Its that ol Labour pre-election slogan “labour’s way or Frankfurt’s way ” coming back to bite them again……they do realise Frankfurt = FIne Gael, don’t they??

The cost of childcare is too high. It is too high because the market will bear the price. If the market (i.e. the consumers) were not willing to bear the price, the cost will come down. Plain and simple economics!

It is too high because of the cost of meeting the standards and regulations required. Making the cost tax deductable would allow the creches to maintain their operational standards while providing much needed relief to working families i.e. the best of both worlds for all involved.

It sounds like you have a vested interest in this subject Too Trueleft. Market forces will ultimately prevail and the wisest of service providers will price for it. The unwise will hope that the taxpayer will subsidise their business!

My only ‘vested interest’ is that the creche my child is in adheres to best practices and standards while looking after him. To do so costs a lot of money. Thats why more affordable childcare must come through tax relief.

Charles Windsor, adherence to the ‘market will prevail’ policies of Ayn Rand is exactly the kind of thinking that drove the massive economic mess worldwide. Beware John Galt and the bullsh*t notion of rational self interest.

I agree with you Sinead but this is how western economies work. I would love to believe in Disney fairytales too and increase my popularity by promoting and agreeing with the sentiment. However, that would be akin to a TD cheering on a property bubble and mass hysteria rather than shouting STOP for fear of damaging his popularity and chances of re-election.

There is a real world and a fantasy world. The real world eternally seeks by design to destroy the fantasy world. Embittered, we sugar our perceptions, deceive ourselves and pay homage to false prophets! Alas,this is the way of the world.

Too Trueleft that sounds like the “price equals quality fallacy” which is the cherished argument of the marketeer and the vendor. Consumers that believe the fallacy are easily parted from their money.

Thanks Charles Windsor, but that is not how all western economies work- just how under-regulated economies work.
‘Society’ is not a Disney fairy tale- it is where we live, and the economic policies we pursue infuence how society functions. There is no value to laizzez-faire if we wish to have a worthwhile society because ‘the market’ cannot be trusted to provide for all. Some things are needed which don’t always seem to make economic sense- unless you take an integrated view.
Equally, citizens have to be responsible if they expect to gain optimal value from society and if no-one is prepared to contribute (taxes of all kinds, time, social involvement) no-one benefits.
It is in the interest of even ‘the insulated top 1%’ to pay a little more if it means better childcare, education and healthcare which eventually mean greater net contribution to the public purse (educated workforce in good health) and fewer negative drains (prisons, long term illness etc) and it is the responsibility of the more fortunate to pay their share and of everyone to behave reasonably- work if you are capable, don’t rip others (or the state) off, care for the weaker ones.
And this is not fantasy land. It’s like vaccination. Not everyone has to sign up for it, but if the majority do, then everyone is protected.
That’s it – I’m done. Apologies for the manifesto and the thread hi-jack!

Sinead, all western economies are under regulated. Over regulated economies create poverty. Expecting the rich and powerful to vote for higher taxes and tougher regulation is not going to happen as long as the government thinks they can offer jobs to the people.

I never said that society was Disney fairytale. My point is a simple one; some eejits are naive enough to believe what they want to believe rather than face reality. The reality is that tax breaks are not going to happen without tax increases and big ones at that. Keep on believing a politician playing to the gallery. If he was truly honest with people he would be looking at the country’s finances in totality and report the grim reality of debit side of our skewed balance sheet. There are no votes in reporting that I’m afraid!

“The waste of money cures itself, for soon there is no more to waste.” – M.W. Harrison

The problem with Charles Windsor’s argument is that it is illegal to abandon care and supervision of one’s own children to make a political point.

I would imagine that it is – usually – unappealing also.

“Too Trueleft that sounds like the “price equals quality fallacy” which is the cherished argument of the marketeer and the vendor.”

Not at all charles. In the creche my child is in there is a full list of standards and regs, including policy on hygiene, ratios, safety etc. To meet these requirements costs money. Pity you’re either unwilling or unable to adsorb such a basic concept.

Too Trueleft the best childcare is also the cheapest. It is the care provided by a parent. Thus you still sound more like a creche owner angling for business than a consumer.

@ Charles Windsor
Only if you ignore opportunity costs. To avoid childcare costs completely would require a two-parent family to time-shift their hours for three years and/or one or both to work part-time or purely at home. If you are a single parent, only the working at home option is possible. After three, it is easier, due to school, but there are still four or more hours in the day during which the child needs care.
If a parent decides to stay home for three years it is not a simple matter to return to the workplace. Their skills may be out of date, they certainly have a gap in experience. Equally, going part-time also affects progress in a job. In both cases, when the child is grown, the person will probably be earning less.
So, quite aside from people wanting to work, people enjoying their work, there are sound economic reasons for paying for childcare. Childcare by parents also costs, just in a different way.

Do you not see parish pump! A TD advocating policies that are costly and have no chance of being implemented in the current climate in order to endear himself to a certain cohort.

Parents who place their child in childcare and work provide a net gain for the exchequer overall. This is acknowledged in many European countries and as a result the childcare is subsidised either directly or through the taxation system.

Donnelly is an absolute diamond among cutehoors and me feiners. He should not be tarred with the same brush.

“An absolute diamond among cutehoors” is a politician that tells people what they want to hear in order to endear themselves to the electorate! Diamond standard supporters of “cutehoors” blinker themselves to the harshness of reality by seeking comfort in what are patent fairy tales. !

There are parents out there who leave work to look after the kids because of childcare costs. A tax break might put these people back on the workforce and paying tax.

Without knowing how many people fit the above description and how much they would earn, we can only make an uninformed decision.

The minister’s uninformed decision to not give tax breaks bothers me because childcare is a huge bill for me right now.

Also I suspect the minister is making this decision in order to appear to be avoiding it. If he were to bring in this tax break and it hurts the exchequer, then he is to blame. If he does not bring it in and this hurts the exchequer, then he’s off the hook. “Sure, he didn’t do anything.”

Noonan should be clear. He is not unable to make a decision on these tax breaks. He has decided not to provide them.

Versus the loss in revenue in PAYE, USC of a mother who is forced to give up work? What about the positive effect the proposed relief on black market childcare? What about the extra spending power of the relieved families and the extra money going back into the economy? What about the fact the relief may now make it an option for a parent to return to the workforce?

Scratch the surface a little. Your glib analysis falls flat.

Cheers. Was trying to find one of a creche but kept coming back to that one. I think it’s the giant eyes coupled with the slightly vampiric pose that did it.

:-) ‘Harry Blaney’s dream…”
unfortunately we are a rather distractible people and it’s realtively easy to have us fight amongst ourselves rather than deal coherently with the issues that’ll really make us a happier people – good heathcare, childcare, education, work….and taking responsibility for our own part in society (giving and taking)

I suggest Paul Carr that your opinion is founded on nothing than the Irish anti-Irish prejudice. If you want childcare to be tax deductible then pay more tax. Increase VAT to 26.3% and income tax to 57%. Then you can have the childcare facilities similar to Sweden. Would that encourage more women back into the workforce? Inexpert would be too kind to describe your comments and we know that prejudice not being founded on reason cannot be displaced by logic.

Paul, I would point out that the automatic relating of “childcare” to “women” is not very women friendly either, since it devolves most of the hard and unrewarding and repetitive tasks of daily childcare onto women while exempting that part of the human race which fertilised the women.

It takes two people to produce a child and both should have to shoulder the consequences in parenting duties and career setbacks.

though I agree with the rest of your point. I just want to break the false equivalence that just because we’re the host organism we’re more specially wired for this stuff than men are. It makes me grind my teeth because it costs us so much.

Susan: I did not relate childcare to women.

I wrote, “child care costs should be tax reductible. This will encourage more women with children to stay in the workforce or enter the workforce”. I would have thought that was pretty obvious. How pointing that out means I associate childcare with women is beyond me.