Post Cowen Plan debate:

bohsfc

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, it doesn't.

Take of the Public Sector glasses for a sec.

This:The core finding was that on average, public servants earned 13% cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis in 2001.

does not mean what you have interpreted it as.


Look, I'm not trying to make out they are overpaid etc. Just pointing out this perception that they are underpaid is simply untrue. Union propaganda that is outdated politics.

I would never say that I am underpaid now (simply on an average wage) but before benchmarking I and most public servants were, hence the need for benchmarking.

And now thanks to years of FF F**k ups, bad bank management and builders creaming it, we all have to suffer drastically in our finances.

Dr Galen

so how then do we get rid of Cowen etc then?

bohsfc

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

so how then do we get rid of Cowen etc then?

Looking at him lately I don't think we will have to do anything. He will do it all by himself.:D

K-9

bohsfc wrote: »

I would never say that I am underpaid now (simply on an average wage)

The quote says you wheren't underpaid in 01.

Benchmarking was a scam and based on bubble tax receipts. We couldn't afford it as many pointed out and that has shown to be correct.

If it wasn't introduced, maybe the levy could have been avoided?

irish_bob

bohsfc wrote: »

I would never say that I am underpaid now (simply on an average wage) but before benchmarking I and most public servants were, hence the need for benchmarking.

And now thanks to years of FF F**k ups, bad bank management and builders creaming it, we all have to suffer drastically in our finances.

believe what you like , anyone with any sense knows that benchmarking was nothing but a vote buying exercise orchestrated by the great populists bertie aherne

Mr.Micro

irish_bob wrote: »

believe what you like , anyone with any sense knows that benchmarking was nothing but a vote buying exercise orchestrated by the great populists bertie aherne

That's just it, 2 elections bought, benchmarking, social partners, increased childrens allowances, medical cards for the the elderly without condition...... and none of the above costed for the long term. Some of this has to have contributed to our poor state of finances and many have come to rely upon the extra allowances. I wonder do FF think now it was worth it?

the groutch

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That's just it, 2 elections bought, benchmarking, social partners, increased childrens allowances, medical cards for the the elderly without condition...... and none of the above costed for the long term. Some of this has to have contributed to our poor state of finances and many have come to rely upon the extra allowances. I wonder do FF think now it was worth it?

the real "election buying imo was the reduction of PAYE rates, from 27% & 48% to 20% and 41% now, which of course is a progressive tax, making the rich richer, and the poor poorer

imagine how much extra FF would be getting raking in when they need it if the PAYE rates were a couple of % higher

Lovin' It

The Government is also working to significantly improve access for
unemployed persons to job search, training and education, and employment
programmes. Relevant Ministers and their Departments are working together
to maximise opportunities for up-skilling and re-skilling so that people
will be better placed to avail of new job opportunities where they become
available.


Just a snippet of what was in his speech, any substance to this yet? or what is to come off this?

are they going to open up college places for unemployed or lower prices for upskilling courses?

nesf

the groutch wrote: »

the real "election buying imo was the reduction of PAYE rates, from 27% & 48% to 20% and 41% now, which of course is a progressive tax, making the rich richer, and the poor poorer

I agree it makes the rich richer, but how does reducing taxes make the poor poorer? (Unless you're automatically assuming a reduction in payments to them as well, which wasn't the case, FF used "fair weather tax revenue" to fund the tax cuts so the poor weren't getting their benefits cut)

I agree with you that part of our present problem came from this process of cutting PAYE because of temporary tax streams from construction etc.

nesf

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That's just it, 2 elections bought, benchmarking, social partners, increased childrens allowances, medical cards for the the elderly without condition...... and none of the above costed for the long term. Some of this has to have contributed to our poor state of finances and many have come to rely upon the extra allowances. I wonder do FF think now it was worth it?

You'll find, if you look at other countries, that FF aren't atypical with this. When the tax revenues are booming, politicians love to spread the wealth around through increased welfare payments, tax credits for "preferred industries" and similar schemes. It doesn't excuse it or anything but politicians as a breed are notorious for having a short term (read: until the next election) time horizon when it comes to making decisions.

The central problem is that in times of plenty it's extremely hard to get people to accept cuts in anything. The excess revenue should have been channelled into capital projects rather than current expenditure but that's both easy to say with hindsight and a hell of a lot more difficult to do in practice when bluntly there are so many worthy (and unworthy) causes crying out for funding.

DublinWriter

truthflyer wrote: »

What is this myth among PS workers that everyone in the private sector got rich and rolled in the cash during the Celtic Tiger years?...Let's stick to facts, not union propaganda.

It's almost like a civil war-esque chasm has now opened in society.

But I do agree with you that the whole "shure you private-sector lads were coining it in during the Celtic Tiger years" argument is pure bunk. What we had then was temporal job security, nothing else.

People in the public sector have permanent job-security no matter what the outside economic climate is.

As a self employed director of my own company, I a) pay PRSI, yet cannot claim the dole should my work dry up and b) am not entitled to a PAYE tax-credit, yet for all intents-and-purposes I am a PAYE tax-payer.

If you think that the public sector pension levy was harsh, well I have news for you friend, you ain't seen nothing yet. It hardly even addressed the total €18bn deficit this country is running.

We're in such economic dire-straits as a country that I don't even think public jobs are safe anymore. This pension-levy was just so-much tinkering around with a scalpel. Just wait 'till the axe is produced.

Sand

politicians as a breed are notorious for having a short term (read: until the next election) time horizon when it comes to making decisions.

Interesting point - How do you combat that? More elections but for 2 or 3 constituencies at a time rather than a general election? Or some sort of handicap or clawback system on voting results in future general elections?

The first might keep the government in permament election mode, the 2nd would be very hard to judge objectively as people will value a government based on different values - did they balance the budget? create jobs? boost GDP? advance some social cause? some other nationalist issue?

Trusting the people to judge and reward or punish government seems not to be working so well as people tend to be the least economically or politically informed and are the targets of the governments bribes....

*Honey*

DublinWriter wrote: »

People in the public sector have permanent job-security no matter what the outside economic climate is.

Bunkum.. sorry but this isn't true. My place has already has one round of cuts, some people I would have worked with last year I don't work with this year. I spent the afternoon in a meeting to hear what management has planned to deal with the payroll cuts that have been handed down to us by our Department. Don't fool yourself that we are untouchable - we aren't.

amacachi

Sand wrote: »

Interesting point - How do you combat that? More elections but for 2 or 3 constituencies at a time rather than a general election? Or some sort of handicap or clawback system on voting results in future general elections?

The first might keep the government in permament election mode, the 2nd would be very hard to judge objectively as people will value a government based on different values - did they balance the budget? create jobs? boost GDP? advance some social cause? some other nationalist issue?

Trusting the people to judge and reward or punish government seems not to be working so well as people tend to be the least economically or politically informed and are the targets of the governments bribes....

Therein lie the problems with democracy. Firstly, the elctorate are idiots. Secondly, no matter how well-intentioned a government is, they need to stay in power to make changes which take a while, and the time it takes to make the changes makes them unpopular and the next lot come along.
Or ya get a bunch of money-hungry lads in who idiots keep voting in.

The next few years should be good craic here anyway, can't really see how any government can get us out of this mess without a lot of striking and whinging from a lot of quarters.

nesf

Sand wrote: »

Interesting point - How do you combat that? More elections but for 2 or 3 constituencies at a time rather than a general election? Or some sort of handicap or clawback system on voting results in future general elections?

The first might keep the government in permament election mode, the 2nd would be very hard to judge objectively as people will value a government based on different values - did they balance the budget? create jobs? boost GDP? advance some social cause? some other nationalist issue?

Trusting the people to judge and reward or punish government seems not to be working so well as people tend to be the least economically or politically informed and are the targets of the governments bribes....

Well, one approach is the American system with a rotation of elections so that not all seats come up at once. You still have "budgets" primed towards the election cycle but not to the same extent as we have with our unicameral all in one go approach. If you look at when the Early Childcare Scheme and the Medical cards for pensioners were brought in I assure you it wasn't just after an election. Ditto with the timing of the SSIA payouts.

Essentially you can't trust people to repay good governance because it's rather easy to buy a sufficient majority to keep you in power when times are good, a la with FF in the last decade and a bit. But there was nothing unusual about this, Blair's Labour essentially did the same thing and if you look at history it's essentially a given that politicians in Government if they have a surplus distribute it in the most vote maximising fashion rather than the most efficient one from a national perspective.

The electorate are also much more amenable to something like a welfare increase or tax cut that benefits them than national schemes that are good for the country as a whole. TDs who spend too much time away from their home constituency generally pay for it at election time, again a problem with the system rather than politicians, they don't have much of a choice for playing parish pump politics because if they don't they won't be returned.


The key problem is that while a technocracy or benevolent dictator works better in principle it historically generally doesn't because absolute power does indeed corrupt and when you are not facing elections it can be very easy to screw over large groups of society. Representative democracy essentially suffers from vote buying, the advantage of it over other systems is that in a democracy they're buying the people's vote so at least the people benefit from it. As long as we have representative democracy, politicians will endeavour to purchase votes by tuning the tax system, welfare transfers or whatever. You can't get rid of this any more than you can get rid of people abusing the welfare state, but in both cases it's worth it given the alternatives (i.e. dictatorship or removing the welfare state).


Shortening the election cycle does keep the Government in election mode all the time which is problematic because it reduces the amount of time that can be spent on national or international issues. It most certainly has advantages in that people don't have to wait five years to change the government which is a good thing but equally it can be a bad thing because of the people getting this power (stability is a boon and strengthens Government positions at the bargaining table with special interests, though it also invites more corruption).



If I had to give an idea to make things better I'd recommend a second house a la the American system with fewer representatives from much bigger constituencies on a completely different election cycle to the Dáil. In theory, these people could stop the worst of the parish pump politics and encourage a bigger picture view, but in practice this will delay the speed with which legislation moves through the Government which is can be very awkward with contentious or controversial issues.

amacachi

nesf wrote: »

If I had to give an idea to make things better I'd recommend a second house a la the American system with fewer representatives from much bigger constituencies on a completely different election cycle to the Dáil. In theory, these people could stop the worst of the parish pump politics and encourage a bigger picture view, but in practice this will delay the speed with which legislation moves through the Government which is can be very awkward with contentious or controversial issues.

While not a bad idea at first glance, I really don't think we need more government.

nesf

amacachi wrote: »

While not a bad idea at first glance, I really don't think we need more government.

Yeah, but are the excesses of the unicameral system worth the efficiency gain with respect to getting legislation passed? For instance, I think one could argue that the Taoiseach has far too much unchecked power in this country (a legacy good ol Dev left us). So long as he has a party majority in the house he can pass whatever legislation he wants and all the Opposition can do is twiddle their thumbs and come up with sound bites for the media.

The checks and balances of the American system are something very much not in evidence here.

amacachi

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but are the excesses of the unicameral system worth the efficiency gain with respect to getting legislation passed? For instance, I think one could argue that the Taoiseach has far too much unchecked power in this country (a legacy good ol Dev left us). So long as he has a party majority in the house he can pass whatever legislation he wants and all the Opposition can do is twiddle their thumbs and come up with sound bites for the media.

The checks and balances of the American system are something very much not in evidence here.

I'm not even sayin the unicameral is needed, but when you look at the amount of "posts" and titles given out to TDs it's ridiculous. The Seanad should be used for checks and balances but is nothing but a waste of money. Even if we had a minority coalition party who would stick to some of their principles it would be a help

nesf

amacachi wrote: »

I'm not even sayin the unicameral is needed, but when you look at the amount of "posts" and titles given out to TDs it's ridiculous. The Seanad should be used for checks and balances but is nothing but a waste of money. Even if we had a minority coalition party who would stick to some of their principles it would be a help

Essentially the Seanad was neutered by DeV. When there's no political balance against the Taoiseach then a huge expansion of posts and titles is inevitable. Seriously does anyone even this it's a good idea that the number of Junior Ministers is solely decided by the Taoiseach?

amacachi

nesf wrote: »

Essentially the Seanad was neutered by DeV. When there's no political balance against the Taoiseach then a huge expansion of posts and titles is inevitable. Seriously does anyone even this it's a good idea that the number of Junior Ministers is solely decided by the Taoiseach?

I'm sure the Taoiseach does