Educational cuts

Powerhouse

asdasd wrote: »

The "tax" you pay is chimera. It merely means the government pays you less. The income the government receives is from the private sector.

I presume you would be utterly consistent on this point with regard to teachers' salaries and consider that they actually earn much less than they are officially said to earn as their tax in merely a paper transaction according to you. This means everyone is a winner. In the first instance it reduces the overall education budget at the stroke of a pen which would make the government's day.

For those those who criticise the fact that teacher salaries make up the lion's share of education expenditure (while implicitly and conveniently ignoring that salary costs are the greatest cost in any business) will be happy that this revelation significantly reduces the portion of the overall education budget that is made up by teachers' salaries. This puts a different complexion on the whole issue under discussion here, if you are consistent about it and accept the corollary to what you said in that post.

asdasd

This puts a different complexion on the whole issue under discussion here, if you are consistent about it and accept the corollary to what you said in that post.

Clearly the 80% cost of education expenditure which goes on teachers salaries excludes the tax. it is simple. The costs of paying 1000 teachers who earn 40K gross but 30K net ( these are figures plucked from my ass but lets go with it) is 30M not 40M.

That would be the figure the government works with.

Powerhouse

asdasd wrote: »

Clearly the 80% cost of education expenditure which goes on teachers salaries excludes the tax. it is simple. The costs of paying 1000 teachers who earn 40K gross but 30K net ( these are figures plucked from my ass but lets go with it) is 30M not 40M.

That would be the figure the government works with.

Can you point to where you got this information? You say '"clearly" the 80% cost of education expenditure which goes on teachers salaries excludes the tax', but this is not clear to me at all.

What is your source?

It seems dubious not least because it actually would downplay what the government pays in teacher salaries and it seems unlikely that they would choose to do that.

But I am happy to look at your sources.

asdasd

Lets pretend there are 6 people in Ireland. 5 are in the private sector earning 60K ( before tax). They pay for a public sector worker and each agree to pay 10K.

Therefore the net transfer per private sector worker is 10K each, their net wage is 50K.

The public sector worker earns 50K - 10K from each private sector worker.

what he really doesnt earn is 60K, and pay tax of 10k. See?

The point is that anybody estimating the cost of the public sector employee would see it as 50K, not 60K.

beggars_bush

but surely the taxes public sector workers pay (more than the private sector btw) also cuts down the bill for them???

Powerhouse

asdasd wrote: »

Lets pretend there are 6 people in Ireland. 5 are in the private sector earning 60K ( before tax). They pay for a public sector worker and each agree to pay 10K.

Therefore the net transfer per private sector worker is 10K each, their net wage is 50K.

The public sector worker earns 50K - 10K from each private sector worker.

what he really doesnt earn is 60K, and pay tax of 10k. See?

The point is that anybody estimating the cost of the public sector employee would see it as 50K, not 60K.

This is not answering the question I asked. It is explaining an abstract principle tangential to the issue.

My question was, simply, what is your source for the information that the teacher pay when mentioned by government spokespersons is always net pay.

Without wishing to be abrupt, I'd prefer if you were more specific than "anyone estimating" or "everybody knows" replies and just gave a reputable source from which this information can be confirmed, or at least where you got it yourself.

forestfruits

Why oh Why has everyone got it in for the teachers??

Why has our government in all their wisdom not taken the simple step of offering redundancy instead of cutting the option for early retirement?

essentially they are keeping the employees with the highest pay- many of whom would have opted for early retirement - and shoving out the younger and much lower paid!

it makes little sense

old boy

does the majority of people have any idea of the probs involved in keeping a class under control, put the brass of f.a.s. in charge of a class for a year on a teachers pay, i am not a teacher i have not been a teacher, but i have spent a fair few years in and out of schools and collages, the most important thing that no one has touched on is that the children are the future of any country, do you educate them like d.o.malley or do you keep them ingorant like develara. cast a glance back over the last 50 years before you answer.

beggars_bush

i think a lot of people are knocking teachers cause they are an easy target - like the nurses

Irjudge1

Wow this is amazing stuff. Vitriolic, mean spirited, angry views being expressed here. There really is a complete disconnect between the public sector and the private now. Our ship is sinking people and if this is the way the people at the top table are handling it we are truly ****ed.

My viewpoint is that of a private sector worker in a managerial role in the construction industry. I will be attending a management meeting on Monday coming to assist in the decision making process to make at least 8 people redundant and to plan the staging of redundancies of 12 -16 others over the next 6 months this equates to 50% of our workforce, not pretty. In addition I will have the task of informing my remaining staff of the 10% pay cut which will come into force in January. Those remaining I know will be happy to take it if it secures their jobs for a while.

I wonder if those who have expressed their strong dissatisfaction with teachers pay and conditions have children? I have, I have friends who are teachers and I am aware that it is an extremely difficult job, particularly secondary teaching in my opinion. You would not catch me volunteering to look after 30 teenagers.

However I also think that the opinions of some of the teachers come across as if no other job is as difficult or as stressful. The comments about working 40 hours + don't indicate that teachers aren't working in the real world but I know guys who routinely worked 60+ hours a week for building contractors during the boom. Yes they were on good money but they were salaried so on a hourly rate not as attractive as you might first think. As for the trades. They overtook the professions for the boom period in terms of pay rates but they were in demand. Now they are not and a lot of them are drawing the dole or waiting for the bloodbath that is going to be the new year.

Teachers should be paid a good wage equivalent to a good private sector wage. Who they are bench marked against I have no idea but it should be equal to a position with a level of responsibility for looking after 30 children for however many hours and what ever the other hours are. As for the holidays. I don't think the school year should be lengthened. Our kids should not be turned into f'n robots, they should have school holidays to be kids and take time to day dream and waste a couple of weeks figuring out who they are and what they might want to be. Teachers pay should reflect the length of the school year.

My experience at school was that there were some right lazy feckers teaching and I have no doubt that things haven't changed significantly. Equally there are some lazy Nurses, Gardai, Civil Servants, Doctors, Bus drivers, Engineers, architects, shop assistants, dentists etc etc etc, oh yeah and bankers definitely bankers. The difference in my opinion is that in the private sector the cream rises to the top and in boom times the mediocre or useless keep their jobs, in bust the talent probably takes a pay cut, the mediocre count their blessings and the useless draw the dole. In the public sector I'm not sure the same applies.

Anyway we are all in the **** and we are all going to have to suck it up in one way or another. Eh rant over.

djpbarry

Irjudge1 wrote: »

As for the holidays. I don't think the school year should be lengthened. Our kids should not be turned into f'n robots...

A few extra weeks in school is not going to turn anyone into a robot.