This "Social Partnership" Rubbish

K-9

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its on the table.

There has been a visceral reaction from the Irish right (who rather perversely are emboldneded by the mess that inevitably stemmed from their policies) towords the public sector unions that has no basis in what is actually happening in the real world.

We need less ideological chest thumping and more practical solutions to get us out of this mess.

I would hope so. Personally seeing as Benchmarking was a sham in the first place, the awards should be rescinded.

OhNoYouDidn't

El Stuntman wrote: »

incorrect

EU inflation for year ending December 2008 was 1.6%

Irish CPI was 1.1% as at same time

at least try to get your facts right, it makes for a better argument

Fair cop, I haden't caught the Dec figures.

But my point stands. taking public sector pay in isolation in an EU comparison is statistical vandalism.

El Stuntman

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

We need less ideological chest thumping and more practical solutions to get us out of this mess.

okey dokey seeing as you are saying we need practical solutions, answer me these questions:

1. what is the EBR likely to be for this fiscal year?

2. what's it likely to be next year?

3. on the basis of your answers to 1 and 2 above, how do you propose to fund these deficits?

OhNoYouDidn't

Seanies32 wrote: »

I would hope so. Personally seeing as Benchmarking was a sham in the first place, the awards should be rescinded.

they cant be recinded because they are legally binding. But the unions appear to be willing to concede in the national interest.

lets hope IBEC do the same.....

OhNoYouDidn't

El Stuntman wrote: »

okey dokey seeing as you are saying we need practical solutions, answer me these questions:

1. what is the EBR likely to be for this fiscal year?

2. what's it likely to be next year?

3. on the basis of your answers to 1 and 2 above, how do you propose to fund these deficits?

tax the rich :pac:

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

JO'C is a member of the labour party, so save the red scare nonsense. He criticised Ryanairs employment rghts record (imagine that, from a union...), not the idea of Ryanair.

Seems to me that your objection to JO'C and SIPTU is simply that they are effective in getting what they want for their members.

Soory to tell you, but like the Green Party, the Labour Party has two factions. One is the credible wing of Gilmore, and Rabbittee, who have taken the Labour Party towards the centre left. On the other hand you have your faction of democratic socialists, socialists, communists. O Conner sits in the second catagory, and in fact he leads it. He is a man prone to a solo run, and Labour are not his biggest fans.

He has criticised Ryanair as an entity before. I recall him doing it on Questions and Answers.

I have no objection to SIPTU, other than their belligerance. As a result of this, they are not effective in getting what they want for their members. In fact they are not despised because of the purported (by you) effectiveness, but because of their tactics. You must be a member, otherwise you would not be defending them so vociferously

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Soory to tell you, but like the Green Party, the Labour Party has two factions. One is the credible wing of Gilmore, and Rabbittee, who have taken the Labour Party towards the centre left. On the other hand you have your faction of democratic socialists, socialists, communists. O Conner sits in the second catagory, and in fact he leads it. He is a man prone to a solo run, and Labour are not his biggest fans.

I love a good conspiracy theory, but this isn't one. The Militant Tendency is alive and well on your planet obviously.

When were Labour ever not in the centre left position?

Het-Field wrote: »

He has criticised Ryanair as an entity before. I recall him doing it on Questions and Answers.

How exactly did he do that?

Het-Field wrote: »

I have no objection to SIPTU, other than their belligerance. As a result of this, they are not effective in getting what they want for their members. In fact they are not despised because of the purported (by you) effectiveness, but because of their tactics. You must be a member, otherwise you would not be defending them so vociferously

Vociferously? I havent defended them at all. Just asked you to clarify some of the wild theories you have spouted.

You are contradicting yourself there, they 'hold the country to ransom' and forced Bertie to axe Willie Walshe, but are not effective. Well, what is it?

El Stuntman

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

tax the rich :pac:

ah come on, you are only too willing to bash everyone else's solutions - let's see what you've got to put on the table!

answer the questions; your credibility is on the line....

OhNoYouDidn't

El Stuntman wrote: »

ah come on, you are only too willing to bash everyone else's solutions - let's see what you've got to put on the table!

answer the questions; your credibility is on the line....

1: Redundancies in the HSE administration - should have been done on the merger of the health boards.

2: A third PAYE bracket of 50% on all marginal earnings over 100k

3: Dramatic increase in tax on car engines over 2l.

4: Vat tinkering - 50c onto smokes, tax fizzy drinks and fast food. A €50 levy on home broadband.

5: A audit of 'tax exiles'. If they are living in Dublin but have offshored to Malta give them a choice. Pay your tax or forefit your passport.

El Stuntman

well at least you have some ideas....how much would each of these proposals bring in though?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

1: Redundancies in the HSE administration - should have been done on the merger of the health boards.

I fully agree.

This proposal is hardly original though and plans are already under way to achieve this. There will actually be a cost increase in the year of implementation due to paying out all of the tasty severance packages.

Next!

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

2: A third PAYE bracket of 50% on all marginal earnings over 100k

OK so this would be a marginal increase of 9% on each income over 100k.

How much would this bring in?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

3: Dramatic increase in tax on car engines over 2l.

How much is 'dramatic'? 50%? 100%?

How much would this bring in?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

4: Vat tinkering - 50c onto smokes, tax fizzy drinks and fast food. A €50 levy on home broadband.

I quite like this, a kind of 'polluter pays' principle whereby we recoup some of the healthcare costs that these products cause. I'd actually jack up the levy on fags by €5 per packet.

How much would this bring in?

Don't like the home broadband levy. We are trying to encourage people to take up broadband not disincentivise them. They already pay VAT on their broadband fees anyway. This is a terrible idea imo.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

5: A audit of 'tax exiles'. If they are living in Dublin but have offshored to Malta give them a choice. Pay your tax or forefit your passport.

aka the 'Denis O'Brien' tax

how many of these tax exiles are there?

how much would you charge them for the privilege of retaining their passport? their income is already offshore as are their assets.

how much would this bring in?


You see, the problem I have with your proposals is that they are wooly and non-costed. They're also somewhat populist and aimed to appeal to the man in the street without any thought for consequences. They also focus mainly on the revenue side of the fiscal equation whereas any viable solution will have to be aimed primarily at the expediture side as that is where the fat is.

hobochris

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

1: Redundancies in the HSE administration - should have been done on the merger of the health boards.

2: A third PAYE bracket of 50% on all marginal earnings over 100k

3: Dramatic increase in tax on car engines over 2l.

4: Vat tinkering - 50c onto smokes, tax fizzy drinks and fast food. A €50 levy on home broadband.

5: A audit of 'tax exiles'. If they are living in Dublin but have offshored to Malta give them a choice. Pay your tax or forefit your passport.

I agree with all the above EXCEPT 4.

I think this would a step backwards, Broadband is more then a luxury for some people, some people need it for other things besides entertainment, some people require it to make a living, don't see why these people should be punished.

If we are trying to create a knowledge based economy then this would be a step backwards, personally I feel that we should have a roll out of fiber-optic lines as standard throughout the country it would defiantly be a step towards more attractive infrastructure for foreign investors.

There is an opportunity here to improve our infrastructure now that the economy has slowed down; we should work on IT infrastructure & our Transport network.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I love a good conspiracy theory, but this isn't one. The Militant Tendency is alive and well on your planet obviously.

When were Labour ever not in the centre left position?



How exactly did he do that?



Vociferously? I havent defended them at all. Just asked you to clarify some of the wild theories you have spouted.

You are contradicting yourself there, they 'hold the country to ransom' and forced Bertie to axe Willie Walshe, but are not effective. Well, what is it?

Christ, the Irish politicos have short memories. If you recall, Bertie was in the lap of the Unions. This move was not down to SIPTU effectiveness, it was down to Bertie's weakness.

Just because Higgins and Daly are gone from Labour, doesnt mean that heavy left wing factions dont exist. Look at Labour Youth, They are hardly reflective of the average member of the party.

I remember a time where Labour were pushing the tax and spend model which stagnated the economy. Few economists ever credit Labour with much, and very few ever join them.

All I recall was O Conner condeming the existence of Ryanair. He is a trot through and through, and alongside Patricia King have limited ideas on what a union should do (Strike or more money) Its a ideological thing with these guys.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

1: Redundancies in the HSE administration - should have been done on the merger of the health boards.

2: A third PAYE bracket of 50% on all marginal earnings over 100k

3: Dramatic increase in tax on car engines over 2l.

4: Vat tinkering - 50c onto smokes, tax fizzy drinks and fast food. A €50 levy on home broadband.

5: A audit of 'tax exiles'. If they are living in Dublin but have offshored to Malta give them a choice. Pay your tax or forefit your passport.

The words "Drop in the Ocean" come to mind.

The HSE is not the only organ within the public service which must be down sized. It will lead to the creation of a decent chunk of change...but nowhere near what we need.

Increasing VAT and Income Tax together has failed. The third tax band will have the same effect. We saw it over the Christmas time. Stealth taxes should be accompnied with a VAT reduction, or VAT should be accompanied with no stealth taxes/levy. An increase in taxation does not guarantee an increase in tax revenue. Furthermore, by taking more money away from the public, it ensures that jobs will go, as those in the private sector will not get the business. Keep the ecnomy working is what I say.


What needs to be done

-Public Sector Pay Freeze
-Scrap the Green's Carbon Tax which will exacerbate our anti competitiveness.
-Revaluate the Minimum wage while ensuring that at no point is the Dole a more profitable living
-The Sale of the Government 15 % Stake in Aer Lingus
-The Splitting of CIE into two companies/Full Privitisation
-Abolition of Motor Tax, and place higher VAT on petrol
-Abolish Town Councils/Downsize County Councils
-Work with Nuclear Power (Our Cheap and Clean alternative source, and would create employment)
-Privitise the ESB, while mainitaining ownership of the grid.
-Reduction in Foreign Aid (Im not being callous, but it is not working properly )
-Seek Corporate Funding for our 3rd Level Institutions.
-The Gradual letting go of Anglo Irish Bank (the govt better not be trying to make it work again, it wont happen and will just create a greater Burden)

I doubt they will cover any of the trouble that we are reputed to be in. However, these measures would go some way to reducing unemployment, reducing anti competiveness and would mitigate the problems which were created by past governments

OhNoYouDidn't

hobochris wrote: »

I agree with all the above EXCEPT 4.

I think this would a step backwards, Broadband is more then a luxury for some people, some people need it for other things besides entertainment, some people require it to make a living, don't see why these people should be punished.

If we are trying to create a knowledge based economy then this would be a step backwards, personally I feel that we should have a roll out of fiber-optic lines as standard throughout the country it would defiantly be a step towards more attractive infrastructure for foreign investors.

There is an opportunity here to improve our infrastructure now that the economy has slowed down; we should work on IT infrastructure & our Transport network.

then it wouldn't be home broadband, would it.....

thebman

A 50 euro levy on home broadband would be moronic TBH. We already pay the highest line rental in Europe for one of the worst services due to sh*t regulator that does nothing for the people but gets paid a fortune.

People need broadband to work from home, find a job, learn and retrain online is available and utilised by many.

Obama is pumping money into IT, it will be the next industry to take off as a result and there will opportunites for us to attract investment.

Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot? We need to invest in IT infrastructure badly and the NBS is a joke project worthy of the joker himself pushing it.

The government have done nothing for broadband business or home users for 10 years. What possible justification is there for a levy on it? It is basically an essential service that can be utilized to reduce costs.

Why not move more government services online? Some of them already are. Since the government have made broadband a necessity to access some of their services and since it is useful for a range of other services that would help people that are unemployed or working, what possible justification is there for a levy on it?

ArmaniJeanss

El Stuntman wrote: »

I'd actually jack up the levy on fags by €5 per packet.

How much would this bring in?

Why not up the excise on each packet to €1Billion? Then the countries problems would be solved after the sale of a couple of dozen packets of cigarettes.

Obviously this is flawed mathematics but your €5 excise increase is flawed for the same reason.

There is a limit to how much you can increase cigarette excise duty by, and also increase the revenue (or at least keep it constant).

Various governments/financial institutions have done mathemetical models for this and its estimated that the max increase in the overall price of a packet should be about 10-12% per year. (given that its a stable enomony with inflation between 1->5%).
Anything more of an increase and you lose revenue, either by increased smuggling or people giving up.

El Stuntman

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Why not up the excise on each packet to €1Billion? Then the countries problems would be solved after the sale of a couple of dozen packets of cigarettes.

Obviously this is flawed mathematics but your €5 excise increase is flawed for the same reason.

There is a limit to how much you can increase cigarette excise duty by, and also increase the revenue (or at least keep it constant).

Various governments/financial institutions have done mathemetical models for this and its estimated that the max increase in the overall price of a packet should be about 10-12% per year. (given that its a stable enomony with inflation between 1->5%).
Anything more of an increase and you lose revenue, either by increased smuggling or people giving up.

this is the aim of the measure!

how much does smoking cost the state in healthcare costs every year?

also taxes foregone from cancer victims dying early?

I would argue that it's sound economic and health policy to make cigarette smoking prohibitively expensive

ArmaniJeanss

El Stuntman wrote: »

this is the aim of the measure!

how much does smoking cost the state in healthcare costs every year?

also taxes foregone from cancer victims dying early?

I would argue that it's sound economic and health policy to make cigarette smoking prohibitively expensive

Fair enough, I was (and thought you were) looking at it from the point of view of increasing revenue.

Its very hard to quantify how much in health terms an economy would save if smoking was reduced whereas its simple mathematics to work out how much taxation revenue is lost if smoking is reduced by x% each year.
Also any health savings will tend to be in a generations or 2 time whereas the income deficit will be now, so its tough to find any government that will think in those long terms.

My original but wacky idea is to ban shops from selling cigarettes to all people born after the 1st Jan 2008, with harsh penalties for any outlet breaking this.
So within 3/4 generations we no longer have a smoking problem, we start getting the health service benefit within 2 generations, but in the meantime it gives the governments at least 25 years to work out how to cope with the revenue reductions.

Het-Field

El Stuntman wrote: »

this is the aim of the measure!

how much does smoking cost the state in healthcare costs every year?

also taxes foregone from cancer victims dying early?

I would argue that it's sound economic and health policy to make cigarette smoking prohibitively expensive

The same must apply to petrol, especially if we wish to do something effective to promote the environment, in conjunction motor tax must be scrapped. This would encourage people to drive much less. However, with cigarettes it cannot be so expensive that a black market comes into existence, and sucks any decent revenue out of the measure.

Boggle

this is the aim of the measure!

Stop interfering in peoples lives beyond what you have a right to do. Either ban it on medical grounds or on't but stop treating smokers as printing presses.

Actually, then we could ban coke, fast food and sport and save on all that cost!!

God I hate this nannny state mentality!
/rant

murphaph

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Would you be willing to benchmark private sector pay too?

FFS! Private sector pay 'benchmarks' itself! If it costs too much, employers close and move elsewhere!

Cowan and all his 'partnership' predecessors are COWARDS and should end this affront to democracy called 'partnership'. Public servants (if they have ANY brains) would stay quiet and be happy they have secure jobs if Cowan told them partnership was over and they were all taking a 20% pay cut immediately.

Bausch & Lomb today announced its staff will be on short time with 1 week in 4 being unpaid for the next 6 months at least. I bet the Bausch and Lomb staff are happier to keep their jobs than be on the dole however! The public sector seem totally unaware of what is happening in the 'real world'.

Harolds+

Anyone who earns less than 40k should not have their taxes increased.

Why?

Because it was these people who SPENT money in the Irish economy. They spent it on their famileis, friends and themselves. They couldn't afford to invest in properties and kept the Irish economy moving. Anyone over 40k didn't contribute. They SAVED, RISKED and LOST money

People over 40k SHOULD be taxed - simple as !

Now the big earners want the average Irish person to retain their lifestlye but do this by taxing everyone

PS Leave the public and civil service alone (but go for the income earners as per above)

Nermal

Harolds+ wrote: »

I earn 40K

.

K-9

Harolds+ wrote: »

Anyone who earns less than 40k should not have their taxes increased.

Why?

Because it was these people who SPENT money in the Irish economy. They spent it on their famileis, friends and themselves. They couldn't afford to invest in properties and kept the Irish economy moving. Anyone over 40k didn't contribute. They SAVED, RISKED and LOST money

People over 40k SHOULD be taxed - simple as !

Now the big earners want the average Irish person to retain their lifestlye but do this by taxing everyone

PS Leave the public and civil service alone (but go for the income earners as per above)

Thing is, people under 40k aren't taxed highly compared to a lot of countries.

What they'll do is not increase tax credits, so they'll get them that way.

It's also unfair if a couple has an income of €80,000.

Harolds+

Nermal wrote: »

.

Do your patriotic duty, pal : )

Harolds+

Seanies32 wrote: »

Thing is, people under 40k aren't taxed highly compared to a lot of countries.

What they'll do is not increase tax credits, so they'll get them that way.

It's also unfair if a couple has an income of €80,000.

Of course everything is relative but there are people who live very modest lives but have amassed a fortune through 2+ homes and investments worth millions that you and me know nothing about!!

I know a fella who wore the same clothes dating back to the early 90's. He drove a 3 series 03D BMW and lived a very simple life. But behind it all he owned SCORES of home and spent NOTHING

He lost €8 million in Anglo (he will never get that back) - disgusting GREED and these are the people the Govt PROTECT !! He hasn't lost it all as he has rental income to look forward to.

K-9

Harolds+ wrote: »

Of course everything is relative but there are people who live very modest lives but have amassed a fortune through 2+ homes and investments worth millions that you and me know nothing about!!

I know a fella who wore the same clothes dating back to the early 90's. He drove a 3 series 03D BMW and lived a very simple life. But behind it all he owned SCORES of home and spent NOTHING

He lost €8 million in Anglo (he will never get that back) - disgusting GREED and these are the people the Govt PROTECT !! He hasn't lost it all as he has rental income to look forward to.

LOL That is his choice, he made some good decisions some bad.

At least he didn't waste it on new motors like many complaining about the 1% Income levy!

It's all relative.

DublinWriter

El Stuntman wrote: »

I would argue that it's sound economic and health policy to make cigarette smoking prohibitively expensive

I love it when this argument comes up.

Marianne Finnucane had a leading Actuary on her show round about the time of the smoking ban, so you know I'm not making this up!

He said that smokers actually contribute more as smoking related diseases tend to be terminal and happen in the mid-60's just when people are starting to come into their state-pensionable years and start becoming a drain on the state.

Regarding costing being a drain on the health system - as I said, smoking related diseases tend to be fatal. Most of us are going to suffer from a fatal disease and require expensive palliative care at the end of our lives, smokers or not.

Smoking is now a side issue - you're probably be more of a drain on the health system in years to come via obesity if you live a sedentary lifestyle and sit on your arse behind a computer for more than 4 hours a day.

Harolds+

Come on now

This fella is the biggest social misfit to walk the earth. He has nobody to come home to ; he never lived his life at all. He can't even hug his €8 million anymore : D

I think if I made 3 million, I would take it easy and enjoy life.

Remember : Investments carry risks !

There are people out there who are obsessed with making money, causing cutbacks, cutting corners etc to make more money. This mentality is more than wrong and is exactly why we are in this mess now.

Its time for the Govt to seriously think whose heads should roll and to chase the people WITH the money and not the people who hope to pay their mortgages, bills etc

The Banksters and Investors who caused this mess should pay - fair and square - FOR A START!

K-9

Harolds+ wrote: »

Come on now

This fella is the biggest social misfit to walk the earth. He has nobody to come home to ; he never lived his life at all. He can't even hug his €8 million anymore : D

I think if I made 3 million, I would take it easy and enjoy life.

Remember : Investments carry risks !

There are people out there who are obsessed with making money, causing cutbacks, cutting corners etc to make more money. This mentality is more than wrong and is exactly why we are in this mess now.

Its time for the Govt to seriously think whose heads should roll and to chase the people WITH the money and not the people who hope to pay their mortgages, bills etc

The Banksters and Investors who caused this mess should pay - fair and square - FOR A START!

Ah we'll hit him with a few million.

The majority of workers earn less than 40k so your plans would prove popular with politicians, but it isn't going to raise enough.

The highest limit should be the average industrial wage, about 35k or so. Even then it might not raise enough unless you drastically increase taxes. With a declining private sector and less people earning over 100k, that mightn't be a great idea.