paying those better off than you some extras will be annoying. Even if people with two incomes don't have more now, they certainly have the potential to earn more. You don't get much of a payrise as a stay at home parent.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

I don't think many people are bothered about paying for services or helping those worse off.

That is the point though as because of the cost of creche fees the people working are not better off hence the Indo article where it shows that the first €20,000 of a persons wage just goes for creche fees.
Noone is looking for a free ride but why are Irish Creches the most expensive in the world? Could we not adopt the good parts of other countries policies for a change.

Oh and we do subsidse people better off than us via the lack of means testing for a host of services in this country.
Give me 30 minutes of your time and I will show you how you could avail of a fully legal scheme to avoid paying tax at 41% on any of your income. There are tax breaks available for those wealthy enough to afford them