Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New 5k tax for job security on better paid public servants
Options
Comments
-
You originally proposed a flat 5k levy and also only public sector workers to be affected but have now broadened this to cover anyone on such salaries. It's good to see that you are able to give ground.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.
Can I suggest that the limit be doubled for people with dependent, unemployed spouses and also increased for dependent children and relatives? Also, deduct for medical expenses paid to support relatives in nrsing-home care?
Also, in return, if people are being taxed on job security, does this mean you'll guarantee and certify that they will never, ever be laid off?0 -
Id agree with those on this thread who are saying that there shouldnt be job security in the Public service in the first place. It would be a far more efficient, value for money service all round were it implemented properly.
Also, percentages are far better than flat rates when it comes to salary, if something like this were to be implemented.
This is also a politics forum, a poster calling the entire PS a "crowd of w4nkers" amoung other things is uncalled for.0 -
I suppose when your boss got in to trouble for that junket to Florida there was a clampdown after that ? Or is it just embassy staff have these perks now, now Fas ?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.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »You originally proposed a flat 5k levy and also only public sector workers to be affected but have now broadened this to cover anyone on such salaries.?
No I did not. Where did I say that . Read it again. Read also what I originally wrote.
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.NewDubliner wrote: »Also, in return, if people are being taxed on job security, does this mean you'll guarantee and certify that they will never, ever be laid off?
It means the people who do not pay the tax will be laid off first, should people need to be laid off. There would be no need for such a J.S.T. had the govt not allowed public sector wages to get so out of line in the first place. Remember the speech in the Point several years ago by the German ambassador, where he joked about the wages of highly paid public servants here compared to Germany ? No wonder our credit rating has been downgraded.0 -
Jimmy,
As stated by many above, would a percentage scale not be better and moreover would it not be better for everyone involved if job security was removed altogether from the PS?
Kippy0 -
Advertisement
-
Jimmy,
As stated by many above, would a percentage scale not be better
Please read what I wrote. I agreed in post no. 8 of this thread to a percentage scale. In post no. 85 I wrote "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."
In an ideal world but could you see the unions agreeing to mass redundancies ? How many public servants or Guards or nurses or teachers do you know ever let go ? The perk of job security can be removed altogether from those under the average pay in the public service, and from those who do not want to pay the tax. They should be let go should the need arise.and moreover would it not be better for everyone involved if job security was removed altogether from the PS?
Kippy0 -
I dont see the unions agree to anything which would affect the take home pay or numbers of their members. Whatever is done the unions wont approve of it.Please read what I wrote. I agreed in post no. 8 of this thread to a percentage scale. In post no. 85 I wrote "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."
In an ideal world but could you see the unions agreeing to mass redundancies ? How many public servants or Guards or nurses or teachers do you know ever let go ? The perk of job security can be removed altogether from those under the average pay in the public service, and from those who do not want to pay the tax. They should be let go should the need arise.
A LOT of what is overspend in the PS is not the front line services but the middlemanagement and paper pushers. The amount of wastage in these areas is crazy, it would be much better to cut out the waste and streamline things than get some meagure tax from those that are on over 50k.0 -
I dont see the unions agree to anything which would affect the take home pay or numbers of their members. Whatever is done the unions wont approve of it..
It has to be done. To the unions I say tough. Our credit rating as a country has slipped enough already. Everyone knows something needs to be done. Kippy, do you remember the speech in the Point several years ago by the German ambassador, where he joked about the wages of highly paid public servants here compared to Germany ?A LOT of what is overspend in the PS is not the front line services but the middlemanagement and paper pushers. The amount of wastage in these areas is crazy, it would be much better to cut out the waste and streamline things than get some meagure tax from those that are on over 50k.
Meagure tax ? 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. If you think its meagure, increase it to an average of a 10 or 15 k percentage based tax. I never said wastage in other areas does not need to be cut out / streamlined too.0 -
-
I cant back it up with anything more than what I have seen when working in the sector.P. Breathnach wrote: »People often say such things. Can you back up the claim (preferably with more than anecdote)?
For example, there is a distinct lack of wanting to implement IT systems which would help reduce workload and as such numbers needed in the background services.
Do you have better reasoning as to why the cost of running the sector has gone up five fold since the turn of the century?0 -
Advertisement
-
You are basing your figure on 5K for every single person working in the PS.It has to be done. To the unions I say tough. Our credit rating as a country has slipped enough already. Everyone knows something needs to be done. Kippy, do you remember the speech in the Point several years ago by the German ambassador, where he joked about the wages of highly paid public servants here compared to Germany ?
Meagure tax ? 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. If you think its meagure, increase it to an average of a 10 or 15 k percentage based tax. I never said wastage in other areas does not need to be cut out / streamlined too.
Have you amended your calculations to take into account the percentages and caps which have since come into discussion in the thread?0 -
I cant back it up with anything more than what I have seen when working in the sector.
For example, there is a distinct lack of wanting to implement IT systems which would help reduce workload and as such numbers needed in the background services.
Do you have better reasoning as to why the cost of running the sector has gone up five fold since the turn of the century?
My question was a genuine enquiry rather than an implication that you were wrong.
I don't know if my thoughts are any better. Some factors are:
- Public services have become more complex to organise and deliver because laws and regulations have evolved that increase the burden (for example, various measures to deal with disadvantage). Not all changes are popular: think (briefly: let's not get sidetracked) of the Official Languages Act.
- Consumers of public services are more demanding (or exacting).
- I suspect, based on limited knowledge, that there are major failures in organisation. This is partly because of excessive reliance on the idea of the generalist. The idea is that public servants have a broad skill set, and are fitted to a wide range of duties. That is not a bad idea, provided that it is also recognise that people do not have universal skill sets. For example, you should not put anybody in a key role in financial administration who is not particularly at home with numerical information.
- Empire-building can be a problem, and I am not sure if there are strong enough procedures to challenge it.
Some things in the public service work very well. It looks to me as if the Revenue Commissioners run one of the best data-processing operations anywhere. This makes what you comment on even more disappointing. It does look to me as if many other ares in the public service have deplorably bad IT systems.0 -
No problem.....P. Breathnach wrote: »My question was a genuine enquiry rather than an implication that you were wrong.
I don't know if my thoughts are any better. Some factors are:
- Public services have become more complex to organise and deliver because laws and regulations have evolved that increase the burden (for example, various measures to deal with disadvantage). Not all changes are popular: think (briefly: let's not get sidetracked) of the Official Languages Act.
- Consumers of public services are more demanding (or exacting).
- I suspect, based on limited knowledge, that there are major failures in organisation. This is partly because of excessive reliance on the idea of the generalist. The idea is that public servants have a broad skill set, and are fitted to a wide range of duties. That is not a bad idea, provided that it is also recognise that people do not have universal skill sets. For example, you should not put anybody in a key role in financial administration who is not particularly at home with numerical information.
- Empire-building can be a problem, and I am not sure if there are strong enough procedures to challenge it.
Some things in the public service work very well. It looks to me as if the Revenue Commissioners run one of the best data-processing operations anywhere. This makes what you comment on even more disappointing. It does look to me as if many other ares in the public service have deplorably bad IT systems.
As I said I dont have any hard evidence but from what I can see there are many many areas that could be improved in many areas of public service (especially the "non frontline" services") with the use of proper and correct IT systems but the will in most areas hasnt been there.
While I appreciate your reasonings, I do believe there are a number of people working in positions that are not required at all or that could be phased out with the right will.
The revenue seem to be a subset of the PS in general from many aspects. One has to ask what is different that makes them so efficient. Skeptics could argue it is because they are the biggest revenue generating arm of the PS and hence NEED to be most efficient. Still, it would be nice to see some of their systems and the people who have pushed them. Unions dont APPEAR to have as big as say in its workings either from what I can see.0 -
You are basing your figure on 5K for every single person working in the PS.
No I am not. Only on the above average earners. The very average public service salary is not captured in the net.
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.Have you amended your calculations to take into account the percentages and caps which have since come into discussion in the thread?0 -
So your numbers are based on everyone on over 49000k paying approximately 5% of their wages in this tax?No I am not. Only on the above average earners. The very average public service salary is not captured in the net.
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.
So a guy on 48K per annum is better off than a guy on 50K per annum..... How would you allow for this in the real world?
How would this tax affect pension entitlements?
To be frankly honest as someone who works in the PS, I dont think this makes any sense at all when there are easier and better ways to save money in the sector, many of which I have gone into before on various other threads.
Kippy0 -
No I am not. Only on the above average earners. The very average public service salary is not captured in the net.
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.
Oh man...those on 60-80k per year are already down about €500p.m. Believe it or not €500 is €500 whatever wage you are on. It doesn't mean that you are going from eating caviar to fillet steak. It means that you get rid of the phone line and move your mortgage like everyone else.
Just get rid of the 'job for life mentality' you do a bad job and you're out. You do a good job and you get rewarded for it. Just like everywhere else.0 -
So your numbers are based on everyone on over 49000k paying approximately 5% of their wages in this tax?
The first 49 or 50 k of a persons wages are exempt from the tax, so it only applies to the higher earners.So a guy on 48K per annum is better off than a guy on 50K per annum..... How would you allow for this in the real world?
its a percentage based tax...and the tax would not kick in until the person earned 49 or 50 k. As I said before, "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."
In your example, the guy on say 48 or 49 k would pay no J.S.T ( job security tax). The person on say 52 k would pay only a percentage of 2 k on the tax.
Have they or will they be implimented ? Will they save as much as the new JST ?To be frankly honest as someone who works in the PS, I dont think this makes any sense at all when there are easier and better ways to save money in the sector, many of which I have gone into before on various other threads.
Kippy0 -
They still have the same gross pay. They just have to pay a higher contribution to their pension, which is still subsidised. The full economic cost of their pension would be more like 25% of their salary. Manys a person would love to have a guaranteed public service pension , for the relatively small cost of it.Oh man...those on 60-80k per year are already down about €500p.m.
The unions will never allow that. How bad a teacher would they have to be to be "out" as you say, for example. Do not forget the tax , as I said, 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 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.Just get rid of the 'job for life mentality' you do a bad job and you're out.0 -
From what you say I believe your figures are at least slightly off.The first 49 or 50 k of a persons wages are exempt from the tax, so it only applies to the higher earners.
its a percentage based tax...and the tax would not kick in until the person earned 49 or 50 k. As I said before, "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."
In your example, the guy on say 48 or 49 k would pay no J.S.T ( job security tax). The person on say 52 k would pay only a percentage of 2 k on the tax.
Have they or will they be implimented ? Will they save as much as the new JST ?
For 50k, a 5% rate would would only take in €200 per annum. For 100k €2550, for 200k approx €5000 per annum.
You obviously need to know the numbers of people on these salaries to do out a projected income from the tax but I see it being a long long way off the figure you are stating.
There are massive opportunities for savings across the board in the public sector. The will needs to be there though and I believe that will is becoming more and more apparent. Whether the Unions allow certain stuff to happen is a moot point.
Some of them have been implemented already, travel expenses cut 25%, and rightfully so in my opinion, could be cut a bit more, there are moves also to implement more efficient phone systems, save on energy costs, reduce costs in general, that coupled with pensions levy, income levy and whatever else is gonna come out of this new budget. All of this SHOULD have been high priority in the "good times" but it wasnt. There is a need and hopefully enough people in decision making positions to bring about these changes as we move forward.
You speak of this "JST" as if it is already on the table and about to come in, I fear you've not done enough nitty gritty work on it to propose it as a realistic option.
Kippy0 -
I never mentioned a 5% rate. I did mention an average figure of 5k per public servant who was paid more than the average public service wage.From what you say I believe your figures are at least slightly off.For 50k, a 5% rate would would only take in ...You speak of this "JST" as if it is already on the table and about to come in...
Top Public service pay needs to be reduced and the budget deficit needs to be reduced. Only time will tell...
Kippy, I will ask you again : do you remember the speech in the Point several years ago by the German ambassador, where he joked about the wages of highly paid public servants here compared to Germany ?0 -
Advertisement
-
They still have the same gross pay. They just have to pay a higher contribution to their pension, which is still subsidised. The full economic cost of their pension would be more like 25% of their salary. Manys a person would love to have a guaranteed public service pension , for the relatively small cost of it.
My point was that the living standards of these people have been hit already, and will be again in the budget without the additional tax that you propose. You roll off the concept of "a couple of grand" rather easily. There would be major impacts of additional taxation (on top of general taxation increases) on the ground - not all public sector workers are as insulated from economic reality as seems to be the general perception.
I hate to bring up the thorny issue of the obvious reaction to the last sentence above. My understanding is that recruitment to the majority of public sector jobs is open and transparant....
There are massive opportunities for savings across the board in the public sector. The will needs to be there though and I believe that will is becoming more and more apparent. Whether the Unions allow certain stuff to happen is a moot point.
Some of them have been implemented already, travel expenses cut 25%, and rightfully so in my opinion, could be cut a bit more, there are moves also to implement more efficient phone systems, save on energy costs, reduce costs in general, that coupled with pensions levy, income levy and whatever else is gonna come out of this new budget. All of this SHOULD have been high priority in the "good times" but it wasnt. There is a need and hopefully enough people in decision making positions to bring about these changes as we move forward.
Agree here. The policy should be in increasing real efficiencies in the public sector and forcing managers to take responsibility. The tools are there to deal with continuing underperformance...they need to be applied consistently by managers and become ingrained in public sector culture.
Unfortunately, political decisions will always take precedence over unpopular strategies which would be beneficial in the long term - had unions been challenged in the past then we would not be in this uncompetitive situation in the first place, multinational companies would not be pulling out of the country and we would have a smaller hole to fill in this budget.0 -
Okay,I never mentioned a 5% rate. I did mention an average figure of 5k per public servant who was paid more than the average public service wage.
Top Public service pay needs to be reduced and the budget deficit needs to be reduced. Only time will tell...
Kippy, I will ask you again : do you remember the speech in the Point several years ago by the German ambassador, where he joked about the wages of highly paid public servants here compared to Germany ?
Just to clarify, I want to see your percentages and bands written down here in black and white. How are you intending to take anywhere near 5K off a guy whose income is over the average by only 1K?
I would expect the majority or workers who are earning over 49k are on between 50 and 75K.
Your lack of concrete figures and "blurry" maths leaves a lot to be desired. I aint the best at maths myself but I can see straight off that your figures or lack thereoff dont add up.
I didnt realise you had directly asked me that questions already.
But yes I do remember that and I also remember it being a talking point in Germany more recently than that. To be honest I dont think thats relevant for this discussion at all and just detracts from you lack of concrete figures.0 -
My point was that the living standards of these people have been hit already
Oil, inflation, interest rates , cars etc - all are well down, and living standards have not been hit in a very negative way. The pensions levy is paying something towards still subsidised pensions. They still need to be pulled in to line more. Besides, the new tax is not compulsory. Only those who want the perk of job security in the public service will have to pay for it. People can still work in the public service without paying j.s.t. - just that these people will be the first to go if people need to be let go.0 -
... Only those who want the perk of job security in the public service will have to pay for it. People can still work in the public service without paying j.s.t. - just that these people will be the first to go if people need to be let go.
Brilliant.
Those who admit to themselves that they are not very good at their jobs will opt to pay the "tax". So when the cuts come, they will be saved. Those who are good at their jobs will be fired.
Back to the drawing board.0 -
Besides, the new tax is not compulsory. Only those who want the perk of job security in the public service will have to pay for it. People can still work in the public service without paying j.s.t. - just that these people will be the first to go if people need to be let go.
So I can pay 5k a year and sit doing nothing in the safe knowledge that I can't be sacked for it while people who are progressive and trying to change the current system will be let go....
Back to the politics side of things....you are offering people a choice as to whether they pay the tax or not. Your revenue stream will equal zero (or will be 5k x number-of-people-who-have-no-intention-of-changing-anything p.a.), embedding these people further into the system and costing the country more money in the long term.0 -
How are you intending to take anywhere near 5K off a guy whose income is over the average by only 1K?
..... I aint the best at maths myself but I can see straight off that your figures or lack thereoff dont add up..
Nobody is intending to take anywhere near 5K off a guy whose income is over the average by only 1K ! lol
As I said before, its a percentage based tax...and the tax would not kick in until the person earned 49 or 50 k. As I said before, "I think the way to do it will be just to tax that part of a persons earnings over say 50,000, @ x % JST ."
The JST figure should, I propose, be between 10 and 20%, given the state of our public finances. There will be no mass exodus to the private sector.....I think it fair to say many if not most private sector employees envy those public sector employees in secure, pensionable jobs earning over 49 or 50 k per year.
If that x figure was 10% , then someone on 50 k would pay no JST. Someone on 55 k would pay 500 euro jst, someone on 60 k would pay 1000 euro JST, someone on 80k would pay 3k JST, someone on 100,000 would pay 5,000 JST, someone on 180 k would pay 13k JST.
If the x figure was double that, then the JST total would be double that.
Its relevant for this discussion if it reminds you how overpaid the top half of our public service is - whatever about the bottom half. It was a common joke about how some government employees here would turn up their noses at the 120,000 or so their counterparts got in Germany...sure why would'nt they when they were getting over 200k here ?But yes I do remember that and I also remember it being a talking point in Germany more recently than that. To be honest I dont think thats relevant for this discussion at all0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Brilliant.
Those who admit to themselves that they are not very good at their jobs will opt to pay the "tax". So when the cuts come, they will be saved. Those who are good at their jobs will be fired.
Back to the drawing board.So I can pay 5k a year and sit doing nothing in the safe knowledge that I can't be sacked for it while people who are progressive and trying to change the current system will be let go....
Back to the politics side of things....you are offering people a choice as to whether they pay the tax or not. Your revenue stream will equal zero (or will be 5k x number-of-people-who-have-no-intention-of-changing-anything p.a.), embedding these people further into the system and costing the country more money in the long term.
I can say no more...0 -
So I can pay 5k a year and sit doing nothing in the safe knowledge that I can't be sacked for it ...
At the moment - and for many many years - people can pay zero a year and sit doing nothing in the safe knowledge that they can't be sacked for it
At least if 150,000 people are paying an average of 5 k each its raising a lot for the govt / the govt is saving almost 1 billion out of the 25 billion its borrowing this year, to pay things like the public service.Back to the politics side of things....you are offering people a choice as to whether they pay the tax or not. Your revenue stream will equal zero ...
ok, if you think highly paid people will not pay the tax if given the choice - then make it compulsory.
Its not an ideal tax and is necessary partly because top Public sector pay in this country was allowed get out of line to begin with.0 -
Jimmy,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.
this is your first post on the topic. Initially it was a 5k flat fee for incomes of 49000 or above. After people pointed out the obvious folly of this suggestion you changed your mind, fair enough.
So as well as taxing people at 41% (going higher in the budget) on anything over 40 odd K, you intend upping this tax to 60+ odd percent for anything over 50K, as well as all the other taxes.....and at that a "voluntary" tax....
Come one man, step into the real world. Theres thinking outside the box and theres plain daftness.
It would be MUCH better bring a private sector type performance level and cutting of running costs mantra into the sector than what you are talking about.
The last two posts point out the very very obvious flaws in your case.
Kippy0 -
Advertisement
-
Jimmy, give up, your idea has been weeweed on, the ills of the country are not due solely to the public service. I am a public servant and will readily admit it needs change in some ways. I have watched plenty of friends earn WAY more than me in the private sector and mock me and my choice of job while they earned massive amounts for doing f*ck all as far as I could see. Now that things aren't so rosy for some of the private sector its easy for reactionaries to find a simple target. If you're going to talk about the German diplomat then I will mention the OECD who have stated that the Irish public service is understaffed and under resourced, I don't agree fully with their report nor do I fully disagree with the German. The real perpetrators of the current woes are the Fianna Fail mafia and their corrupt ways, they have used the highest offices in the land for their benefit and that of their benefactors, the system of state has been rotted to it's very foundation by this putrid party of gombeen men and strokers. I would also ask the electorate to shoulder the blame for voting in this mob and turning a blind eye to being bribed with their own money without asking where the money was coming from and whether it could last. Its tme for a change in how we perceive ourselves as a people, do we want to be little bunch of mé féiners who think pulling a stroke is amusing and OK if we get away with it or do we want the state first, to have a system of government that will put the state and its people first. Sorry, rant over, I hate what is happening to this country, it was all too predictable for those who saw the bigger picture.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement