New 5k tax for job security on better paid public servants

jimmmy

I have a simple solution for the government saving 750,000,000 euro.

How about taxing the perk of government job security ? To those who make above the average public sector wage of 49,000 , what about a moderate tax of say 5,000 per year ?
It is a tax not on average or low paid public servants , but only on the better paid public servants...those who make say 15000 per annum more than the average industrial wage. Given the huge disparity between public sector wages and private sector wages, I think everyone is privately agreed that something needs to be done. If they do not want to pay this tax, have them liable for possible job redundancy ( and/or salary cut ), the same fate as many in the private sector are having to endure ?

It will save the country borrowing 750,000,000 euro this and every year it is enforced, and bring net govt pay. more in to line with pay elsewhere.

Raiser

No wouldn't work because they'd all just leave....

*Edit - Original text zealously modded out - Lets just say people of this calibre are bound to be in real demand everywhere.....

jimmmy

Those who do leave wuill save the taxpayer a fortune,and can be replaced. It is a serious proposal, given that something radical needs to be done to (A) go a little bit of the way towards our govt borrowing requirement of 25,000,000,000 ( thats 25 billion ) euro this year.
(B) bring public sector wages - well those who earn more than the average public sector worker - in to line a little bit at least.

If I earned more than the 49 or 50 k per annum in the public sector which is the average, and I had job security, and a big pension to look forward to, as well as the other perks, I would not mind it, given the state of the economy.

sdanseo

jimmmy wrote: »

I have a simple solution for the government saving 750,000,000 euro.

How about taxing the perk of government job security ? To those who make above the average public sector wage of 49,000 , what about a moderate tax of say 5,000 per year ?
It is a tax not on average or low paid public servants , but only on the better paid public servants...those who make say 15000 per annum more than the average industrial wage. Given the huge disparity between public sector wages and private sector wages, I think everyone is privately agreed that something needs to be done. If they do not want to pay this tax, have them liable for possible job redundancy ( and/or salary cut ), the same fate as many in the private sector are having to endure ?

It will save the country borrowing 750,000,000 euro this and every year it is enforced, and bring net govt pay. more in to line with pay elsewhere.

Why not tax EVERYONE who earns more than the average industrial wage? Pubic sector workers are already paying for their job security through the pension levy. Just because it goes into the pension pool doesn't mean they aren't hard-up now or that the governement, in their infinite wisdom, wont bloody well spend or waste or lose it.

Sconsey

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Why not tax EVERYONE who earns more than the average industrial wage? Pubic sector workers are already paying for their job security through the pension levy. Just because it goes into the pension pool doesn't mean they aren't hard-up now or that the governement, in their infinite wisdom, wont bloody well spend or waste or lose it.

I'm fairly sure the OP said it would be a tax on the job security that every civil servent enjoys.

ArmaniJeanss

jimmmy wrote: »

I have a simple solution for the government saving 750,000,000 euro.

How about taxing the perk of government job security ? To those who make above the average public sector wage of 49,000 , what about a moderate tax of say 5,000 per year ?

So the government employee who earns €48000 is suddenly better off than the one who earns €52000?
And the one who earns €252,000 only loses as much as the one who earns €52000?
Hardly seems fair.
The percentage levy system, with no exceptions, whilst it has other flaws is ultimately the fairest way to do these things.

wylo

jimmmy wrote: »

I have a simple solution for the government saving 750,000,000 euro.

How about taxing the perk of government job security ? To those who make above the average public sector wage of 49,000 , what about a moderate tax of say 5,000 per year ?
It is a tax not on average or low paid public servants , but only on the better paid public servants...those who make say 15000 per annum more than the average industrial wage. Given the huge disparity between public sector wages and private sector wages, I think everyone is privately agreed that something needs to be done. If they do not want to pay this tax, have them liable for possible job redundancy ( and/or salary cut ), the same fate as many in the private sector are having to endure ?

It will save the country borrowing 750,000,000 euro this and every year it is enforced, and bring net govt pay. more in to line with pay elsewhere.

While I like the idea, 'paying for your job security', I think it shouldn't be a set 5k , it should be a percentage.

I dont think the employee should have to face a salary cut if they refuse, you may as well just enforce the tax completely then, however I do agree that they should have their permanent contract torn up, and if there is a case that cost cutting is required, they should be the first to go.

I know Id pay it!!!

jimmmy

wylo wrote: »

While I like the idea, 'paying for your job security', I think it shouldn't be a set 5k , it should be a percentage.

fair enough, good point...obviously the details would have to be worked out

jimmmy

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Why not tax EVERYONE who earns more than the average industrial wage?

because its a "job security tax", for want of a better word....maybe it will be called the j.s.t ?
Also its meant to bring public sector pay more in to line...the money saved will be money the govt will not have to borrow ( for our children + grandchildren to pay back, plus interest ). Even with this new tax, the govt will still have to borrow over 24 billion this year ..... but at least its a step in the right direction.

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Pubic sector workers are already paying for their job security through the pension levy.

No they are not...the pension levy is paying for part of the pension. The public sector pensions are still subsidised. The levy would be 25% if it was not.

The "job security tax" is a serious proposal to save almost 4% of our govt borrowing this year.

Raiser

jimmmy wrote: »

because its a "job security tax", for want of a better word....maybe it will be called the j.s.t ?

Why do they even have this job security?

Seems to me that they are all acting like poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers partly because they cannot be fcuked out the door for being poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers.

wylo

Raiser wrote: »

Why do they even have this job security?

Seems to me that they are all acting like poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers partly because they cannot be fcuked out the door for being poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers.

nice generalizing there

leitrim lad

the budget will probably impose a similarity to this, but i think it will be the lower paid that ends up the worst off as usual, some of the top brass in the public sector should be forced to leave with the salaries they are on, do they not feel guilty (robbing )money like that

ParkRunner

A job security tax? :rolleyes: It would be better in my opinion to have reform of the public service so that those who aren't performing can be sacked. A job security tax would probably result in the talented hard working public sector workers to leave and result in the less motivated, lazier folk that you get everywhere staying..an even more disgruntled demotivated bunch at that with yet another levy.

While we are at it all new public sector entrants should be given a demotivational plaque saying, don't forget you are here forever!

jimmmy

Raiser wrote: »

Why do they even have this job security?

Seems to me that they are all acting like poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers partly because they cannot be fcuked out the door for being poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy [EMAIL="w@nkers."]w@nkers.[/EMAIL]

I broadly agree, but can you see the unions agreeing to people being sacked ?
I am just trying to have a reastistic proposal. Those who do not agree to the new tax can be sacked. Maybe it needs to be set at an average of 10k , not 5 k ?

Blazer

wylo wrote: »

nice generalizing there

yeah man...
it's only like about 90% so cop on :P

Gumbo

reading this thread is like reading the instructions on a milk bottle, pointless and pure crap :P

leitrim lad

typical probably a high paid public sector unioner

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

I have a simple solution for the government saving 750,000,000 euro. ...How about taxing the perk of government job security ?

If the government just can pass a law cutting public sector pay, whats to stop them charging the extra tax you propose and then a few years later, firing people anyway?

PS workers may be customarily more secure than others but it's not an absolute security. That's why, like everone else, they've largely stopped spending on non-essential stuff.

Gumbo

leitrim lad wrote: »

typical probably a high paid public sector unioner

ha ha i wish.

earning well below the average PS wage mate.

sdanseo

Raiser wrote: »

Why do they even have this job security?

Seems to me that they are all acting like poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers partly because they cannot be fcuked out the door for being poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers.

My parents are both civil servants. A good friend is a public servant and countless others I know, too. Most of them work hard and don't ever take sickies. My dad works 12 hour days 3-4 days of the week for NO extra pay, out of the goodness of his heart. It's effectively part of the job description, it's expected of him - just not in writing.

Please don't generalise when you havent a damn clue what you're talking about. It's a spiteful, hateful and downright stpuid way to try and get people to hit the thanks button and it should be bannable.

Mod?

White dargo

sdonn_1 wrote: »

My parents are both civil servants. A good friend is a public servant and countless others I know, too. Most of them work hard and don't ever take sickies. My dad works 12 hour days 3-4 days of the week for NO extra pay, out of the goodness of his heart. It's effectively part of the job description, it's expected of him - just not in writing.

Please don't generalise when you havent a damn clue what you're talking about. It's a spiteful, hateful and downright stpuid way to try and get people to hit the thanks button and it should be bannable.

Mod?

You're wasting your time with this lot. The thing is, if the public service jobs are as great as some of these people are making them out to be, why have they not applied for them themselves. Best jobs in the state apparently. Go and join up. Get promoted to manager and kick some arses of

poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers.

:rolleyes:

leitrim lad

roll on the public sector reform , and the p45s they are along time coming

but they are badly needed

ParkRunner

leitrim lad wrote: »

roll on the public sector reform , and the p45s they are along time coming

but they are badly needed

Sentiments like this are only causing job losses in the private sector. Non-essential spending by public servants is gone out the window and will continue to do so for some time to come

achtungbarry

Raiser wrote: »

Why do they even have this job security?

Seems to me that they are all acting like poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers partly because they cannot be fcuked out the door for being poorly motivated, under performing, uninspired, talentless lazy w@nkers.

Yawn, have you anything useful to say ?

For he record I would support such a tax (I work in the PS)

And Raiser I resent what you said about me.

The ignorant rantings of uneducated idiots will solve nothing.

Akrasia

jimmmy wrote: »

fair enough, good point...obviously the details would have to be worked out

Its a stupid idea. What happens if the state decides they need cut backs and have to make them redundant at a later stage? Or if they screw up in their job and ought to be fired? They'll sue the pants off us (the tax payers) and win because they they've been paying a charge specifically on the fact that they are meant to have job security which could easily be interpreted as a legal contract in a court of law.

Gumbo

leitrim lad wrote: »

roll on the public sector reform , and the p45s they are along time coming

but they are badly needed

i think your bordering on the lines of a troll now.
you've produced post after post of BS imo from 100k tenders to P45's, its deffo getting boring now!

Raiser

achtungbarry wrote: »

Yawn, have you anything useful to say ?

For he record I would support such a tax (I work in the PS)

And Raiser I resent what you said about me.

The ignorant rantings of uneducated idiots will solve nothing.

For the record, I said absolutely nothing about Barry O'Carroll not here nor anywhere else - not ever.......

As to why my words prompted you to strike out against me in a tirade of personal abuse!?!? Ouch!!! Well thats anyone's guess - but some might conclude that your overreaction is indicative of something......

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

I have a simple solution for the government saving 750,000,000 euro.

How about taxing the perk of government job security ? To those who make above the average public sector wage of 49,000 , what about a moderate tax of say 5,000 per year ?
It is a tax not on average or low paid public servants , but only on the better paid public servants...those who make say 15000 per annum more than the average industrial wage. Given the huge disparity between public sector wages and private sector wages, I think everyone is privately agreed that something needs to be done. If they do not want to pay this tax, have them liable for possible job redundancy ( and/or salary cut ), the same fate as many in the private sector are having to endure ?

It will save the country borrowing 750,000,000 euro this and every year it is enforced, and bring net govt pay. more in to line with pay elsewhere.

Pre 1995 employees have job security, the main reason being they don't qualify for social welfare payments.
Post 1995 employees DON'T have this 'Secure Job' that you all go on about.
They pay PRSI at the standard rate and have the same terms of employment as anyone else in the workforce.
The many,many,many people on contracts within the public service have already lost their jobs as most of them won't have their contracts renewed.
Mind you, all the facts and more have been repeated many times throughout the forum and we still have to read the anti-public sector jibes and ill-informed rants .
THIS THREAD IS AN EPIC FAIL:rolleyes:

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

If the government just can pass a law cutting public sector pay, .

Its being a pension levey, so far, not a cut in pay. Pensions are still subsidised + will be by the wealth producing sector

NewDubliner wrote: »

whats to stop them charging the extra tax you propose and then a few years later, firing people anyway?.

Thee govt cannot fire all of the public service. The first people to be fired should be those who did not pay the job security tax. There should be enough of them if the tax was high enough.

NewDubliner wrote: »

PS workers may be customarily more secure than others .

may be ! may be ! lol lol.

NewDubliner wrote: »

but it's not an absolute security..

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's why, like everone else, they've largely stopped spending on non-essential stuff.

If they have stopped spending on non-essential stuff, what are they doing with all their money, given that interest rates, oil, prices etc are coming down ? And given the average public sector wage is so much higher than the average industrial wage ?

ionix5891

Raiser wrote: »

No wouldn't work because they'd all just leave....

*Edit - Original text zealously modded out - Lets just say people of this calibre are bound to be in real demand everywhere.....

leave where?

theyll wont get as much in private sector..

ionix5891

White dargo wrote: »

You're wasting your time with this lot. The thing is, if the public service jobs are as great as some of these people are making them out to be, why have they not applied for them themselves. Best jobs in the state apparently. Go and join up. Get promoted to manager and kick some arses of :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

hmm let me see if everyone worked for the state wouldn't that be some sort of communism?

we seen how that ended up, ahem :cool: