We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Updated 12.17pm
IF YOU USE hand dryers because you think they’re the most hygienic choice at a public toilet, you might want to read ahead…
Scientists at the University of Leeds have found that high-powered ‘jet-air’ and warm air hand dryers can actually spread bacteria in public restrooms.
The details of their study were released by the University of Leeds and show that:
Airborne germ counts were 27 times higher around jet air dryers in comparison with the air around paper towel dispensers.
Yikes.
However, it must be noted that the study was funded by the European Tissue Symposium.
According to the University:
The research team, led by Professor Mark Wilcox of the School of Medicine, contaminated hands with a harmless type of bacteria called Lactobacillus, which is not normally found in public bathrooms. This was done to mimic hands that have been poorly washed.
It said that subsequent detection of the Lactobacillus in the air “proved that it must have come from the hands during drying”.
The team collected air samples around the hand dryers and from one and two metres away.
They found that during their study:
Professor Wilcox said:
Next time you dry your hands in a public toilet using an electric hand dryer, you may be spreading bacteria without knowing it. You may also be splattered with bugs from other people’s hands.
In an email, Dyson said that its Airblade hand dryer “has been proven [through research] to be as hygienic as paper towels”.
Its in-house microbiologist noted that the research was commissioned by the paper towel industry.
They have tested glove covered hands, which have been contaminated with unrealistically high levels of bacteria, and not washed. The Dyson Airblade hand dryer is the fastest, most hygienic way to dry hands and it produces up to 71 per cent less CO2 than paper towels. It can dry 18 pairs of hands for the price of a single paper towel.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Top article. I agree with the added caveat that the state should be providing childcare facilities to families at reasonable rates
@Nigel O’Neill: they do already especially for low income families. .. after school care aswell ..
@Nigel O’Neill: I also love the idea of a free holiday paid for from state resources, or maybe a free pint paid for by the government every day. Any ideas on how to pay for it?
@Mary Murphy: you’re so spot on there ! There’s many a family out the there who haven’t been able to afford a holiday in years .. there’s huge benefits for kids when they’ve had a holiday. . The culture. the experience of going to another country. . Not to mention the educational factor.. the state should provide a holiday for everyone too !
@Suzie Sunshine: Why stop at holidays? How to pay for it? Tax the rich I say…….. just raise taxes on the rich it’s the solution to everything. They will pay for it all willingly and not run off and become tax resident in Portugal like DoB or Switzerland like JP Mc or the thousands of others whose name we have never heard of, which is a pity as now we get next to nothing from them but with a different tax regime we would have at least got something.
@Nigel O’Neill: The state should give me and my wife free money for having been responsible enough to hold off on producing kids until we are able to provide for them.
@Neal, not Neil.: And they should get that money by penalizing those who are irresponsible enough to try starting a family before they are able to support one. It’s the same as those who got mortgages they couldn’t afford & caused the recession
@Nigel O’Neill: On a massively overcrowded planet, people shouldn’t be encouraged to have children they can’t afford to look after without a subsidy from the rest of us.
@Mary Murphy: Give them huge expenses for travelling to the creches, and a subsidised bar and restaurant to go to. Where you can run up tabs and walk away without paying a cent.
@Dave O’Mahony: ‘Got’ mortgages? There was me thinking there were limits to what the banks could lend and a regulator to reprimand them if they got a bit hasty lending money to people whom the banks knew would never be able to afford the pay backs. Welcome to 1998.
It hit me the other week how children of working patents are really losing out.
The kids around the area who has somebody at home not working spent the whole of the mid term out playing and staying home while children of those that worked had to keep to their usual schedule of going to the creche with their parents being charged more because it was the school break too.
Hardly seems fair on them, it’s like they’ve a job already.
The ECCE scheme is a joke too and only really benefits those that don’t work.
@Evan Wakefield: From the point of view of language development, for example, studies constantly show that children in childcare settings progress much quicker. As for ecce benefiting those who don’t work. Nail on the head. They benefit STAY AT HOME parents who won’t work, yet are very happy to ‘farm out’ their childcare to the state at no cost to them so they can go to pilates or have coffee. All at working parents’ expense. I actually don’t mean that, just spewing back tripe in response to the patronising nonsense in the article.
@Evan Wakefield: had to spread my response over 2 soz..
(PT1) the ECCE schemes original intent was to ensure that every child starting primary school would have equal opportunity to reach an equal level of social skill, developmental skills and education regardless of economic background or parental choices to stay at home or work. A career, rather than a job, is important for any individual to feel productive in life and society. Womens careers/jobs are constantly in threat due to childcare. It is not the “choice” (this is ireland after all) to have 1 children or multiple children that threaten their financial security. Job security is not an issue for men who have children but work related stress is….
@Evan Wakefield:
(PT2) Trying ensure that their family is taken care of, that mortgage payments are taken care of and doctors visits on 1 wage, usually because the 2nd wage is paying for childcare or their partner had to give up their job to stay at home. Given the choice parents would opt for a 50/50 life. Having childcare available or the choice to use those funds to stay home should be the choice. Allocate the same amount per annum and let the parents decide how to use it on childcare or a reduced joint incomeIf. If couples knew that their taxes were being used to help their partner raise your children at home people would be less resentful and so would everybody else pointing their fingers at “latte mums” or “working mums”. Why do we not hear the terms “latte dads” or “working dads”?
Its a tough one because its a perverse inflationary result of creating equality. In previous generations the 40 to 50 hour middle income of one parent could house and maintain a large family,. Now the ‘economy’ takes 80 to 100 hrs of work input (2 people) for the support or even smaller families. Somehow the development of our production system has hijacked and twisted much needed equality reform and as the price to be paid, in offering choices it has locked both working parents into wage slavery. Its take it or leave it in a world with a reserve of unemployment.
@epo eire: I agree it’s important for all children to be treated equally and of course there is benefits for the children taking a place in the ECCE scheme.
My point is really that for children of parents who go to work it does not benefit equally unless they work outside of the hours of 9-12.
In our situation it had a huge negative financial impact on us.
The creche raised the rates we’d been paying for two years and cut the hours the day before it started so we save €5 per week during school term, then it charges an extra €64.50 during mid terms so it’s hard to see how it’s helped us.
There’s no recourse either, I’ve tried.
I’ve come to believe it’s more about getting people into a routine that’s not used to it.
@Anne Marie Devlin: I’ve no doubt children in that environment develop quicker whilst learning social skills, but that was not what I was trying to relay.
My point being the scheme benefits people who don’t work more so than people that do unless they don’t work those hours anyway.
It has only caused hardship for us.
The feminist author obviously never heard of stay at home fathers???
@Peter O’ Neill: If you had bothered reading beyond the title you would see that not once did she use the term mothers, she referred always to parents. The title may not have even been added by the author as often happens when editors add a catchy attention grabbing title.
@Ciara Clancy: Click bait
This isn’t about childcare. It’s about two heads of household being forced into the workplace to meet a basic standard of living. In 1950s / 60s / 70s, a working professional could easily support a household. My grandmother raised 6 kids while my grandfather worked outside Of The home to support the family. He was as insurance salesman. The ban on married women working was lifted (rightly), but instead of liberating women it trapped everyone into the workforce. But how would this new work force, which was now twice as big as it once was, be paid for? Easy, cut wages in half, or keep them the same and double the price of everything. And how would we keep the work force from rebelling? Divide and conquer, Pit one side (male) against the other (female).
@Eoin Morris: well said Eoin, and this was a similar situation for families of colour across the US in the 50′s and 60′s. Whilst white middle class women grew frustrated at having to stay home, women and men of colour grew frustrated that they both had to work tiring, underpaid jobs in order to support their families. This is the situation, 60/70 years later we find ourselves in. It is not a gender issue, it is a class issue.
@Eoin Morris: did your grandmother have a choice though? The 50s and 60s and 70s were hardly utopia for a huge number of married women forced into a life of dependency on men who were often not model husbands or fathers. We can look back at the good old days and be filled with nostalgia but it’s better to be honest. The reality was that women wanted the choice that all parents now have.
Stay at home or don’t stay at home. But don’t pretend we’re worse off than the generations who went before us.
Superb Article. Thanks for voicing the feelings of so many Pauline. Even just returning all the tax credits for a stay at home parent would be a huge win. Society is quickly becoming a victim of itself. And for the record i’m not saying a stay at home parent is better than one who works and pays for child care but they are definitely no worse and should be support. Until both options are supported equally parents will have no options or choice as Pauline correctly points out, how can any family compete with two salaries and state aid. Thanks Pauline. 100% agree.
@Barry Toffy: Does Pauline’s group cover “stay at home” single parents?
I agree that, one of either parent of a two parent family’s should be paid to stay at home, studies show the benefit that a stay at home parent has on a child’s life and society at large.
@Dean Burroughs: paid by who?????
A home needs 2 people working to pay it rent or morgage, bertie saw to that,oh p’s the country is still broke and will be for the forseeable future best of luck with been paid to stay at home ,
@Gerard Heery: It’s either pay now for stay-at-home parents or pay significantly more later for an ageing population with insufficient workers to support the system.
@Jason Culligan: Is there nothing more to having children than making sure there’s someone to change your incontinence pants in the Old Folks Home? I’d say the members of Pauline’s group would strenuously object to that kind of work. That’s for immigrants and the lower classes, not her little dorlings!
Am I the only one who thinks crèches can be really good for your child? My son became far more outgoing and his social skills exploded after joining our local crèche.
@Shane Gleeson: As with everything else, moderation is key. A creche can play a key role in a child’s development but children raised primarily in creches show signs of developmental issues later on in life.
@Jason Culligan: Can you reference the study that showed that?
@Olive Bourke: Sounds like personal experience.
It is not my responsibility to pay for someone to bring up their child. Buy less and give more.
@Gillian Weir Scully: l thought it was just me that thought that.Why should we pay people that can’t afford to have children money to stay at home and mind their own children.I love children but if you can’t afford them don’t have them.Simple option.
@Gillian Weir Scully: The model of economy we have, if we don’t replace ourselves then in a number of years we will have an top-heavy society with an ageing population and no-one to work to maintain services and to pay taxes which go to fund healthcare and pensions. You may not think it’s a good system but that’s what we’ve got right now. We’e already got an ageing population but so far we’ve had a fairly good replacement rate. If successive governments make it financially difficult for people to have children then we will not replace our older people with young workers. We will then have to look to other growing populations to come and work in our economy. This is already happening in Germany. So the fact that we need to support families to have children is more or less a given and not the issue here. The author is arguing that the government is giving unfair supports to families where two parents go out to work and children go into full-time childcare and discriminating against people who wish to care for their own children at home rather than paying someone else to care for them.
@Sharon Obrien: Maternity leave is another issue as well. If you decide not to have children you should still have the option of the same period of paid leave as someone who does. It seems too many people have children based on no more than an emotional primitive impulse to reproduce. Every other week there are a couple, both with good jobs, on TV complaining that the two bedroom apartment they bought is not big enough form them and the three kids.
Helloooooo Mrs Pill have you seen Mr Durexxxxxxxxxxxxxx
@Sharon Obrien: Is having a child a privilege now, only for rich people? Ireland is richer that most of the countries and people are still not rich enough to have children? Throughout the whole human history having children and family was the natural thing and now in XXI century the vast majority of people should in your opinion be declined one of the basic and most fulfilling thing in life. Sorry, but most of the people in Ireland earn minimum wage or slightly better. If they all are declined to be parents there will be hardly anybody there to have them. This world is not just black and white. How fair is this that there are people on social welfare for many years, having medical cards and all benefits for rent etc having children and we can’t help people who would like simply stay with their child at home for some time at least at early stage. Especially that maternity leave is very short. It is not only giving them money the only way to help but help them to get cheaper accommodation or mortgage which is now cheaper than renting but nobody seems to care about it. Lower the cost of the car so they can at least work part-time and be able to afford commuting. Just make their life easier.
@Gillian Weir Scully: agreed here, why should some who choose not to have kids to focus on their careers pay for others to procreate
@Aleksandra Jankowska: l can’t have children so will never have tax breaks, child benefit and any other perks you get when you have children.My husband is self employed and we will pay the same or more tax then the man down the road with 3 children, yet he gets tax breaks, child benefit ect.We would never get social housing while parents at least go on a list.It may be long but at least they are on it.So we where left with no option but to buy our home.If anything childless couples should be given back something after all we will not cost the state any medical care, education costs, housing costs,child benefit for children.While the man down the road with three children gets all the above while paying the same tax as us.
The benefits of having a stay at least one stay at home parent are fantastic and far outweigh the monetary losses alluded to in the text above. Of course the other would have to be earning a decent salary to allow that to happen but it is possible.
Parents/full-time family carers of special needs children don’t get a break of any kind, you can barley get a shower, you cannot plan anything no child care. no summer camps out there for them. You work with them 24 hours a day 7 days a week every day of the year and if your lucky you get to live on €209 per week just €16 more than someone on Jobseekers allowance. You cannot access employment of any kind unless you place the child into some form of institution, I couldn’t afford a pint of water never mind a pint in a pub, I haven’t had a holiday in 17 years and even if you got one night respite you have to use the time to catch up on normal household chores.
@Charliegrl80:
Courageous Parents such as you are the most neglected members of society and deserve all the help you can get from the State as a human right.
Sexist heading Journal. Fathers parent too. Pauline’s organisation is not gender biased.
@Pat Redmond: well said. The article itself argues in support of either parent staying home. The Journal, change the headline ASAP!
Nothing against this woman but what she is asking for is insane does she not realise that we have a huge homeless crisis which costs the states God knows how many millions in hotels required as a stopgap solution and a large social welfare bill on top of that.There is no Country in the world that has this including richer places than us,so please come back in the real world
@Aidan Holland: You do realise that the government isn’t a one issue at a time system right? It’s supposed to handle multiple issues and developments simultaneously, otherwise the entire country would collapse.
I’m all for it but how do we pay for it?
What about stay at home dads
@James Elford: read the piece, it includes them. The Journal added the misleading title
@Maggie Elizabeth Walsh: I’m talking about the headline. Why not say the state should pay for parents to stay at home?
Here’s a tip for the author : ” come out of the clouds and write about something that actually makes sense ” do you think it’s fair for people who choose not to have children to pay for this ???
I think, Pauline, you should get out of your echo chamber a bit more. For most of us work is a means to an end! Only politicians or policy makers find work liberating! That is pure drivel. Women and men working in every sector from cleaners, to educators, factory workers, medical staff find their jobs satisfying and liberating.
I respect other people’s choices to stay at home and look after their children. We are all different. I just wish people like Pauline would be as respectful towards my choice. I’m a mother, i work outside the home, i love my job. I love my pay packet and i love that i shape my children’s lives and contribute to the wider society
So you’re a feminist who believes mothers should stay at home, and men should pay you to stay home through taxes. This feminism stuff is hilariously hypocritical.
@George Orwell: you didn’t read past the headline did you?
Read it all.
@George Orwell: well then no offense your comprehension skills need improving because the author clearing referred all the way through to parents and either parent staying at home.
@George Orwell: You seem to have your own definition of feminism. Whether staying at home or going out to work, feminism has only ever been about equal rights.
@George Orwell: let me make your statement accurate “so you’re a feminist who believes that a parent should be able to choose to stay at home and get paid through taxes. This feminism might be onto something.”
Great article Pauline. The introduction of tax individualisation by Charlie McCreevy was a big blow to stay at home parents and actually penalised those who wanted to stay at home to care for their own young children. Minister Zappone wants to further this discrimination by not supporting care in the home by a parent, grandparent or relative. Lobbying by corporations who want cheap female workforce and the childcare industry are other factors to blame here.
@Ciara Clancy: If you have children you can’t afford then why did you have them? And if you did, why do I have to pay for your irrational emotional decison?
@Will Hamilton: The children born now will be productive members of society, paying taxes in order to finance your care in old age, so you may well be grateful for their existence in later life!
For the record the title did not come from me the author and reflects neither the article nor my views. The article is about the fact that the Minister is proposing to pay for one type of childcare only and questioning why she has chosen formal childcare. It suggests that the motivation is purely economic and that it eliminates choice. Wanted to set the record straight not get into a discussion
@Pauline O’Reilly: The article is fine, but the headline is misleading…
@Pauline O’Reilly: never mind the fact that Katherine Zappone is happy with the childcare staff being paid an average of €10.27 an hour to care for these children, despite Level 8 degrees.
Parenting, whether full time or in conjunction with a paid job is the hardest work you will ever do. It seems crazy that someone (whether father or mother) who forgoes not just their annual salary but also the future career and salary progression and pension contributions in order to care for their children at home also gets to be charged extra tax on a single income family.
I agree that the economy should be organised to support society, not t’other way around. Bill Clinton’s election mantra was ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. Well, Bill, it’s not just
Rearing children, to regenerate society ( and help pay my pension!), is, imo, one of the most important tasks in society. Like war (99% boredom, 1% terror), it is mostly tedious, sometimes joyful. An optimal solution might be to enable both parents to work part time, and relieve each other’s tedium. That sort of change wouldn’t help the corporates, of course.
A two-income family has more money, and many choose this, why wouldn’t they? If going out to work actually costs more than staying at home, why would anyone work?
Sure, childcare is expensive, but this cost decreases as children get older. So parents have to weigh this up. If one stays home when the children are young, all the financial support in the world doesn’t make up for the fact that this person is losing years of experience. Returning to work usually means returning at a lower pay grade than their colleagues who have that extra 10 or 15 years experience. And rightly so.
Mothers – and fathers – have a choice – they might feel trapped, but that’s just part of being a parent of a young child – you are trapped. Torn between what’s best for the child and what’s best for you….
Katherine Zappone appears to be championing just one choice available to parents. Yes, crèches are great for those it suits but surely freedom of choice is part of living in a democracy and our choices should be supported, not penalised for the sake of commerce. It may be a cliché but our children are our future and I would rather a future of diversified people raised in a way their parents have chosen to suit them and their individual needs rather than all streamlined into a system that won’t necessarily suit all families.
Let’s keep repeating the mantra: Socialism will thrive until someone else’s money runs out. Maybe the message will eventually get through, that all services must be paid for by someone!!
I would like the Government to do a survey to see how popular this would be.If their was to be an allowance to a stay at home parent while the kids are very young at least it might have the double effect of solving the unemployment problem. As some people come off the live register and no longer need a SW payment , this would compensate for the parent who opts to stay at home.More opportunities to job share would also be popular. The Civil Service offers their staff a range of options ,e.g. 5 Half Days, a 3day week , a week on and week off. Another option I think they have is to take a cut in pay say for two months and stay at home during holiday periods.This can be arranged by spreading their ten months pay over one year to ensure a steady income each week.
@Aine O Connor: it used to be there was an “under 5″ extra payment in the child benefit back in 2007 or so. Now it was only 97 Euro a month which is not enough to pay for childcare, creche, etc. but something like this would benefit everyone with a young child, whether working or not.
I absolutely agree with this article but I ask the Journal to please change your headline to “parents” not just mothers so as to actually truly reflect the article.
Vast majority of children want to take time out and chill when they come home from school watch TV, playstation etc it doesn’t matter who’s minding them so I don’t get the point of this article
@Funfair: Yummy Mummy wants more money to do the job of raising her own children.
And exactly why should I pay for your choice to have a family ?? Only people with kids should be taxed for this ! I choose Not to have kids so I choose not to pay for parents (mother or father) to stay at home to mind them !
@Sinead Cosgrave: Who will pay for your state pension when you are retired?
@Sinead Cosgrave: Exactly. Why is it anyone else’s problem if someone else is too stupid or driven by primitive instinct to have children they can’t afford. People who don’t have children should be given an allowace every few years to make them equal to people who have been given paid maternity leave.
@Eamonn Sheen: I couldn’t agree more.
@Will Hamilton: have you read the article? Her point is the minister is going to use your taxpayers money to pay for people’s child care, but only if others are providing it not if you are doing the minding yourself. How is this fair? Either way you are paying for the children patents can’t afford. We won’t go into who will be paying tax when you retire and keeping the country afloat.
Why should i pay so you can make a lifestyle choice and stay at home.
Was this group set up because au pairs now cost real wages instead of the pocket money for slave labour the kale and quinoa set got away with paying before?
Where both parents work it is usually to make ends meet (initially) and the biggest outlay for many would be a mortgage. Of course the quality of life based on material things (two cars and the 50 inch TV and new everything) is likely to be higher with two incomes.
If the issue of affordable housing could be addressed, as in being able to pay a mortgage, bills and raise a family on one income, then I am sure the number of stay at home parents would be larger, but then one government changed the rules to encourage both parents to work and for star at home parents to return to the work force.
One major step forward might be to give everyone on the country a tax credit/allowance that could be moved between parents and dependent children, so the working parent would get credits for the stay at home parent and and children – that would make a difference. It is unlikely that the government is actually going to hand out cash to stay at home parents, but this would be a help stay at home and low income families
I think most will agree taking care of children full time is the toughest job ever with huge responsibility especially if they’re not yours. We don’t all have the luxury of choosing but we do need to recognise there is a place in society for both. people in childcare employment need a job too.
NO , they should NOT
Parents not mothers specifically
The children also said they did not want to go to school ever, eat anyting but pizza, wear clothes, nappies or use pottys… The Dail is meeting in an emergency session …..
FFS, why should those who choose not to have kids and focus on their career work and pay taxes to support others choice to procreate
Absolute nonsense, if you have a child bloody well pay for it yourself and don’t rely on the state to fund your brood
There is a fundamental truth in this article.
@Jane Hastie: It’s a disgrace how little these workers are paid. Care of children is completely undervalued.
Presume skinny latte that child will be paying for your pension with a bit of luck!.
@Marian de Bhulbh: working hard for my own pension thank you very much
And many parents enjoy their careers, and are more fulfilled because they work outside the home. That Interesting that they didn’t ask what the parents wanted.
@Kerri Donahue Meenagh: I would believe that the point is where a parent is working and money is going towards childcare – either from their own pocket, or via the Government – it should be payable to a creche, childminder, loved Granny, whatever. Right now the Government only supports / contributes to care in a creche / pre-school. That’s wrong. They’re pushing for the institutionalisation of childcare and limiting parents choices where they would like a friend / neighbour to do that job. Everybody needs to find their balance and parents should absolutely be in search of their own happiness – however, it still comes second to that of their child.
An idiotic article by an idiot. If you decide to have children you can’t afford it does not mean the rest of the world owes you a living. Taxpayers money, includes the taxes of single people, those who only have children they can afford and people who go out and earn their own living. Ths is another shot at the gravy train dreamed up by a homebound freeloader.
@Will Hamilton:
Children grow up and become taxpayers. It will be the next generation who will be paying your old age pension .
You’re deluded if you think there’ll still be an old age pension by the time we need it. Why do you think we’re all being made take out private pensions?
A Joke! What about all the Mothers who go out to work, pay a Fortune to Child Minders and who would really love to be able to stay at home? It is all about Money and being able to afford to actually Live and keep a Roof over the Family’s Head!
back in our grandparents day one person working could support the family, what went wrong after WW2, work is hardly as freeing as many feminists would have you believe, most men and women will work boring office jobs, only a few will go on to be CEOs or highly paid. If a could afford to not to work I would and I’m sure any future husband would not want to either
Yes of course we should been a mom is the hardest job ever no breal no hoild no sick pay children do rae them selfs u know
@Sinead Redden Kenny: why should taxpayers work so that they can pay for you to stay at home with your kids?
@Suzie Sunshine: because tax payers will be working to pay for subsidised childcare in a creche setting
@Sinead Redden Kenny: so what if it’s a hard job , why should someone else pay up there taxes so you can be at home , it was your choice to have kids ,,,YOU look after them at your own cost and time
@Ciara Clancy: and so will the parents of said children when they go out to work?
Children’s voices deserve to be listened to and their opinions actioned upon. They grow up so quickly – our society should view their wellbeing and happiness as paramount – just as we should value the wellbeing and happiness of everyone – older, working, disabled, single, married, pet-owner – whatever. I’m a stay-at-home parent. I paid my taxes for many years, I will again. Right now I’m focussing on raising two small souls for a tiny portion of their life. I am very uncomfortable with the institutionalisation of childcare – if there’s money available to support the care of children while their parents work (which I absolutely support), that money should not be payable to creches etc. only. https://iamlauriem.com/2017/04/11/how-can-you-legislate-for-love-lost/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true
Breed, breed, breed. Someone else is paying.
Look at Sweden and japans dependency ratio. Sweden needed to take in young migrants because their birth rate was so low that there were not enough tax paying people to fund pensions. Mothers are choosing to only have 1-2 children for economic reasons but it will cause huge problems for Ireland in the future. My 2 daughters are in Creche it costs me 1890 a month, my mortgage is 1020. At the end of the month we have near nothing. If I didn’t work we’d be homeless. I think Creche is good but I work shift work and days go by without me seeing my kids it breaks my heart and soul every week.
I’m a nurse earning 552 a week. My childcare in giraffe for 2 children will cost me 1950 a month. My mortgage is 1050 a month. Yes i chose to have children I understand that. Myself or my husband who is a mechanic earning a little less than me, leave them off at 7:15 am and sometimes I don’t see them for days. On my days off I keep them at home but I still pay because I have to thats the rules.
Look at the state of Japan and Sweden their depending ratio is huge!!! They have little or no tax paying paye workers hence the reason Sweden needed to take in young migrants their birth rate is so low and now there isn’t enough workers to make up the pensions, ireland will end up the same. I would love to give up work but with no other wage we would be homeless and without a future pension.
have your say