Budget proposals

Madam, – The proposed abolition or reduction of the early childcare supplement has been well flagged in advance of the upcoming…

Madam, – The proposed abolition or reduction of the early childcare supplement has been well flagged in advance of the upcoming emergency budget. The purpose of this supplement is to assist parents, to pay for childcare costs, in order to facilitate their continued participation in the workforce.

Many parents are already heavily burdened with mortgages, having paid for their homes at the peak of the housing boom.

Any change to the current arrangement when coupled with increased taxation could make it no longer viable for people to remain working and pay their childcare costs. The implications for the childcare industry could be catastrophic. The importance of this sector should not be underestimated. Although difficult to quantify, due to the nature of childcare provision, there are tens of thousands of people employed in this sector.

Given the current economic environment that necessitates cutbacks, I propose two cost-saving amendments to the current arrangement. The supplement should be withdrawn in cases where a mother is paid full maternity benefit, by her employer, for the duration of the maternity leave. Payments can commence once the paid maternity leave has ended. Also the supplement should cease to be paid in respect of any child one month after commencing school.

READ MORE

The introduction of these measures would have the following effects:

1. It would help sustain levels of employment in the childcare sector.

2. There would be a sense of fairness in that mothers, who are not in receipt of paid maternity leave, would still receive the supplement.

3. It would shorten the duration that the supplement is paid to coincide with the period that the child is in care thus reducing the cost to the public purse.

4. It would seek to minimise the number of children at risk.

5. It would be easy to administer.

All cuts hurt. All cuts are undesirable. Successful allowances should target supports to where they are most needed. In this case, it is the window that the child is in paid childcare. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. – Yours, etc,

OWEN ROSS,

Head of Department of

Humanities,

Athlone Institute of

Technology,

Athlone, Co Westmeath.

Madam, – A percentage decrease in social welfare payments is not fair, as in general the more a person or family receives, the more the payment is needed. A fairer proposal might be that some type of levy, such as €104, be paid over the course of a year. This is a proposal that involves a longer view than the wait and see what we can get away with game currently being played by the Government when it comes to Exchequer expenditure.

Such a measure could preempt draconian proposals for social expenditure as exemplified by Ibec’s one earlier this week.

Looking at the finance figures and taking into account the essential nature of some Government provisions, such a levy might prevent many services falling victim to a type of short-sighted populism of which we should all be fearful. – Yours, etc,

DANIEL HIGGINS,

Circular Road,

Galway.

Madam, – I was shocked to read that Ibec wants the Government to cut social welfare payments by 3 per cent. I seethed with rage while I perused the details of Ibec’s budget submission. It seemed as though every measure was either a cynical attack on society’s most vulnerable or an attempt to prop up private enterprise with direct Government funding.

I then noticed the date of the submission – April 1st. Imagine how silly I felt. – Yours, etc,

PATRICK JAMES BISSETT,

Parnell Road,

Crumlin,

Dublin 12.

Madam, – In the forthcoming budget I  believe that the most equitable way of dealing with the crisis is to increase the tax rates. I believe that cuts in expenditure are totally unjustifiable and unnecessary. Efficiencies should be sought in public expenditure, but across-the-board cuts which hurt people on low incomes, eg in health, social welfare and education, are not acceptable.

I would suggest that the lower rate of income tax be increased by 2 per cent to 22 per cent and that the top rate be increased  by 7 per cent to 48 per cent. (If it is not practical to increase tax rates in the middle of a tax year then the income levy should be increased.) That is hitting the people who have done best out of the Celtic Tiger years. The rest of the gap in the public finances for 2009 could be bridged largely by increases in excise duties and reductions in the National Development Plan. Also, the Vat rate should be reduced.

Some economists argue that to increase tax rates significantly ie taking money out of the economy and would lead to an even further downturn. But surely reductions in public expenditure would have the same effect?

You have to consider that we are one of the lowest taxed countries in the OECD. Currently people in Ireland are big savers because we are worried about the future. If there were significant tax increases I believe that people would just save a bit less but would spend about the same.

When a start has been made to put the public finances in order we will all  feel a bit more confident and spending will increase and economic activity will increase before too long. – Yours, etc,

DENIS COSTELLO,

Glendown Grove,

Dublin 6W.