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

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

No I or most other people are not big into everyone earning the exact same and being exactly equal, or communist policies ! Shure the poor auld public servants, those who work 35 hour weeks with plenty of tea + coffee breaks, those with greater sick days and holidays, those with guaranteed job security, those with a guaranteed fat pension to look forward to ( a Garda retiring early - like many do - has a pension worth 1 million if he was to buy it privately )....heaven forbid should those poor people be paid less than those who actually take the risks, who may borrow or sink their own money in to providing a job for themselves, some of whom have little or no social welfare entitlements if things do not work out etc.

jimmmy, your bias is showing.

That sort of intemperate ranting is not a good contribution to debate.

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

... I'd suggest you become a communist.

Wow. That's a really dirty thing to say. Right up there with zoophile or Christian Scientist.

jimmmy

So, in an effort to A) go a little bit of the way towards our govt borrowing requirement of 25,000,000,000 euro this year and(B) bring public sector wages - well those who earn more than the average public sector worker - in to line a little bit at least, how much do you think the average JST ( job security tax ) should be ? Or do you think that considerable perk should not be taxed at all ?

ixoy

Not a tax idea, but what about bringing the civil service working day from its current 6hr57mins up to a more standard 7hr30mins? As it currently stands, when including tea breaks, a standard working day is 6hr27mins of work which really isn't that long.

I appreciate many civil servants work beyond the time but this overtime can be taken, at the least, in time-in-lieu if not paid overtime (rare enough these days I know) so it's not freely given overtime as others understand it unless they work more than 10.5 hours overtime in a month (which some would do).

Rough calculations: If there's 50k civil servants, each now working 7% longer, than that's the equivalent of 3500 new civil servants for free.

jimmmy

ixoy wrote: »

Not a tax idea, but what about bringing the civil service working day from its current 6hr57mins up to a more standard 7hr30mins? As it currently stands, when including tea breaks, a standard working day is 6hr27mins of work which really isn't that long.

I appreciate many civil servants work beyond the time but this overtime can be taken, at the least, in time-in-lieu if not paid overtime (rare enough these days I know) so it's not freely given overtime as others understand it unless they work more than 10.5 hours overtime in a month (which some would do).

Rough calculations: If there's 50k civil servants, each now working 7% longer, than that's the equivalent of 3500 new civil servants for free.

Excellent point, that needs to be looked at as well.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

how much do you think the average JST ( job security tax ) should be ?

How is job security defined? Isn't it possible to just pass a law and fire people next year? They passed a law and cut pay this year, before that, everyone thought their salaries were secure.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

How is job security defined? Isn't it possible to just pass a law and fire people next year? .

Historically the government does not fire people who are permanent .....how many teachers were let go because they were useless / hopeless.....how many civil servants were let go because it was found cheaper to outsource the jobs to Eastern Europe or China ?

The JST ( job security tax ) , when it is hefty enough , may not be paid by everyone. Those who elect not to pay it should be the first to go. The govt will always need plenty of employees - do'nt worry, the entire public service will not be let go !
If ye want the perk, pay for it. In any case the JST will only apply to those earning over 50 k per year.

NewDubliner wrote: »

They passed a law and cut pay this year, before that, everyone thought their salaries were secure.

They did not cut pay, they got a contribution - not the full economic cost - from people towards their pensions. The pensions are still excellent value. I wish I could get one.

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

No I or most other people are not big into everyone earning the exact same and being exactly equal, or communist policies ! Shure the poor auld public servants, those who work 35 hour weeks with plenty of tea + coffee breaks, those with greater sick days and holidays, those with guaranteed job security, those with a guaranteed fat pension to look forward to ( a Garda retiring early - like many do - has a pension worth 1 million if he was to buy it privately )....heaven forbid should those poor people be paid less than those who actually take the risks, who may borrow or sink their own money in to providing a job for themselves, some of whom have little or no social welfare entitlements if things do not work out etc.

Everyone knows the public sector needs a shake up. Unfortunately for you your Victor Meldrew style ranting ruins any chance of winning anyone over.
After reading some of the ridiculous allegations above I just feel you really haven't a clue what you are talking about!

Fighting Irish

Ye lets take more from the people who worked hard and are successful.

Maybe if the people who aren't that well off didn't get themselves into huge debt then we wouldn't be having this problem to start with.

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.

jimmmy

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Ye lets take more from the people who worked hard and are successful..

as opposed to those who did not ? Very helpful + constructive suggestion, thank you.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Maybe if the people who aren't that well off didn't get themselves into huge debt then we wouldn't be having this problem to start with.

Maybe if...lots of maybe ifs...

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

Everyone knows the public sector needs a shake up.

THats exactly what the JST ( Job Security Tax ) will partly achieve. 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. Of course other changes need to be made in the public sector too.

jimi_t

jimmmy wrote: »

THats exactly what the JST ( Job Security Tax ) will partly achieve. 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. Of course other changes need to be made in the public sector too.

Sweet.Divine.Jesus

I've read ten pages of unsubstantiated, nonsensical ranting from you in this thread alone. In three other threads I've seen you contradict yourself repeatedly and display a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental aspects of economics (PPP being the major one).

You're quoting opinions verbatim from the lesser regulated radioshows and the tabloids, going so far as to acronymise your more outlandish ideas to try and add credence to your position. Just like the legions of the corrupt who have decimated this country, you are making long-term decisions in face of short-term political pressures

Shure the poor auld public servants, those who work 35 hour weeks with plenty of tea + coffee breaks, those with greater sick days and holidays, those with guaranteed job security, those with a guaranteed fat pension to look forward to ( a Garda retiring early - like many do - has a pension worth 1 million if he was to buy it privately )....heaven forbid should those poor people be paid less than those who actually take the risks, who may borrow or sink their own money in to providing a job for themselves, some of whom have little or no social welfare entitlements if things do not work out etc.

Ah yes, financially crippple the 'poor auld public servants' who educate you and yours, who keep the streets you walk safe and clean, who treat you when your sick.

Here's a lovely statistic for you in relation to pensions - primary school teacher; one of your 'lesser', 'overpaid' jobs. Certainly a job that you would regard as hugely unstressful and with comparatively large holidays.

How many years do you think a teacher retiring at 65 has to enjoy their pension (i.e. life expectancy after retirement) in comparison with the average life expectancy?

(Avgerage life expectancy in Ireland = M-77, F-82)
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/lifexpect.htm

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Historically the government does not fire people who are permanent ....

Historically, the government does not cut public service pay (see below). How do you define 'job security' - Not having yet been fired

jimmmy wrote: »

If ye want the perk, pay for it. In any case the JST will only apply to those earning over 50 k per year.

How much will be paid by those earning €49,999 and how much by someone earning €50,001?

jimmmy wrote: »

They did not cut pay, they got a contribution - not the full economic cost - from people towards their pensions.

Check the facts. The law making the levy is quite clear that paying it confers no entitlements. For example, if the public servant leaves to take up a job in the private sector, they cannot use this 'contribution' to fund a private pension.

ixoy

Ah yes, financially crippple the 'poor auld public servants' who educate you and yours, who keep the streets you walk safe and clean, who treat you when your sick.

Can we not use this one please? It's just as pointless as the militant private-sector side going on about all public servants being lazy and undeserving. Both only apply to a subset of the people employed by the government.

jimi_t wrote: »

How many years do you think a teacher retiring at 65 has to enjoy their pension (i.e. life expectancy after retirement) in comparison with the average life expectancy?

Well what's the answer? That link doesn't break down by profession so do you have some figure on life expectancy of a teacher and how it's less than normal? I've heard people say the same for Gardai but seen no figures to back it up beyond mere hearsay.

jimi_t

ixoy wrote: »

Can we not use this one please? It's just as pointless as the militant private-sector side going on about all public servants being lazy and undeserving. Both only apply to a subset of the people employed by the government.

Public servants, by definition, are surely the workforce who staff public services? I'm trying not to come across as a pedant here...

Well what's the answer? That link doesn't break down by profession so do you have some figure on life expectancy of a teacher and how it's less than normal?

The link was just to verify the Average Life Expectancy figures I gave. IIRC it's about 3 years if they retire at 65 - I can't find a definitive source online but its in my mother's MA dissertation so I'll furnish the exact figure and source ASAP.

ixoy

jimi_t wrote: »

Public servants, by definition, are surely the workforce who staff public services? I'm trying not to come across as a pedant here...

Yes but the statement is a bit misleading as there's an implication that, when we talk about cutting public service, we'll be hitting only the doctors, teachers, etc. and that all public service jobs are invaluable. We both know that's not true and there's definite room to trim in the many areas that aren't valued front-line services or that wouldn't adversely affect them. That's the sort of reform we should look at.

IIRC it's about 3 years if they retire at 65 - I can't find a definitive source online but its in my mother's MA dissertation so I'll furnish the exact figure and source ASAP.

I'd be curious about that one alright. Does the dissertation also give the average age at which they retire? I certainly believe teachers get generous holiday allowances and pay (when put as a daily rate) but I sure as hell wouldn't want to do their job looking after little brats the whole day...

Fighting Irish

jimmmy wrote: »

as opposed to those who did not ? Very helpful + constructive suggestion, thank you.


Maybe if...lots of maybe ifs...

Ye sure we'll tax the rich, and by rich i mean people who make more than me

jimi_t

ixoy wrote: »

Yes but the statement is a bit misleading as there's an implication that, when we talk about cutting public service, we'll be hitting only the doctors, teachers, etc. and that all public service jobs are invaluable.

Maybe I'm wrong in discriminating between what I'd refer to as public service jobs and civil service jobs?

I'd be curious about that one alright. Does the dissertation also give the average age at which they retire?

No idea, but I know that to retire before 65 (from INTO.ie);

* Teachers may retire voluntarily and be awarded a pension and lump sum provided they have given at least 35 years of pensionable service and have also reached the age of 55 years;

* Teachers who have given at least five years of pensionable service may retire, with a pension and lump sum on or after reaching their 60th birthday.

Fighting Irish

We need less government, not more taxes

I don't care if its only the billionaires who are getting stung by huge taxes

Godge

jimi_t wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong in discriminating between what I'd refer to as public service jobs and civil service jobs?

There is probably much more waste in frontline services than in the civil servants.

Civil servants can be moved around at will be the government - quite a few have been moved into social welfare offices to cope with the increasing numbers (not as fast as required but some effort is made).

Spare teachers (i.e. over allocation) can only be moved following lengthy procedures and can be appealed.

Many health service workers are specialised e.g. if three people cancel a physiotherapist appointment, he/she can hardly go down to A&E and help out.

If the child assigned to a SNA is out, some are not assigned to other work (many schools now have SNAs assigned as class-specific rather than child-specific which reduces this)

Local authority engineers no longer needed for capital projects (plenty of these guys) cannot be moved down to processing driving licences or car tax.

I could think of a large number of other examples. Outside the civil service many senior people (hospital consultants, professors etc.) have their own personal assistants who operate a 1-1 situation and are not assigned extra work if their boss is out/sick/on holidays etc. This is largely gone in the civil service except for those at the very top.

Waste is endemic in the frontline services.

Godge

jimmmy wrote: »

No I or most other people are not big into everyone earning the exact same and being exactly equal, or communist policies ! Shure the poor auld public servants, those who work 35 hour weeks with plenty of tea + coffee breaks, those with greater sick days and holidays, those with guaranteed job security, those with a guaranteed fat pension to look forward to ( a Garda retiring early - like many do - has a pension worth 1 million if he was to buy it privately )....heaven forbid should those poor people be paid less than those who actually take the risks, who may borrow or sink their own money in to providing a job for themselves, some of whom have little or no social welfare entitlements if things do not work out etc.

There is a risk/reward equation. Those who take the greatest risk get the greatest reward, that is understood. However, when taking a greater risk, there is more chance of failure which means a lower reward. Those who take less risk tend to get more certainty about their reward.

What has happened with our economy is that a lot of people who knew very little about risk and the chance of failure, made bad choices (set up construction firm, borrowed to buy apartments outside Dublin city centre etc.) Many of them are now looking jealously at those who took other choices (sold out two years ago, became a teacher or a guard) and want those who made the right choice to have to pay.

all of this blaming the public sector and the bankers is getting tiresome. Look in the mirror all of you. you made the risky investments, you put all your money in bank shares, you borrowed too much, you voted for Fianna Fail. What we are hearing is chickens coming home to roost.

ixoy

Godge wrote: »

all of this blaming the public sector and the bankers is getting tiresome. Look in the mirror all of you. you made the risky investments, you put all your money in bank shares, you borrowed too much, you voted for Fianna Fail. What we are hearing is chickens coming home to roost.

You should know full well that we don't like personal responsibility! If there's one thing that's clearly endemic in Ireland it's now clearly: why can't someone else do it. Whether it be the CPSU complaining they shouldn't have to pay or posters here wanting only the PS/CS to pay, few are willing to hold up a hand and show they took a risk or profited or were in an industry that profited from the boom.

Personally, I'm risk adverse so I didn't sink money into anything much. I didn't get a property (thought they were too dear) so I'm relatively risk free other than the fact my job is exposed to circumstances beyond my control - as it is with many. It's that helplessness though that has people so worried because even if you haven't made risky decisions, you can still now get caught up and affected in a bad way.

Tango Alpha 51

leitrim lad wrote: »

as long as they can line their pockets with our money and rally our cars,busses and ambulances around the country, writing them off when they feel like it thats all they are worried about

not us poor unfortunate private sector workers who pay the real tax that counts

/QUOTE]

"Rally our ambulances & write them off when they feel like it". What a childish comment to post. You obviously have no idea what it's like to crew an emergency ambulance let alone drive one. Public or Private sector doesn't matter we all pay the same taxes!!!!!!.

Seeing as your being a smart alec, you do realise that we drive on our own licence even when responding on blue lights & sirens & if we have the misfortune to have an accident & get prosecuted for same which does happen, then the relevant points get put on our licence resulting in an increase in our private car insurance. Maybe we should just drive along normal like everyone else even if it means your loved one having to wait ages for vital treatment :mad::mad::mad:

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

How much will be paid by those earning €49,999 and how much by someone earning €50,001?

The new JST will be a percentage based tax....it will hit those earning 120,000 much more than those earning 50,001, for example. I think the way to do it will be just to tax that part of a persons earnings over say 50,000, @ x % j.s.t.

Jamie-b

Some of the private sector are secure too. I know they can be laid off much easier, but it's not like the whole private sector has dissapeared. I don't see the point of charging a public servant on 48k 5grand a year for security when some public sector people will be on 70k, 80k and work right through the recession only paying the levys. And without getting ino public/private sector argument , I think a lot a people have forgotten that the perks of a job used to be way way better in the private sector such as a pay bonus, free meals and drinks, travel. I know the government have lots of expenes but in the last few years, when all my friends were getting great perks, I didnt even get a free cup of coffee in my job. Job security has only recently become an invaluable perk, a few years ago it was all about monetary benefits, career progression, free "stuff"! I am already paying 1% ley and 7% pension levy and will probably be hit with more in the budget, but to be honest I dont mind once we share the pain andthe government doesnt target the easy targets. I dont earn close to 48k anyway, but remember, if you are the sole income earner with a family, a five grand hit on that salary is massive.

jimmmy

Only people on more than the public service average will be hit, so those on 48 k per year will pay nothing. As I said The new JST will be a percentage based tax. Those on 60 or 70 or 80 k per year will pay a few thousand...those on 150 / 200 k per year maybe 7 to 12 k. The private sector is not secure...I know people let go from cleaners to shop managers to architects to labourers to office staff.

jimmmy

Jamie-b wrote: »

I think a lot a people have forgotten that the perks of a job used to be way way better in the private sector such as a pay bonus, free meals and drinks, travel.

Most private sector staff do not get a "pay bonus, free meals and drinks, travel.", and if they do, they are fully taxed. It would be against the law for the employer to give those perks without taxing them. Only expenses wholly and necessarily incurred as a result of the work itself are liable for tax deduction, and the revenue are extremely vigilant in that area.

ixoy

Not sure how it works, but I've certainly gotten free meals/drinks before and not payed BIK. I believe there's some sort of exemption in place.

Bonuses are definitely taxed though and the only ones I got were based on personal performance and not for all (merit based rewarding that would probably not go down well in the PS/CS). I've got a couple of other small things and they were BIK too - they're all relatively small and, although they're perks, I'd definitely swap 'em for shorter days/more holidays which are better perks. Unfortunately I can't have that and keep in the line of work I'm interested in doing so I've made my choice.

jimmmy

ixoy wrote: »

Not sure how it works, but I've certainly gotten free meals/drinks before and not payed BIK.

As I said, It would be against the law for the employer to give those perks without taxing them. Only expenses wholly and necessarily incurred as a result of the work itself are liable for tax deduction, and the revenue are extremely vigilant in that area.

ixoy wrote: »

I believe there's some sort of exemption in place.

If your business / employer was audited or had a tax inspection - which there will be sooner or later - your boss will be in trouble.

bobbbb

jimmmy wrote: »

Most private sector staff do not get a "pay bonus, free meals and drinks, travel.", and if they do, they are fully taxed. It would be against the law for the employer to give those perks without taxing them. Only expenses wholly and necessarily incurred as a result of the work itself are liable for tax deduction, and the revenue are extremely vigilant in that area.

Any company ive ever worked for we got bonuses and meals and travel when we needed to.

Got taxed on Bonuses. But never ever got taxed on meals and travel.


Sure when we needed receipts too (as some companies require) we did the following.

The companies were well aware of it. It was a perk of travelling.

We just got the taxi drivers to write more on the receipt than the cost was and split the difference with him (The drivers in London used to give us boks of receipts to fill in ourselves).

We would give waiters a tenner in return for a receipt for €100 for dinner that someone else left.

Buy a heap of pints and the bar person puts it through as food on the receipt.

The best one was when we were in Japan for a year. EVERYTHING was expensed. Rent, Food, Drink. The best bit though was that you were entitled to a 1st class flight home and back every month. So you book it on your own credit card. Get the receipt, then ring and downgrade to economy and get about €5000 credited back to your credit card. Sometimes the whole lot because you wouldnt bother going home. Submit your expenses and the company refunds you the full cost of the first class flights.
Bosses told us this one as a perk.