Is "Rip Off Ireland" really "Rip Off by the Public Sector"

OhNoYouDidn't

jmayo wrote: »

And how many of the coal face are admin staff pushing paper to each other, jobs created because new management levels were created and managers need staff.

This is the crux of my argument. Where does this happen, other than the vivid imagination of certain 'pundits'?

jmayo wrote: »

Can you please respond to basic qestions I have asked ?
I keep asking how can we afford the public sector expense at the moment ?

Only one or two on the "public sector should be left alone" side has come up with any answers to this.
Even then pay cuts and redundancies don't usually figure in there.

Do we put income tax rates back to 62 % ?
Do we borrow until we are kicked out of the Eurozone and the IMF are at the door ?
Do we spend the next year having meetings between unions and government where there are discussion about early retirement, 4 day weeks, non replacement of retirees but yet no cut back on the expense of the wage bill ?

Do we adopt the easy target of laying off temp and contract staff who are probably nurses or doctors, which means the service to the end user is cut to shreds ?

Can you please answer these questions rather than spouting it is not their fault so they should not suffer.

Tax the rich. Pull the life support on farmers :pac:

I see no compelling economic arguement for redundancies or cuts in the public sector. If anything that will contract spending even further creating a bigger mess.

jmayo wrote: »

We are all going to suffer.

Says who? Eoghan Harris? Turlough O'Connor? While the exchequor figures are bad, they arent that chronic.

jmayo wrote: »

Look at it this way ... if the boat is sinking do you refuse to bail out water because it is not your fault and thus it is someone elses problem ?

Which is exactly what IBEC and their media darlings are arguing, their boat is sinking so a boat that isnt should too for 'fairness'.

I repeat, the public sector should not be made the scapegoat for the economic mess the private sector created.

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is the crux of my argument. Where does this happen, other than the vivid imagination of certain 'pundits'?

The HSE?

OhNoYouDidn't

Seanies32 wrote: »

The HSE?

While I acknowledge that the HSE is the posterboy for bureaucratic bungling, I don't think they are at the level of passing paper to each other for the sake of it.

The HSE's issues are political in nature.

jmayo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This is the crux of my argument. Where does this happen, other than the vivid imagination of certain 'pundits'?

As Seanies pointed out the HSE.
The Health Boards were amalgamated yet no one lost their jobs.
The whole idea of amalgamation is efficiency in removing duplications etc, yet what happened in HSE, they added more managers and more staff.
They added staff level to oversee the amalgamation.
And yes I do know what I am talking about here.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Tax the rich. Pull the life support on farmers :pac:

Wipee. How many rich people can we hit, the really rich will just move offshore if they haven't already.
What is your definition of the rich, perhaps we should base it on house prices ?
Do you know how much most farmers earn ?
FFS some of them are on the dole :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I see no compelling economic arguement for redundancies or cuts in the public sector. If anything that will contract spending even further creating a bigger mess.

So if you aren't earning enough to pay your bills, you go out get a loan and continue spending ?
I take it you left school sometime after 1995 :rolleyes:
So by continuing to pay high public sector wages you reckon public sector workers will spend enough to keep all the retail businesses ticking over ?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Says who? Eoghan Harris? Turlough O'Connor? While the exchequor figures are bad, they arent that chronic.

The fact you mention that gobv***** harris says a lot.
Sure wasn't he berties great champion, that is bertie of "give the public sector anything they want" fame :rolleyes:

Nah the exchequor figures arent that chronic, just like the Palestinians are winning in Gaza and much like Goerge Bush will be fondly remembered by Iraqis and Amnesty Intational :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which is exactly what IBEC and their media darlings are arguing, their boat is sinking so a boat that isnt should too for 'fairness'.

I repeat, the public sector should not be made the scapegoat for the economic mess the private sector created.

So if the private sector falls apart you don't see how that can have any affect on the whole country be it publicly employed or privately ?

Who exactly do you think pays taxes in this country or as I asked somewhere before do you think Lenihan pulls wads of cash out of his ass everytime the public sector needs a few more million ?

Don't bother answering, because you will be still singing the same tune while we are all standing in the dole queue, except there won't be any money for dole :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

Most of your post was gibberish, so I'll pick up on the bits that were coherent.

jmayo wrote: »

So by continuing to pay high public sector wages you reckon public sector workers will spend enough to keep all the retail businesses ticking over ?

Public sector wages aren't high, but the point is that reducing wages of about 25% of the wage earners in the state is going to have an effect on spending and sentiment, adding even moreso to the vicious circle.

jmayo wrote: »

The fact you mention that gobv***** harris says a lot.
Sure wasn't he berties great champion, that is bertie of "give the public sector anything they want" fame :rolleyes:

Well he has changed his tune. Read this Sunday's rant.

jmayo wrote: »

Who exactly do you think pays taxes in this country or as I asked somewhere before do you think Lenihan pulls wads of cash out of his ass everytime the public sector needs a few more million ?

The public sector pay taxes too. That might be news to you, but unlike huge chunks of the private sector, they have no opportunity to avoid tax or offshore.

jmayo wrote: »

Don't bother answering, because you will be still singing the same tune while we are all standing in the dole queue, except there won't be any money for dole :rolleyes:

And your solution is to put even more people on those queues?

If you think making public sector staff redundant will do a damn thing to help in the medium to long term, we inhabit different planets.

20goto10

I think the whole approach towards the subject of public sector cuts is all wrong. It's got nothing to do with sharing the pain, doing your duty or whether the public sector has it easy, has nice pensions etc etc It's just simple mathematics. The private sector brings the cash in to pay for the public sector. The private sector is taking a beating and that money's just not there anymore. The country's budget needs to be rebalanced. We're spending too much money and just like any other budget, be it personal spending, a family budget, a company budget or a country's budget, the same logic applies. Cut your spending if you can no longer afford it.

LoLth

people seem to think a public sector tax cut is the solution to everything, some argue that private sector pays for public sector (despite the fact that some public sector institutions actually cover their own wage bill and maintenance but leave that aside for the minute). Public sector see the current crisis as a private sector mistake and that they shouldnt have to bear the burden of it.

so... why not just raise taxes ? The public sector pays tax so they will be hit as well as the private sector as well as more income for the government.

Too many in each sector earning high wages ? set the tax bands to account for these people.
<40k tax rate 1
up to 80k tax rate 2
100k to 200k tax rate three
over 200k tax rate thumbscrews

then, introduce a price freeze to stop stagflation from hitting and a pay freeze to help business maintian their current levels of production and profit.

make ALL perks and privileges taxable. no more hiding the extra money as a bonus etc. all of it must be taxed. abolish overtime and instead use time in lieu at a ratio of 1:1 . Offer unpaid holidays and shorter working weeks to reduce the wage bill.

Property taxes for anything beyond the principle family home. these people bought and sold properties on the back of the celtic tiger. investors profited from soaring house prices and the influx of foreign labour. fix rents with rent ceilings to make sure the tax isnt passed on to the tenant and is paid by the owner himself.

going forward, change to contributory pensions instead of defined (however leave the ones already in place as they are, it would be grossly unfair to change them now).

rather a simplistic measure but if the result is going to be unemployment of some form then why not make it as fair as possible and across the board.

all wage groups should do a round of offers for early retirement, followed by voluntary redundancy. There's streamlining the departments right there in both the private and public sectors. With tax hikes it might not be worthwhile for both parents to work and pay child minding so one or the other might be happy to stay at home for the foreseeable future.

in the end, we are all going to have to give up something. I think the levy was too low and would happily see it go up to 2% (an extra pint or two a week ? or two packets of smokes? maybe one less bottle of wine ? is that really that much of a sacrifice) and see those on less than 25k left alone (or left at 1%). so perhaps its time to stop pointing fingers at sectors and start getting ready for whats coming. personally I dont see raising public transport costs while cutting back services and simultaenously cutting consumer spending power as a solution to a government shortfall in income. if anything, increased prices and decreased wages will just act as a disincentive to work, will reduce tax income and put many small businesses out of work.

anyway, thats my €.02 (overly simplified and bound to be flamed but ... ah well)

jimmmy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Public sector wages aren't high,

lol lol Public sctor wages are 30% more than in Europe and UK, never mind elsewhere in the world. Cop yourself on. Many a person would dearly love a guaranteed pay cheque + security

thebman

LoLth wrote: »

people seem to think a public sector tax cut is the solution to everything, some argue that private sector pays for public sector (despite the fact that some public sector institutions actually cover their own wage bill and maintenance but leave that aside for the minute). Public sector see the current crisis as a private sector mistake and that they shouldnt have to bear the burden of it.

so... why not just raise taxes ? The public sector pays tax so they will be hit as well as the private sector as well as more income for the government.

then, introduce a price freeze to stop stagflation from hitting and a pay freeze to help business maintian their current levels of production and profit.

anyway, thats my €.02 (overly simplified and bound to be flamed but ... ah well)

Well most of the private sector has already received their pay cut and will probably receive another and plenty of redundancies and the banking crisis had fook all to do with us so why should we pay additional levies on top of this to protect the public sector from wage cuts or to stop it getting the clean up it needs in some areas?

Doesn't make sense TBH. Anyway, we'll probably end up having to do both cut wages in public sector and increase the levy on everyone since the bankers and the regulator fooked everything up so badly.

OhNoYouDidn't

jimmmy wrote: »

lol lol Public sctor wages are 30% more than in Europe and UK, never mind elsewhere in the world. Cop yourself on. Many a person would dearly love a guaranteed pay cheque + security

so are private sector wages......

CDfm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I see no compelling economic arguement for redundancies or cuts in the public sector. If anything that will contract spending even further creating a bigger mess.

The compelling argument is this.

Using Public Service Jobs as "employment schemes" is not smart. They are non jobs.Paying wages for non jobs is more expensive then dole to unemployed.It should never have happened.

No one is saying fire doctors - just ditch the excess.

Also- benchmarking should be a 2 way street -what went up should come down now the economic climate has changed.

jmayo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Most of your post was gibberish, so I'll pick up on the bits that were coherent.

Public sector wages aren't high, but the point is that reducing wages of about 25% of the wage earners in the state is going to have an effect on spending and sentiment, adding even moreso to the vicious circle.

The public sector pay taxes too. That might be news to you, but unlike huge chunks of the private sector, they have no opportunity to avoid tax or offshore.

And your solution is to put even more people on those queues?

If you think making public sector staff redundant will do a damn thing to help in the medium to long term, we inhabit different planets.

Claiming I sput gibberish is rich coming from someone that believes the public sector are immune to the fallout from the whole mess, no matter who created it.
I don't think making public sector redundant will help but they need to be flexible. In other words they may have to move jobs, to another department or another location and tough shi* no lump sum or perks to go with itand there needs to be a pay cut, starting at the top and working down.
With time admin staff should be drastically trimmed in certain areas i.e. HSE etc.

20goto10 wrote: »

I think the whole approach towards the subject of public sector cuts is all wrong. It's got nothing to do with sharing the pain, doing your duty or whether the public sector has it easy, has nice pensions etc etc It's just simple mathematics. The private sector brings the cash in to pay for the public sector. The private sector is taking a beating and that money's just not there anymore. The country's budget needs to be rebalanced. We're spending too much money and just like any other budget, be it personal spending, a family budget, a company budget or a country's budget, the same logic applies. Cut your spending if you can no longer afford it.

20goto10, we might not have agreed before on other topics, but I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
The most salient point in the whole public sector spending cuts is it comes down to budgets in the end.

As I keep asking where will the money come from if we continue as is ?
Cut your cloth etc etc ....

CDfm

jmayo wrote: »

Claiming I sput gibberish is rich coming from someone that believes the public sector are immune to the fallout from the whole mess, no matter who created it.

I don't think making public sector redundant will help but they need to be flexible. In other words they may have to move jobs, to another department or another location and tough shi* no lump sum or perks to go with itand there needs to be a pay cut, starting at the top and working down.
With time admin staff should be drastically trimmed in certain areas i.e. HSE etc.

As I keep asking where will the money come from if we continue as is ?
Cut your cloth etc etc ....

So what needs to be cut.

Take the public service expenses fund - 140E per night plus mileage etc

Unreceipted. It may not be offshore but it sure aint taxed.

Surely this needs a haircut ?

OhNoYouDidn't

CDfm wrote: »

The compelling argument is this.

Using Public Service Jobs as "employment schemes" is not smart. They are non jobs.Paying wages for non jobs is more expensive then dole to unemployed.It should never have happened.

This is serious rubbish. Again, what 'non jobs' are there in the public service? Thats an outrageous thing to alledge.

CDfm wrote: »

No one is saying fire doctors - just ditch the excess.

And what excess is there? There has been a hiring freeze, 5% has been cut from all civil service payrolls.

CDfm wrote: »

Also- benchmarking should be a 2 way street -what went up should come down now the economic climate has changed.

Thats the first sensible thing you have contributed.

LoLth

CDfm wrote: »

So what needs to be cut.

Take the public service expenses fund - 140E per night plus mileage etc

Unreceipted. It may not be offshore but it sure aint taxed.

Surely this needs a haircut ?

just impose the same requirements as the private sector (though having said that I know engineers in the private sector who get a mileage allowance and an overnight allowance unreceipted, as long as the job gets done in the timeframe required, no questions asked).

seriously though, unreceipted expenses is a bit much for any sector. give a stay allowance up to X amount that can be claimed on presentation of a receipt or, have hr make the booking for you. that way, no scamming possible. the benefit of the first option is, if you wan tto stay in a 5 star hotel, you can but the worker foots the difference. if they stay in a friends house there is no receipt so there is no expense to be claimed.

Give a daily subsistance allowance for food etc but make it realistic. no €100 lunches.

I know of one engineer who stayed in a 4 star hotel in cork with free food provided (buffet type thing) and still got €80 for food. all of this was paid for for nearly a month. this was private sector.

both private sector and public sector work so they should be treated the same in terms of expense incurred and taxation on receipts.

as for wage levels. while there is an argument for the average public sector wage being higher, i worked with a 22 year old college graduate (arts) that earned over 150k in her first year (i was on less than 30k after 10 years experience , admittedly in a different discipline). when the boom stopped she was distraught, no more commissions coming in and her basic was "only" 36k. the wage discrepancies occur on both sides of the fence. I am sure there are public servants earning huge salaries but there are also public servants doing a fantastic job , or working away in an environment that no one else wants!, for very low wages. how about we stop tarring the whole work force with the same brush ? I for one never saw any huge benefit from the boom except for the ability to change jobs from one hell hole to another (a benefit not to be underestimated!). I could easily start asking why do I have to share equal responsibility for something I a. didnt do and b. something I've been paying taxes up to now to hopefully shield myself against. I'm not pointing at everyone who works in a bank and screaming "BAS**DS!" at the top of my lungs, or burning bags of poo on the doorsteps of builders and construction workers.

eoinbn

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The best answer to this is from the Times letter page today

....

First things first.

"It would be interesting to know how many in the private sector are willing to work in the evenings and at weekends for no pay."

I don't know a single person, with a permenant position, that gets overtime in the private sector. I am sure there are many, but none of my friends/family do. You get hired to do a job, if you can't do it you get fired.

On the rest of the letter- what am i suppose to feel? This person believes that they shouldn't get a pay-cut because they didn't cause this crisis: true, but 95% of the private sector can say the same thing. How about we get a few letters from workers that are have lost their job, house and who are under so much stress that their family life is falling apart.

Anyway I am little tired of going around in circle. Enjoy the "debate".

jmayo

CDfm wrote: »

So what needs to be cut.

Take the public service expenses fund - 140E per night plus mileage etc

Unreceipted. It may not be offshore but it sure aint taxed.

Surely this needs a haircut ?

Hey CDfm don't be having a go at me, read my posts to see my opinions ...
I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.
The perks for top public servants need to be cut to bits.
Oh BTW politicans are in there for a start.

No golden handshakes as can be seen by ex Fás CEO.
That sly gobsh*** from Offaly, funny there are more than one from that county rather like my own, got a severance package after he RESIGNED ?
Funny I thought resignation meant you were the one walking away rather than being fired, but of course according to some irish public sector/civil service rules he is due big handsome wave goodbye.
Personally a kick in the ar** is what I would give him as parting gift.

Then lets see what that other incompetent gobsh*** Neary gets.

At all levels in public sector there needs to be pay cuts with the biggest chunks going for higher up.
Then there are no bonuses, no remuneration for incoveniences such as moving building or indeed moving to different department or location etc.
I used to think that firing people wholesale would help, but now I think even though deserved by some, it might just add to the jobless figures.

Anyway this thread is going around in circles with some people refusing to believe that the state of our finances is in rag order.
We are up the creek without a paddle, heading towards whitewater, while the government dither at the rudder, all the while throwing lifelines to their sinking old fat cat banker and developer buddies.

CDfm

jmayo wrote: »

Hey CDfm don't be having a go at me, read my posts to see my opinions ...
I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.
The perks for top public servants need to be cut to bits.
Oh BTW politicans are in there for a start.

Sorry if you feel Im having a go.

But Civil servants are hugely overpaid and perks need to be cut - get the slashhooks out.

And politicians - perks too.

They need to trawl through expenses like a plague of locusts leaving devastation in its wake.

They need to proceed then and slash all grants to non government organisations, interest groups and charities etc with no exceptions - from local cub scouts to overseas aid and womens rights to travelers and be totally ruthless.

DublinWriter

CDfm wrote: »

And politicians - perks too.

Let's look at Civil Servant No.1 - Brian Cowan.

He is paid *more* than Barack Omaba. More!

I ask you.

You can't blame public servants for their attitudes, they are only following by example.

johnnyc

CDfm wrote: »

Sorry if you feel Im having a go.

But Civil servants are hugely overpaid and perks need to be cut - get the slashhooks out.

And politicians - perks too.

They need to trawl through expenses like a plague of locusts leaving devastation in its wake.

They need to proceed then and slash all grants to non government organisations, interest groups and charities etc with no exceptions - from local cub scouts to overseas aid and womens rights to travelers and be totally ruthless.

have to agree with you

CDfm

johnnyc wrote: »

have to agree with you

i forgot election expenses -zippo

OhNoYouDidn't

CDfm wrote: »

They need to proceed then and slash all grants to non government organisations, interest groups and charities etc with no exceptions - from local cub scouts to overseas aid and womens rights to travelers and be totally ruthless.

Including homeless shelters, the rape crisis centre, cancer research, suicide prevention etc?

Run along, the grownups are talking.

LoLth

CDfm wrote: »

Sorry if you feel Im having a go.

But Civil servants are hugely overpaid and perks need to be cut - get the slashhooks out.

And politicians - perks too.

They need to trawl through expenses like a plague of locusts leaving devastation in its wake.

They need to proceed then and slash all grants to non government organisations, interest groups and charities etc with no exceptions - from local cub scouts to overseas aid and womens rights to travelers and be totally ruthless.

problem here is, you are looking at the top % of public servants and then applying the same criteria to all public servants.

many public servants dont have any perks beyond those that are part of the current wage structure.

absolutely agree that there should be a drop in politician's wages (at the higher levels) as it is not fair renumeration to cover their potential earnings had they stayed in their pre-politics occupation. But a lot of public servants

- are on less than 40k
- do not get overtime , and if they do it is a long and difficult process
- work flexi time, which does give time in lieu but on a one to one ratio meaning you have to work the hours you take off. its not holiday time.
- get less than 24 days per year holidays , not the 30 or so quoted previously
- do not do overnight trips so there's no allowance there
- do not travel overseas so no junkets or waste of funding there either
- do not receive bonuses , ever, not just in times of economic difficulties
- cannot, legally, recieve gifts from customers or suppliers. even bottles of wine are refused at teh door by security
- do have defined benefit pension but this is actually taken out of the pay packet, its not free and from what I can tell actually costs more than my contributory pension for a lesser (but guaranteed) reward
- contrary to what the independant reports, do actually pay PRSI
- do pay taxes the same as everyone else

the gifts thing might not seem like much but I've worked in a company where the sales agents received ridiculous gifts, one agent received a top gen ipod, an iphone, several boxes containing very very nice wines, holidays, a netbook (one of the asus eee ones when they first came out) and quite a few hampers. this was all in one year and I would almost guarantee that none of it went through the taxman.

If you want to pick top government ministers as the yard stick against which ALL public servants are measured then it would be only fair to use Director Generals or CEOs of top earning corporations as the yard stick to measure all private sector workers by , in which case ZOMG! Death to all capitalist private sector leeching scum of the earth! A great example of the disparity would be last may when the directors of Lisney Auctioneers shared a profit of over 6m euro between them while the staff took a pay cut of 10% as well as reduced working hours, and closure of offices - though there is an argument that this 6m was from the previous year and not the current at the time of the cut.

All i'm saying is please, just stop the stream of vitriol and venom aimed at ALL public sector workers. They arent all evil, they arent all sponging and they arent all lazy seat weights taking breaks every 10 minutes (I know one that doesnt take any breaks at all if he has a choice but has to clock out and in at lunch for hr reasons).

BroomBurner

The only members of the public service that are not asked to receipt their expenses are those in government. ALL other civil servants are required to produce receipts for any expenses.

CDfm, have you ever tried to sit the exams for the civil service?

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

The only members of the public service that are not asked to receipt their expenses are those in government. ALL other civil servants are required to produce receipts for any expenses.

That's not accurate.

When people are away from base on official business they can claim subsistence allowances to cover the cost of meals and accommodation. These are pitched a level that would allow modest comfort, but not luxury. If somebody chooses to stay in a B&B rather than a 2-star hotel, and eat a sandwich rather than a proper lunch, the allowance might exceed the expenditure.

Some civil and public servants manipulate the system to generate an expenses profit. People in the private sector play similar games.

CDfm

BroomBurner wrote: »

The only members of the public service that are not asked to receipt their expenses are those in government. ALL other civil servants are required to produce receipts for any expenses.

CDfm, have you ever tried to sit the exams for the civil service?

Passed them years back and it included Irish.

But passed on it as a carreer choice -too exciting for me:D

CDfm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Including homeless shelters, the rape crisis centre, cancer research, suicide prevention etc?

Run along, the grownups are talking.

ONYD -you are a real advocate for state spending and rhetoric.

However - Ireland is a small open economy and is part of a Federalist European Project. It doesnt have the scope to be all things to all people.So it has to trim costs to exploit whatever comparative advantages it enjoys versus competitor economies in Europe to attract jobs and inward investment.

One could say that as a model it compares to a US state -take california that we all know.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/bleak_californi.html

A budget proposal goes thru and is debated but not along party lines -and a concensus of sorts is reached. So programmes which cant be accomadated are cut.Where you have discretionary funding and applications for funding these should not be just granted as each interest group grabs media headlines for its cause. All such programmes have merit but we cant afford them all.

The other point is as part of the Budget - we are not told anything about EU revenue - fcek -Im an economist and off the top of my head cant tell you if we are a net contributor or net benificiary to Europe -which brings me to my next point.

For example,certain social programmes attract EU grant aid equal to government spending to bring them up to a particular standard -and this could be 100 or 200% on top of state expenditure. Part of our government model and discussion should include these. To give you an example - 100 Euro spent on housing a mentally handicapped person is just that - 100 Euro including a training might be upped to 200 Euro Grant Aid plus 100 Euro on top if the programmme involves innovation. So 1 bn euro spent in the wrong way can cost you 2 bn in EU funding in grant aid -a crazy sarcrifice.

THis might be basic to you - but if our parlimentarians are more concerned with a footpath in Bohola Co Roscommon - thats not grown up and its not running the country in the National Interest.

Now Civil Servants do have "power" and allegences to particular lobby groups and interest groups (as do politicians) and their allegences will have a huge influence on who gets what . So a lot of expenditure is back door. We need to eliminate this from our thinking and be clear thinking in our national goals.

So Nationally and Politically - clear initiatives need to be in place -just like McSharry and co did years back.

Thats why Im saying cut all expenditure not in the national interest -it needs to be brutal to get the point home and effect change. Dealing with the public service unions nurses etc should always be covered by the principles -can we afford it, is it what we want and is this use of our limited resourses in the national interest.

So if there is a particular level of funding we can afford lets prioritise it -fine some will suffer - but hey it will make them fundraise more effectively. I dont see why a Civil Servants or Politicians hobby horse should get funding at the expense of a programme in the national interest. Do you?

OhNoYouDidn't

CDfm wrote: »

ONYD -you are a real advocate for state spending and rhetoric.

However - Ireland is a small open economy and is part of a Federalist European Project. It doesnt have the scope to be all things to all people.So it has to trim costs to exploit whatever comparative advantages it enjoys versus competitor economies in Europe to attract jobs and inward investment.

One could say that as a model it compares to a US state -take california that we all know.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/bleak_californi.html

A budget proposal goes thru and is debated but not along party lines -and a concensus of sorts is reached. So programmes which cant be accomadated are cut.Where you have discretionary funding and applications for funding these should not be just granted as each interest group grabs media headlines for its cause. All such programmes have merit but we cant afford them all.

The other point is as part of the Budget - we are not told anything about EU revenue - fcek -Im an economist and off the top of my had cant tell you if we are a net contributor or net benificiary to Europe -which brings me to my next point.

For example,certain social programmes attract EU grant aid equal to government spending to bring them up to a particular standard -and this could be 100 or 200% on top of state expenditure. Part of our government model and discussion should include these. To give you an example - 100 Euro spent on housing a mentally handicapped person is just that - 100 Euro including a training might be upped to 200 Euro Grant Aid plus 100 Euro on top if the programmme involves innovation.

THis might be basic to you - but if our parlimentarians are more concerned with a footpath in Bohola Co Roscommon - thats not grown up and its not running the country.

Now Civil Servants do have "power" and allegences to particular lobby groups and interest groups as do politicians. So a lot of expenditure is back door. We need to eliminate this from our thinking and be clear thinking in our national goals.

So Nationally and Politically - clear initiatives need to be in place -just like McSharry and co did years back.

Thats why Im saying cut all expenditure not in the national interest -it needs to be brutal to get the point home and effect change. Dealing with the public service unions nurses etc should always be covered by the principles -can we afford it, is it what we want and is this use of our limited resourses in the national interest.

Lets just be clear here - you are advocating copying the Californian model of budgeting (currently trying to cover the hole that makes our exchequer figures look like pocket money) and end funding for projects like homeless shelters, addiction councelling, rape crisis, cancer funding while admitting you have no idea whether Ireland is a contributer to the EU or not.

You won't be too offended if I chose to ignore your opinion as completly irreleveant, will you?

BroomBurner

CDfm wrote: »

Passed them years back and it included Irish.

But passed on it as a carreer choice -too exciting for me:D

So you gave up the option of working for the civil service and now you're working 9am to 11pm shifts? :rolleyes:

CDfm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Lets just be clear here - you are advocating copying the Californian model of budgeting (currently trying to cover the hole that makes our exchequer figures look like pocket money) and end funding for projects like homeless shelters, addiction councelling, rape crisis, cancer funding while admitting you have no idea whether Ireland is a contributer to the EU or not.

You won't be too offended if I chose to ignore your opinion as completly irreleveant, will you?

I am saying that there is an ethos and logic that you get in sophisticated systems.Its not the numbers you look at its the level of responibility.

If the voters vote for higher spending and taxes thats what they get. If individual politicians promote costly and expensive proposals that are adopted from whatever party it comes up at election time.:cool:

If on the other hand you choose and accept the third world model you have thats cool - but its puts you in with the same decision making model as Zimbabwe.;)

I am not offended that you ignore my opinion.