Public Sector Unions to Take Action

Euro_Kraut

The Economist wrote: »

The Exchequer, i.e. private sector taxation.

Ah Economist... You know thats not true.

The Exchequer is made up of income tax (paid by both public and private sector) as well as a host on indirect taxes (such as VAT) that everybody pays - not to mention Corporate tax. Particularly in Ireland over the past few years the Exchequer has been very reliant on source outside of income tax.

But I bet you know that (I've read your posts and you know your stuff to be fair) and this debate tends to bring the black and white out in all of us.

*Actually it is a big bearer of mine when people refer to tax payers as being only those who pay income tax. Students, pensioner and even children pay VAT. In any case a Government exists for 'Citizens' and not taxpayers.

nesf

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Ah Economist... You know thats not true.

The Exchequer is made up of income tax (paid by both public and private sector) as well as a host on indirect taxes (such as VAT) that everybody pays - not to mention Corporate tax. Particularly in Ireland over the past few years the Exchequer has been very reliant on source outside of income tax.

Actually private sector taxation would consist of all those since essentially anything not in the public sector is considered to be in the private sector. You are indeed correct that income tax is only one part of the Exchequer intake but it is not the sum total of "private taxation".

Hillel

ixoy wrote: »

What we need is the mean wage in professions both public and private and then factor in the various benefits offered to both parties

Not easily ascertainable, in practice. Many private companies insist that pay information is private to the individual. The more senior manager's are particularly careful in this regard. Pay information is simply not disclosed.
(I'm not saying I agree with this practice, I don't!)

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm saying that the public sector took increases during good times from benchmarking and are willing to take a freeze or cut now.

The point is, that if we are 'to share the pain' increase than increase PAYE rather than hammer one sector of the economy.

See, this logic doesn't necessarily work because at no point has the Government said that its only course of action will be this levy. In fact, it's made it quite clear that it's going to do more. So in reality we're going to see that pain spread around the rest of the economy.

Also, specifically we need to reduce current expenditure to account for lower tax takes, especially when we can be pretty damn sure that it's not going to be much rosier next year. Cutting the public pay bill is one way of reducing current expenditure and a necessary one at that. If the deficit was smaller then the argument for increases in PAYE would make more sense but even with the "draconian levy" we're short 18 billion.

nesf

Hillel wrote: »

Not easily ascertainable, in practice. Many private companies insist that pay information is private to the individual. The more senior manager's are particularly careful in this regard. Pay information is simply not disclosed.
(I'm not saying I agree with this practice, I don't!)

Honestly, it's no one's business but the tax man's what people are paid.

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing the Nurses leader Mr Doran on the news just now make my skin crawl at the level of Reds on top of the bed vitriol in what he is saying.

On a personal vitriolic note, there is no other trade union leader that makes my blood boil as much as this man. You'd swear we had nurses paying for the privilege of working in our health service with the way he goes on. I appreciate that he's got a constituency to protect but the man comes across as if he'd like to see the rest of the economy crippled so long as nurses were getting a good cut from it.

Godge

ixoy wrote: »

How has it been debunked?

Also we can't compare the average of one sector to the average of another? There's contractors and "top dogs" in both areas that can distort facts. What we need is the mean wage in professions both public and private and then factor in the various benefits offered to both parties

Everyone in the public sector is on a salary and pays PAYE.

Thousands in the private sector are self-employed or contractors or directors or own their own business or tax exiles. None of the statistics compare like with like.

You can state confidently that many public sector employees benefitted more during the boom times than they should have but not so easy to identify which. you can also say the same about the private sector.

Godge

nesf wrote: »

See, this logic doesn't necessarily work because at no point has the Government said that its only course of action will be this levy. In fact, it's made it quite clear that it's going to do more. So in reality we're going to see that pain spread around the rest of the economy.

True, but the PR problem is that so far they have only delivered the public sector pay cut/pension levy and job losses for some private sector workers. Where is the banking sector pay cut? Where are the wealth and property taxes? Where is the crackdown on tax exiles? Where is the reduction in ministerial pay to international levels?

Godge

nesf wrote: »

Also, specifically we need to reduce current expenditure to account for lower tax takes, especially when we can be pretty damn sure that it's not going to be much rosier next year. Cutting the public pay bill is one way of reducing current expenditure and a necessary one at that. If the deficit was smaller then the argument for increases in PAYE would make more sense but even with the "draconian levy" we're short 18 billion.

however, the January figures indicate a tax take in the region of the mid-20s as a percentage of GNP, unheard of in the OECD. Cutting public expenditure will not solve the problem.

Hillel

Godge wrote: »

Everyone in the public sector is on a salary and pays PAYE.

Yes, but at least some have opportunities to make money "on the side".
Giving grinds is a well known example.

Godge wrote: »

You can state confidently that many public sector employees benefitted more during the boom times than they should have but not so easy to identify which. you can also say the same about the private sector.

+1

nesf

Godge wrote: »

however, the January figures indicate a tax take in the region of the mid-20s as a percentage of GNP, unheard of in the OECD. Cutting public expenditure will not solve the problem.

I'd 100% agree (though I wouldn't honestly forecast Irish yearly tax take off January figures). I was arguing that cutting public expenditure was necessary, not that it was sufficient to close the deficit.

Godge wrote: »

True, but the PR problem is that so far they have only delivered the public sector pay cut/pension levy and job losses for some private sector workers. Where is the banking sector pay cut? Where are the wealth and property taxes? Where is the crackdown on tax exiles? Where is the reduction in ministerial pay to international levels?

I don't disagree that it's a PR mess but the public sector unions are talking **** by making it sound like the rest of the economy isn't going to take a hit.

OhNoYouDidn't

ixoy wrote: »

How has it been debunked?

Also we can't compare the average of one sector to the average of another? There's contractors and "top dogs" in both areas that can distort facts. What we need is the mean wage in professions both public and private and then factor in the various benefits offered to both parties

Agreed. So add in barristers, property developers, GP's, tradesmen etc and lets have an accurate comparison.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

Honestly, it's no one's business but the tax man's what people are paid.

Maybe, but the issue here is that its clear what the public sector earn, from a CO earning minimum wage to the President.

It is not so clear whats happening in the private sector, so whats the point in comparing them in the manner the Indo does?

jimmycrackcorm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That has been thoroughly debunked though. You cant compare the entire public sector with the industrial average. You miss all the self employed and contractors

I left the public sector to do the same job for 35% more.

A) You probably do 50% more actual work now

That 35% won't be of any benefit when you lose your job.

C) What's your private pension like?

Why isn't the 'pensions levy' going into the pensions reserve fund then?

For the same reason that "Road Tax" doesn't go into roads.

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Maybe, but the issue here is that its clear what the public sector earn, from a CO earning minimum wage to the President.

Indeed, because they're being paid out of the public purse and transparency in this helps prevent excessive pay to some extent.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

It is not so clear whats happening in the private sector, so whats the point in comparing them in the manner the Indo does?

Much of it comes from this analysis here which is pretty detailed: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2691

P. Breathnach

I start by declaring interests: I am a public sector pensioner, and some of my nearest and dearest are employed in the public service. So I escape the pension levy, but people who matter to me will have to bear it.

And I say that I am very disappointed by the failure of many public sector workers to recognise how good their pension package is, even counting in the cost of the levy. And while they bemoan the attacks on the public service (some of which are very unfair) they do not seem to recognise the corrolary: how little sympathy there would be if they took industrial action. The public outrage that would be expressed would stiffen the resolve of the politicians: there are more voters outside the public service than in it.

There are some anomalies in the levy, particularly for people recruited post 1995 to the lower-paid grades and who have no expectation of promotion before retirement age (such people do exist, typically people of middle or mature years who returned to the workforce). The Taoiseach signalled on the day the levy was announced that some re-balancing was possible, but nothing seems to have been done about it.

pajodublin

Money Shot wrote: »

Absolute disgrace. I don't think they will get one iota of sympathy outside their cosy circle. They have no idea how lucky they are to have job security and a pension to pay towards, heading into this cycle.

I hope Cowan and co. show a bit of brass monkeys for once and tell them where to go.

you my friend are something special indeed
you obviously have no idea how this all works
and while you sit in your cosy little circle i recommend you take a look at yourself..
I have been a Civil Servant for 8 years
In that 8 years we have been f****d up the a**e from every minister and taoiseach.
Do you think we seen a big boom of the Celtic Tiger, no we didnt
No they put us on the long finger and decided they would pay us our deserved pay rises over a course of 5 years. those pay rises we deserved 6 years ago have now been cancelled. But not only have they cancelled these they want us to take a pay cut of 12%.

So cut the crap and go have an opinion on something you understand

P. Breathnach

pajodublin, if you want to persuade people that you have justice on your side, you are approching the task in the wrong way.

pajodublin

it just annoys me when people think CS's have an easy life and get paid for doin nothing

In my particular job in the CS i get paid 30% less than my friends doing the exact same job in the Private sector

So you can show me how many pie charts and graphs you like
I know the situation, and i know we are being ripped off and we are the scapegoats of dodgy governing

P. Breathnach

I hope that your job does not involve dealing with people.

pete

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

For the same reason that "Road Tax" doesn't go into roads.

So the pensions levy is an externality charge now?

NewDubliner

Fishtits wrote: »

If you take to the streets you're likely to get Lynched...You've got a job + pension regardless. ie your mortgage gets paid, you're recession proof, your future is somewhat secure.

This demonstrates how successful government and big business has been in focusing public anger on state workers and away from the scandal of the billions of euro being used to subsidise of property speculators who took a gamble, lost and now won't pay their debts.

Akrasia

RobFowl wrote: »

Can't see it achieving anything. Reeks of gesture politics.
Worst case the powers that be may see some benefit from cutting hours if there's no noticable decrease in the amount of work done !

There will be a serious curtailment of services, this will have real effects, the lower paid people are the ones who do the actual work. There is a good reason why managers and executives never go on strike, it's in case people don't notice.

Lplated

I assume that if there is a strike, those striking won't be paid for those day/days, (am i right?).

If that is the case, then a strike for some limited period may not be a bad thing. With the exception of certain essential services, the country probably could do without some of the office-based public servants for a few days, and save a bit of money at the same time.

Derek Zoolander

The company I work for is screwed, for the last ten years they have been making huge amounts of money with the revenue reaching record highs.

Senior management in this company throughout the last ten years have put in place a strategy of spending the money as soon as it arrived and mismanaged the areas of stratigic investment.

Their long term forecast for revenue has been nothing short of laughable and they assumed that their main cash cow would last forever.

Throughout the boom years my company has been rewarding us employees with pay cuts in line with other companies but not based on performance.

Now through the stratigic brilliance of my companies cash management and lack of revenue fixing my company owes billions.

It is operating extremely inefficiently with a critical mass in employees and spiraling costs.

My company needs to cut costs but the employees refuse to take any cuts and the company will not lay off people even though it cannot afford to keep them on.

If things continue like this and my componies senior management don't get their heads out of their asses my company will go into receivership and the big boys will come in and cull staff like a herd of foot and mouth infected sheep.


The employees of my company have their head stuck in the sand and believe that the company is special and shouldn't have come up with money to pay for wages.

ixoy

pajodublin wrote: »

and while you sit in your cosy little circle i recommend you take a look at yourself..

What cosy circle?! There's no cosy circle with the slaughter going on in the economy.

Do you think we seen a big boom of the Celtic Tiger, no we didnt

Various statistics and survey say otherwise. A process called "benchmarking" as well.

those pay rises we deserved 6 years ago have now been cancelled. But not only have they cancelled these they want us to take a pay cut of 12%.

"Deserved" is a very subjective term - why did you deserve them? You mention also you're paid less than your private sector counterparts. Are the jobs truly equal for a start, in terms of workload and hours expected? Do they also enjoy the pension benefits and security you do as well as any other perks you may have?

So cut the crap and go have an opinion on something you understand

How rude. Did you even bother to read these various threads? There's plenty of people here on both the private and public sector here who have demonstrated a firm understanding of what's going on.

NewDubliner

NewDubliner wrote: »

This demonstrates how successful government and big business has been in focusing public anger on state workers and away from the scandal of the billions of euro being used to subsidise of property speculators who took a gamble, lost and now won't pay their debts.

You actually believe that?
You think people are brainwashed into thinking this is a small country with limited resources and certainly not a fraction of enough to pay for the PS as it stands?

Ostridge and sand comes to mind for your attitude there.

As for the banks-you think investing money in them in return for a stay on reposessions for a year,lending money to businesses because with this funding they can get more from abroad [thanks to improved capital ratios] to lend and the government getting the opportunity to buy 25% of the banks at todays prices as well the opportunity to get their money back plus 8% per annum...
Banks being the route most businesses need to use to make money and create/keep jobs...

You think thats a bad idea?

Ostridge and sand.

pete

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

The company I work for is screwed, for the last ten years they have been making huge amounts of money with the revenue reaching record highs.

Senior management in this company throughout the last ten years have put in place a strategy of spending the money as soon as it arrived and mismanaged the areas of stratigic investment.

Their long term forecast for revenue has been nothing short of laughable and they assumed that their main cash cow would last forever.

Throughout the boom years my company has been rewarding us employees with pay cuts in line with other companies but not based on performance.

Now through the stratigic brilliance of my companies cash management and lack of revenue fixing my company owes billions.

It is operating extremely inefficiently with a critical mass in employees and spiraling costs.

My company needs to cut costs but the employees refuse to take any cuts and the company will not lay off people even though it cannot afford to keep them on.

If things continue like this and my componies senior management don't get their heads out of their asses my company will go into receivership and the big boys will come in and cull staff like a herd of foot and mouth infected sheep.


The employees of my company have their head stuck in the sand and believe that the company is special and shouldn't have come up with money to pay for wages.

i see what you did there

ps i presume you meant "pay increases", but "tax cuts" would be more accurate

irish_bob

someone mentioned earlier about organising a counter protest to the ps one that is planned , i would be willing to go to dublin and join in , i heard pat kenny read out a text from someone who wants to organise a counter protest , this thing could grow , pm me if you like

BroomBurner

irish_bob wrote: »

someone mentioned earlier about organising a counter protest to the ps one that is planned , i would be willing to go to dublin and join in , i heard pat kenny read out a text from someone who wants to organise a counter protest , this thing could grow , pm me if you like

That's hilarious.

Is there anyone on Boards from the private sector that can see the wood for the trees and understand the inequality behind the pension levy? Noone is objecting to it outright, they are just objecting to the inequality of it.

I know it will be hard for a lot of you to do this, but please stop yourselves from making more smart-arsed comments and just answer the above question.

P.Breathnach, you've no real right to be telling PS workers now to just take the pain when you're not being hit at all. If you were still working and had years to go before you retired, with the possibility that your pension will be scrapped altogether before you do retire (40 years is a long time), then you would be slightly peeved.