TD's/Senators get 3rd pay rise in 6 months

gurramok

According to todays newspaper(IOS), the following salaries of TDs/Senators have gone up since June 2003:

Last June NOW %increase

Taoiseach 209,760 222,671 6.1%
Cabinet Minister 164,826 176,347 7%

TD (10yrs service) 76,393 85,589 12%
TD(7-10yrs service) 74,104 83,024 12%
TD(under 7yrs service) 71,813 80,457 12%

Senator(10yrs service) 53,475 59,912 12%
Senator(7-10yrs service) 51,873 58,117 12%
Senator(under 7yrs service) 50,269 56,320 12%

2.95% under benchmarking last summer, 3pc under national wage agreement, 5.7% under benchmarking.

And they sit in the Dail for 92 days a year.

Is it justified, deserved, are they worth it ?

star gazer

Nope. It seems extraordinary that they can give out about high prices and tell us to shop around for better value, somehow the public might shop around the next general election.

They probably feel under huge pressure from the public anger that is out there and need the comfort of an extra few bob.

The_Goose

These feckers gettin all this money to talk, 92 days in the year there in the dail yet they re tryin to rail road the prison officer s out of the job by brining in foreign labour to work for 20,000 a year. they earn so much cause they work theyre asses off.

i d like to see a TD do an 80 hour week

Syth

I think the thing that's wrong about the whole situation is that they decied their pay rises. They'll of course try to get as much as we, the public, will let them away with. People shouldn't have control over their own pay.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Syth
I think the thing that's wrong about the whole situation is that they decied their pay rises. They'll of course try to get as much as we, the public, will let them away with. People shouldn't have control over their own pay.

Actually, they don't - well, not directly anyway. Their salaries are directly linked to corresponding civil service grades. I think a TD's salary equates to CS principal office, a minister equates to a Dept secretary etc. Yes, I understand that this means that when the Govt grant a Civil Service salary rise they will benefit from this too.

I really don't have a problem with their salaries. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. If you want talented, smart people to be running the country (instead of sticking with their lucrative careers in law, accountancy etc), you need to pay them well. I do have a problem with their extremely generous system of tax-free allowances for travel, accomodation & secretarial services. I would also suggest that we probably have too many TD's - we could cut the numbers by about 25%-30% without losing local representation significantly.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

Originally posted by RainyDay
Actually, they don't - well, not directly anyway. Their salaries are directly linked to corresponding civil service grades. I think a TD's salary equates to CS principal office, a minister equates to a Dept secretary etc.

Indeed. it was a trick Thatcher pulled in the mid 80s. There was even a conclusion to a Yes Prime Minister episode based around the idea. They folleyed suit here.

Cork

TDs also get benchmarking.

Where is this big improvement in public services?

Are schools or public offices opening longer?

There are probably some miminal changes - that they use to justify their benchmarking payments.

Victor

Originally posted by RainyDay
I really don't have a problem with their salaries. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

But we pay a fortune and get monkeys anyway!

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
TDs also get benchmarking.

They get benchmarking pay increases. I haven't seen any reports anywhere of TDs actually being benchmarked. If you can throw a few reports my way, I'd be best pleased.

Akrasia

politicians are bound by the Hypocratic oath.
They took a pledge when they were elected to always say one thing and then do the exact opposite

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

star gazer

that's doctors

Spin doctors?

It's a bit like the Eircom line rental increases, it's okay to increase it, but not to increase it three times in a year. The TDs are over-doing it a bit and it's only going to turn people off politics when they see such lucrative increases being put in. It's not realistic to expect people not to be feeling ripped-off by politicians when they do work such short parliamentary sessions. Four day weeks, nine months a year can't be that hard to accomplish.

Four day weeks, nine months a year can't be that hard to accomplish

Well it would be nice if they actually did something well. As far as i can, see is that they "work" for 9 months, four days a week, and the country just gets worse. In fact if we can't get rid of em, lets give them 1 day a week, 1 month a year, and get a German Corporation to manage our country...

Akrasia

Originally posted by daveirl
that's doctors

Um dave, it was a joke

star gazer

originally posted by Akrasia
Um dave, it was a joke

The hypocritic oath

originally posted by Klaz
Well it would be nice if they actually did something well. As far as i can, see is that they "work" for 9 months, four days a week, and the country just gets worse. In fact if we can't get rid of em, lets give them 1 day a week, 1 month a year, and get a German Corporation to manage our country...

I don't think there are any companies i would vote to run the country and dictate social policy. It takes more than one or two priorities to run a country, more than profit, more than sales level, and even though the PDs might come closest to that side of things, if they screw up they will cease to exist, if a company does they either go bankrupt or go after other contracts.

I don't think there are any companies i would vote to run the country and dictate social policy. It takes more than one or two priorities to run a country, more than profit, more than sales level, and even though the PDs might come closest to that side of things, if they screw up they will cease to exist, if a company does they either go bankrupt or go after other contracts.

Perhaps, but the country would be handled alot more efficently. Its not like the current governemnt is all that good at their jobs. A company would appoint people that knew the brief of a position rather than just giving to the people who want it. We might actually get someone who knows Internet Technologies from a business & personal role for the Minister of Tech. Oddly enough, i'd be more inclined to support such a company. Instead of going bankrupt, the Irish Government just gets more loans. Lovely.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Perhaps, but the country would be handled alot more efficently.

And therein lies the problem.

The efficient solution is often the one which says "dump this unprofitable service". The socially aware solution is the one which says "continue the service, but as cost-effectively as possible".

Getting back on topic somewhat, I think a very simple approach would be for the elected representatives to be only eligible for a payrise percentage equal to the lowest percentage given to any civil-state in that year.

So if any civil-state body is told "we can't afford it", then the same should apply to the TDs and Taoiseach. If any civil-state is told "wait till next year", then so should the TDs etc.

And so on...

Yes, I accept fully that this isn't the ideal, but when you are forced to be at the bottom of the list, whilst being in charge of the list....there is some motivation for you to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal.

The more you let one body rip you off, the less you have for yourself. The more you refuse valid claims, the less you have for yourself.

jc

Victor

The real cost.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/02/04/story132598.html

TDs to cost taxpayers €200k each this year
04/02/2004 - 8:51:29 am

TDs will cost taxpayers around €200,000 each in salaries allowances and expenses this year, according to reports in this morning’s newspapers.

The reports said the total cost of running both Houses of the Oireáchtas would be around €93m.

TDs will reportedly receive almost €110,000 each in expenses, allowances and secretarial services on top of their basic salaries of more than €80,000.

RainyDay

Originally posted by bonkey
Getting back on topic somewhat, I think a very simple approach would be for the elected representatives to be only eligible for a payrise percentage equal to the lowest percentage given to any civil-state in that year.

So if any civil-state body is told "we can't afford it", then the same should apply to the TDs and Taoiseach. If any civil-state is told "wait till next year", then so should the TDs etc.

And so on...

Yes, I accept fully that this isn't the ideal, but when you are forced to be at the bottom of the list, whilst being in charge of the list....there is some motivation for you to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal.

Don't like this - as it encourages the politicos to pump up the pay rates of the entire civil service in order to up their own salaries.

bonkey

Originally posted by RainyDay
Don't like this - as it encourages the politicos to pump up the pay rates of the entire civil service in order to up their own salaries.

You can look at it that way, yes. On the other hand, if the country could afford that, then thats arguably what they should be doing anyway, and if teh country can't afford it...its hard to see how they're going to be able to do it. Governments cant' actually create money out of thin air, and lets not forget that crippling the economy for a pay-rise is a bit stupid when you only get to keep that payrise until the next election when you can be held accountable for your actions.

jc

ixoy

Originally posted by Victor
The real cost....

Meanwhile, I get told we're STILL on a pay freeze. So I have less money overall whilst the TDs line their pockets by further increasing stealth taxes. Where's the justice? Michael McDowell should be arresting himself.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by bonkey
You can look at it that way, yes. On the other hand, if the country could afford that, then thats arguably what they should be doing anyway, and if teh country can't afford it...its hard to see how they're going to be able to do it. Governments cant' actually create money out of thin air, and lets not forget that crippling the economy for a pay-rise is a bit stupid when you only get to keep that payrise until the next election when you can be held accountable for your actions.

jc

The suggestion that TD’s pay increases be linked to the lowest increase in the public service clearly creates an incentive to relax discipline on public service pay.

Its not clear why you seem to feel that any surplus money the government might have should ‘arguably’ be used to fund pay increases, instead of say building roads or simply funding tax cuts. Its true that government can’t create money out of thin air, and our EU obligations limit the extend to which we can run a budget deficit. However, clearly a lack of discipline on pay means that the taxpayer ends up paying more than is necessary to obtain a given level of service.

Just as eaten bread is soon forgotten, so apparently is lack of bread. The country was crippled by an unrealistic expenditure programme, which brought Fianna Fail to government in a landslide victory in 1977. The memory of that time seems dulled, and perhaps people are forgetful enough to accept an invitation to try to vote themselves rich.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Its not clear why you seem to feel that any surplus money the government might have should ‘arguably’ be used to fund pay increases, instead of say building roads or simply funding tax cuts.

You'll notice that I didn't say where in the priority list it should come :rolleyes:

For the country to be able to afford it implies that nothing of higher importance is being sacrificed in order to obtain it....nothing more and nothing less. In my world, that means that whenever you have money, you look at the potential ways of spending it and deciding which is the most important. Thats not a static list in my world....it changes depending on how bad something is, how much has been funded in it, etc. etc. etc.

Or do you think that we should tell all civil servants that they can't have a payrise ever because we can always build more roads or better hospitals, lower everyone's taxes etc. etc. etc.? You know...just like we should never invest any money outside Dublin because it would be more efficient to spend it within Dublin.

If thats not your stance, then before you respond I'd suggest consider that this is about as balanced an interpretation of your comments as you offered of mine.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
The suggestion that TD’s pay increases be linked to the lowest increase in the public service clearly creates an incentive to relax discipline on public service pay.

Which may result in our civil servants (or at least some of them) not being so chronically underpaid. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

jc

ishmael whale

It’s not so much that you didn't say where in the priority list it should come, so much as you didn’t seem to take account of any potential negative impact from linking the priority to be assigned to the lowest increase in public sector pay to the priority to be assigned to increases in TDs salaries.

As you have correctly pointed out, I am not saying that all civil servants that they can't have a payrise ever, just that the case for increases should be seen on their own merits. There is no immediate link from this point to the case I have made elsewhere, that advocates of regional development are working against their own objectives by seeking to spread resources too thinly. But then I don’t think you’ve ever managed to fully understand the issues regarding Irish regional development, so your confusion is understandable.

Decisions about how public money is allocated depends on priorities established by the political process, so the determination of what is of higher importance is not a straightforward or, indeed, entirely rational matter. To create a link such as you suggest seems to add an unhelpful dependency.