Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Indo today

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    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.
    Why should a person supporting their own childcare fully by paying for a full-time spouse to be at home out of their pocket ALSO pay for someone else's childcare, where both of those people are working? It is plainly unjust.
    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.

    We have one of the youngest populations in europe, and a high unemployment rate. Ie, we produce more babies than anyone else. More babies to mind, and have less taxpayers to pay for them.
    And for every advantage another country has, they also have a disadvantage. Sweden has a great parental leave system, coupled with with a personal tax rate of 56.90% that no-one here wants.
    Oh and we do subsidse people better off than us via the lack of means testing for a host of services in this country.
    You and I disagree fundamentally on means testing being the solution to all life's problems. I've written several times before that I think the disadvantages involved are massive. It creates poverty traps, misery and resentment where people are 2 euro outside the limits. It creates such ridiculous levels of complexity, that people can't figure out how to claim what they are entitled to, or they work out ways to 'play' the system and rip everyone else off. And worst of all, it's hugely expensive to implement because of the all administrative overhead and oversight required, often outweighing any saving supposedly being made.


  • Options
    #63
    ariana`
    Registered Users Posts: 4,299 ✭✭✭ariana`


    meeeeh wrote: »
    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.

    We are no better off than when that ban was in place. Or at least that's my mother's opinion. She had to give up her job when she got married, and she resented not having a choice and hoped for better for her daughters. However, it dissappoints her to see now that equally her daughters have no choice - we cannot afford to give up work and stay at home should we want to.


  • Options
    #64
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    ariana` wrote: »
    We are no better off than when that ban was in place. Or at least that's my mother's opinion. She had to give up her job when she got married, and she resented not having a choice and hoped for better for her daughters. However, it dissappoints her to see now that equally her daughters have no choice - we cannot afford to give up work and stay at home should we want to.
    True, but an awful lot of people don't have a choice. One solution was suggested by American feminists in seventies I think was that being a stay at home mother would be paid "profession". Now how much do you want to tax people of out home employment is another thing. The other issue is, that while Ireland has larger families than most of Europe or even developed world, it is a bit different taking care of five children or for one. Yes you can offer choice of staying at home, but then you can subsidize especially poorer stay at home parents and put larger burden of taxation on people in paid employment or you can create more family friendly employment with job sharing, parental leave and so on and good childcare and aim for as high maternal employment as possible.

    And maybe your mother doesn't think that life for her daughters is much better, the life of sons and daughter who are not married into perfect little family is a lot better. How well suited would your mother be in seventies to become families main breadwinner if your father lost his job. How well would your mother fair in seventies as an unmarried mother. What choices would she have? Having to work is very small price to pay for bigger political and economical freedom.

    I'm not against staying at home parents as a rule. The option should be there but forcing people out of the employment because childcare is to expensive is a dumb logic. You create a cohort of often unemployable individuals that will rely on state benefits or have worse professional progression.


  • Options
    #65
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,495 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    The only solution is an extra tax credit for children and if say it increased the monthly income by 350 euro the parent(s) can choose to use the extra money to subsidize child care costs or use the extra money to enable one parent to stay at home.

    It is the fairest and most equitable solution.


  • Options
    #66
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The only solution is an extra tax credit for children and if say it increased the monthly income by 350 euro the parent(s) can choose to use the extra money to subsidize child care costs or use the extra money to enable one parent to stay at home.

    It is the fairest and most equitable solution.
    Yes but that extra child credit is paid by those who are working. If you encourage people to stay at home the tax burden will be higher on smaller amount of those in paid employment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ariana`
    Registered Users Posts: 4,299 ✭✭✭ariana`


    meeeeh wrote: »
    And maybe your mother doesn't think that life for her daughters is much better, the life of sons and daughter who are not married into perfect little family is a lot better. How well suited would your mother be in seventies to become families main breadwinner if your father lost his job. How well would your mother fair in seventies as an unmarried mother. What choices would she have? Having to work is very small price to pay for bigger political and economical freedom.

    I'm not against staying at home parents as a rule. The option should be there but forcing people out of the employment because childcare is to expensive is a dumb logic. You create a cohort of often unemployable individuals that will rely on state benefits or have worse professional progression.

    Oh there's no question that socially and economically things have improved since the 70s, thankfully. And personally, i can only speak for my own situation but i do like working and feel my mental health benefits as well as gaining better financial security for my family, and some measures already in place such as parental leave are a big help, myself & my husband are both using it to gain a better work/life balance and improve the quality of life for us and our kids.


  • Options
    #68
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,495 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    It would have to be very nuanced and very carefully done, because you don't want lower paid parents with no qualification leaving work whole sale, while higher paid more qualified parents stay in paid work.

    I don't have a problem with my tax's being used to support parents to have a choice, my taxes pay for school library's and lots of services.

    No system is perfect.


  • Options
    #69
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It would have to be very nuanced and very carefully done, because you don't want lower paid parents with no qualification leaving work whole sale, while higher paid more qualified parents stay in paid work.

    I don't have a problem with my tax's being used to support parents to have a choice, my taxes pay for school library's and lots of services.

    No system is perfect.
    If you pay 350 euros per child for every child (let say about 70000 born per year), for only four years that comes to over a billion pa. At the same time you make it more attractive for parents to stay at home. Two kids means 700 euro in extra income per month for a family (almost a month's worth of dole), add that to shared tax credits and suddenly staying at home would be preferred option for huge amount of people. I don't know how to calculate the loss in paye and prsi, loss of vat and excise for services that stay at home parents don't need but is significant and you have very quickly gaping hole in public finances.

    There is a reason why the best welfare states in the world are the ones with employment as close to max as possible.


  • Options
    #70
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,495 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    meeeeh wrote: »
    If you pay 350 euros per child for every child (let say about 70000 born per year), for only four years that comes to over a billion pa. At the same time you make it more attractive for parents to stay at home. Two kids means 700 euro in extra income per month for a family (almost a month's worth of dole), add that to shared tax credits and suddenly staying at home would be preferred option for huge amount of people. I don't know how to calculate the loss in paye and prsi, loss of vat and excise for services that stay at home parents don't need but is significant and you have very quickly gaping hole in public finances.

    There is a reason why the best welfare states in the world are the ones with employment as close to max as possible.

    Of course you wouldn't do it live that, I am talking of increasing the parent(s) monthly income by say 300 a month in total not per child and only till the child? children are ten.

    That's why it would have to be very nuanced.


  • Options
    #71
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Of course you wouldn't do it live that, I am talking of increasing the parent(s) monthly income by say 300 a month in total not per child and only till the child? children are ten.

    That's why it would have to be very nuanced.
    I actually calculated for only kids up to the age of four. I'm not having a go at you or anybody else, but I'm trying to make a point that you get very high numbers very quickly. There is also a question how you set the amounts because you could discourage people from having more kids. I would assume that high birth rate in Ireland is partly also due to larger number of stay at home parents and that is good future sustainability of state but I think happy medium needs to be achieved. And I am very doubtful that you can have balance of choice. I would suspect two working parent families when kids are in school have higher purchasing power and drive the price of mortgages and so on up for everybody and therefore making it more expensive for one parent families. I don't believe you can equally encourage both, therefore you have to lean in favor of one or the other model. And even if people don't like it, the decision was probably already made for them and will lead to increased numbers of paternal employment. And then I think it is time to look how you can make it easier for majority of people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    firefish
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭firefish


    I think the reason why crèche fees will always be high in Ireland was correctly identified in the first few posts and has been ably demonstrated by pwurple & others - the stay at home lobby will never ever permit anything to be done to help working parents. Making working outside the home less expensive is seen as making staying at home more expensive, even though it would add to their costs not at all.
    And this harping back to pre tax individualisation - thank god I wasn't working then. Why on earth, if two people are doing the exact same job, working the same hours, should one end up with a much larger take home pay, just because that worker is a married man with wife at home, and the other is unmarried, childless, in a two working parent home or is a single mother? Bit unfair, no?


  • Options
    #73
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    I don't remember who said this, but it is hard to disagree: a housewife is just one man away from welfare. Never mind immediate financial dependence, things like pensions can be seriously affected by not working and lever women at a disadvantage in life


  • Options
    #74
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    firefish wrote: »
    I think the reason why crèche fees will always be high in Ireland was correctly identified in the first few posts and has been ably demonstrated by pwurple & others - the stay at home lobby will never ever permit anything to be done to help working parents. Making working outside the home less expensive is seen as making staying at home more expensive, even though it would add to their costs not at all.
    And this harping back to pre tax individualisation - thank god I wasn't working then. Why on earth, if two people are doing the exact same job, working the same hours, should one end up with a much larger take home pay, just because that worker is a married man with wife at home, and the other is unmarried, childless, in a two working parent home or is a single mother? Bit unfair, no?

    Firstly, single parents are miles better off getting a tax credit for children when they work, than depending on/getting stuck in the council house, single mothers allowance means-tested merry-go-round.

    And I don't know who the "stay at home lobby" even is? Is there a band of angry housewives waving placards somewhere? Am I a member? Because, if there is any confusion, I definitely do want to help working parents, and a tax credit would be my preferred method of doing that.

    Personally, we are both full-time working parents... but I obviously pay for the services to support one of us not being at home. Creche, childminder, cleaner, even small things like online shopping delivery charges. All those services are valuable to me. If someone wants to have their spouse do those roles, or do them themselves.. then I want to support that choice equally, because I see it as having value. They are doing a job that supports the rest of us.

    I'm absolutely pro working mothers (obviously, as I'm one myself) and I'm absolutely pro stay-at-home parents too. Those don't need to clash, and I'm not sure why people are pitting one against the other? We're all parents, in it together. All I would suggest, is that it remains relatively balanced, not to disadvantage either group unnecessarily.


  • Options
    #75
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,495 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    firefish wrote: »
    I think the reason why crèche fees will always be high in Ireland was correctly identified in the first few posts and has been ably demonstrated by pwurple & others - the stay at home lobby will never ever permit anything to be done to help working parents. Making working outside the home less expensive is seen as making staying at home more expensive, even though it would add to their costs not at all.
    And this harping back to pre tax individualisation - thank god I wasn't working then. Why on earth, if two people are doing the exact same job, working the same hours, should one end up with a much larger take home pay, just because that worker is a married man with wife at home, and the other is unmarried, childless, in a two working parent home or is a single mother? Bit unfair, no?

    First off it could be a married man at home with his children while his wife is working outside the home, its a very old fashioned idea that it about SAHM.
    Making the whole issue SAHM verses working parents is very ideological and old fashioned, as I said it would not benefit me in any way as my children are long grown up but I support my taxs being used to give parents a choice.


  • Options
    #76
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,495 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    I don't remember who said this, but it is hard to disagree: a housewife is just one man away from welfare. Never mind immediate financial dependence, things like pensions can be seriously affected by not working and lever women at a disadvantage in life

    Housewife what decade do you live in.


  • Options
    #77
    Sligo1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,948 ✭✭✭Sligo1


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    I don't remember who said this, but it is hard to disagree: a housewife is just one man away from welfare. Never mind immediate financial dependence, things like pensions can be seriously affected by not working and lever women at a disadvantage in life

    Hmmm, not sure if I totally agree with u here. I've been a sahm the last 2.5 years. Just back to work a few days ago part time. If me and OH were to split up. Well I actually have more qualifications than himself (who is very well educated). And if I was prepared to work 5 days a week (which I don't want to do right now)... I would walk into a job with higher pay than himself.

    I'm pretty sure loads of stay at home parents have pretty good qualifications these days. And if needs be would be able to go out to the work force of they found themselves in the position as that of a single parent.

    Anyways... Sorry I know this is prob off topic...


  • Options
    #78
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    I don't remember who said this, but it is hard to disagree: a housewife is just one man away from welfare. Never mind immediate financial dependence, things like pensions can be seriously affected by not working and lever women at a disadvantage in life

    I work but I'm still one man away from welfare. If my relationship ended I wouldn't earn enough to support myself and my kids. My husband wouldn't have much of a standard of living either. It's a myth working people are always better off.


  • Options
    #79
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Anyone who works is only one person away from welfare. Makes no sense. Anyone can lose a job.


  • Options
    #80
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    pwurple wrote: »
    Anyone who works is only one person away from welfare. Makes no sense. Anyone can lose a job.

    You are entitled to a lot more when both married parents are on welfare than just one. And it is harder to get them back to work. It was calculated that in Dublin with different allowances a salary of 28k is needed to break even.

    Anyway if anybody read the Irish Times thing on divorce it was a cautionary tale of vulnerability the giving up work brings.


  • Options
    #81
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Housewife what decade do you live in.

    It is a quote from the 60s rights movement. It's a pity you couldn't see past the name to get my point. Regardless of what name a sahp has, the idea still holds. Overall, whoever stays at home could be at a disadvantage compared to a parent who goes out to work if their contribution to society is not recognised. I don't have all the info on this so correct me where appropriate, but the parent who goes out to work gets more in terms of pay, prsi contributions, pension contributions, moving on and learning new skills in their job to keep up with the industry or whatever. If a parent stays home for even a few years, they are behind with those things which can make them dependant on their partner. And generally, it is a woman who is a sahp (i say this even though my husband is currently at home with our child). So, even though it is an old quote, it still stands. The current system makes it so. Unless there is a change to the system that recognises the efforts if the sahp and recognises what they give up (pension etc) to stay there, I think that women (being the major sahp) should be encouraged as much as possible to work outside the home for their own best interests and those of their children.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    meeeeh wrote: »

    Anyway if anybody read the Irish Times thing on divorce it was a cautionary tale of vulnerability the giving up work brings.

    I hadn't seen this post before I wrote mine. This vulnerability is what I was getting at (in a less concise manner!).


  • Options
    #83
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    pwurple wrote: »
    Anyone who works is only one person away from welfare. Makes no sense. Anyone can lose a job.

    I may misread you, but I think you missed the point. Not that anyone can lose a job, but that sahp are dependent on another person. That's all well and good in a perfect world, but leaving a large section of society as dependents can cause problems. I've seen it in my own extended family. What happens if the couple break up? When the kids leave home? If one parent is abusive?


  • Options
    #84
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    I may misread you, but I think you missed the point. Not that anyone can lose a job, but that sahp are dependent on another person. That's all well and good in a perfect world, but leaving a large section of society as dependents can cause problems. I've seen it in my own extended family. What happens if the couple break up? When the kids leave home? If one parent is abusive?

    I'm largely depending on my husband and I don't have any fear about it. I'm doing what makes me happy and what works for us. I simply don't want to be away from my kids anymore. I did that for years and was miserable. I think parents should do what works for them regardless of what others think.


  • Options
    #85
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm largely depending on my husband and I don't have any fear about it. I'm doing what makes me happy and what works for us. I simply don't want to be away from my kids anymore. I did that for years and was miserable. I think parents should do what works for them regardless of what others think.

    I agree with you and I'm happy for you. But not everyone is as lucky as you, and it's those people that I'm talking about.


  • Options
    #86
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    I agree with you and I'm happy for you. But not everyone is as lucky as you, and it's those people that I'm talking about.

    You said sahp should be encouraged to work for their own interests and those of their children. Maybe be a bit less condescending and accept some have done both and prefer to remain at home.


  • Options
    #87
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    I think that is far enough. I just don't agree that you would have to offer the same tax credits to stay at home kids if there would be additional credits for creche going kids. I think that the policy that make is easier for people to work is way more effective than a policy where you try to give everyone a little bit and end up doing nothing.

    Your choice weather you want to stay at home is not taken away provided you can afford it. I just think it a lot stupider to take away the choice to work than the choice not to work. And the former is the more prevalent among the more vulnerable groups in society (single mothers who for example - at least lower educated ones).


  • Options
    #88
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    eviltwin wrote: »
    You said sahp should be encouraged to work for their own interests and those of their children. Maybe be a bit less condescending and accept some have done both and prefer to remain at home.

    And I stand to that. Read the whole of my posts, no where do i say that it is a bad thing for sahp to stay at home, if that's what they want. My husband is doing it now. That isn't the issue. But in the current system where that is not recognised or rewarded, they can be at a financial disadvantage which CAN leave the sahp and their children vulnerable. It may not be your personal position, but do you say that it can't happen for others? Should we not strive to protect those? If you see condescension in my post, I'm sorry but it's in your eyes.


  • Options
    #89
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    And I stand to that. Read the whole of my posts, no where do i say that it is a bad thing for sahp to stay at home, if that's what they want. My husband is doing it now. That isn't the issue. But in the current system where that is not recognised or rewarded, they can be at a financial disadvantage which CAN leave the sahp and their children vulnerable. It may not be your personal position, but do you say that it can't happen for others? Should we not strive to protect those? If you see condescension in my post, I'm sorry but it's in your eyes.

    I found out recently that you can notify Revenue of your SAH status and PRSI /Pension contributions can continue to accrue at a zero balance, meaning there is no deemed 'break' in employment that would normally affect benefits and pension entitlements.

    Only a small thing, but something that maybe not a lot of SAH parents know about.


  • Options
    #90
    madeinamerica
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭madeinamerica


    Neyite wrote: »
    I found out recently that you can notify Revenue of your SAH status and PRSI /Pension contributions can continue to accrue at a zero balance, meaning there is no deemed 'break' in employment that would normally affect benefits and pension entitlements.

    Only a small thing, but something that maybe not a lot of SAH parents know about.

    I didn't know. It's a good thing. Thanks for the info.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    madeinamerica wrote: »
    And I stand to that. Read the whole of my posts, no where do i say that it is a bad thing for sahp to stay at home, if that's what they want. My husband is doing it now. That isn't the issue. But in the current system where that is not recognised or rewarded, they can be at a financial disadvantage which CAN leave the sahp and their children vulnerable. It may not be your personal position, but do you say that it can't happen for others? Should we not strive to protect those? If you see condescension in my post, I'm sorry but it's in your eyes.

    That's life. We can't make the system work for everyone. And I hate the idea of putting fear and distrust in a woman's head. Abuse happens in every kind of relationship even ones where women work.


Advertisement