300 civil servants are paid more than €165,000 per year

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

Irish multinationals do count, yes. But only if you can prove that they have never had any involvement whatsoever with state agencies and the public sector workers who staff them. Or that have never availed of a tax break, a state grant, a state backed export guarantee, a state trade mission, state assistance in an export market. Who don't employ researchers who were educated in state universities at the expense of the state. That is, that have relied purely on private funding from their initial business ideas to bringing their products to the markets. Who have made a point of eschewing all support from the state. If you can demonstrate all of the above, then yes, certainly, Irish multinationals count.

What are you on about? What does having some state aid got to do with this thread or their R&D?

Fergus08 wrote:

I don't get your point about Obama? Yeah, we're a tax haven and we thought that with an oul nod-and-a-wink and a "how's your father" we'd fool the state authorities of proper economies like the US and Germany. We'll reap a bitter harvest for the IFSC. But you haven't addressed my point. Why if it's economic sabotage, as the Irish Times put it, for unions to strike, is it not also economic sabotage to indulge in tax avoidance at this critical time in the state's history??

Grand, go ahead and quote my post were I said that.If you can't find anything, which I think will be the case, take it up with the Times!

Fergus08 wrote:

As regards union membership density. The unions, to their eternal shame, were totally uninterested in recruiting in large part of the private sector. And, also, a "non-threatening" union environment was a big selling point for the IDA in the past.... As well as they when times are good lots of people think "sure, we don't need old-fashioned unions". But when times get bad, like now.... well ideas on unions change.....

Indeed and whatever did the EU do for us?

Fergus08

K-9 wrote: »

What are you on about? What does having some state aid got to do with this thread or their R&D?


What is has got to with this thread is as follows. The point has been made that public servants and public expenditure are a burden on business and the "taxpayer". My point is no business can succeed without the public sector providing general supports (health, education, administration etc) and specific supports (R&D, grants, tax breaks etc). All of the require educated and able people to run. Ergo, public sector is not an issue. As without these people we have no functioning economy.


Grand, go ahead and quote my post were I said that.If you can't find anything, which I think will be the case, take it up with the Times!

Yeah, well I didn't say "you" specifically are accusing the unions of sabotage by striking. But that arguement has been made by the Times and has been repeated constantly - I think on this forum as well. But, I'm sure you'd agree that you don't have an overly positive view of unions. But you don't seem too keen either to criticise the groups actively undermining the state through tax avoidance, and, as the Revenue make clear, increased tax evasion.


Indeed and whatever did the EU do for us?

Sorry, I don't get what this has to do with my comments, above.

My queries regarding this thread still stand unanswered. It's supposed to generate outrage over the fact that 300 public servants have salaries in excess of 165K. It has succeeded in that.

But, I ask again, why does this matter when we will possibly have to bail out the banks, according to the IMF, to the tune of 24 billion; and it'll cost the taxpayer at least 30 billion and as much as 90 billion (possibly more) to bail out the property developers and the banks, again?

Secondly, no-one has addressed my point that the public sector supports and sustains the private sector. That individual wealth is not possible without a large degree of public provision.

thealltimelow

what about me and 250,000 google yearly pay

NewDubliner

Fergus08 wrote: »

But, I ask again, why does this matter when we will possibly have to bail out the banks, according to the IMF, to the tune of 24 billion; and it'll cost the taxpayer at least 30 billion and as much as 90 billion (possibly more) to bail out the property developers and the banks, again?

It matters because the story about .1% of the public sector failed to mention that the number of high-earning employees in the private sector is considerable - tens of thousands, compared to just 300. In 2005, 3% of the private sector employees were on €100,000. These people are keeping a low profile right now.

So why whip up popular resentment against the PS?

The Irish Independent is a tool of big business. It owes millions to the banks, and depends heavily on advertising income from banks and property developers. The oligarchs that own it have done very well in the past by picking up public assets a low prices and making themselves very rich.

Now, the game is to bias popular opinion in favour of a fire sale of public utilities, such as gas, water, roads, electricity, health, education under the guise of 'privatisation, free market, competition, more efficient...'.

Guess, who'll buy the utilities and baragin basement prices?

gnxx

Fergus08,

I would consider myself an entrepreneur. I haven't bought property since the early 90's.

Our company is profitable since 2002. We invest about 70% of revenue in "hardcore" research and development. This is several million euro.

We have received NO state assistance. We actively avoid calls from Enterprise Ireland. To be clear, Enterrprise Ireland has good people who would be heroes in the private sector, but they are also struggling to deal with public sector mentality.

Meanwhile the public sector continue to waste money into "R&D" projects like the Digital Hub and Media Lab. It would be cheaper and more efficient to take the cash poured into these projects outside and burn it.

As for your comment that the "research and development is done EXCLUSIVELY by public sector workers", this statement is probably based on sped. The fact that the public sector maybe spending ( wasting ) more on R+D than the private sector. When the private sector pays for R+D, it must convert the R+D into products -- otherwise people lose their jobs.

You might wonder why Darragh and others appear to have "an attitude". I'm not getting into public sector bashing here. I've seen some great / intelligent / brave / outstanding work in the public sector. However, most entrepreneurs have stories of public sector incompetence that are unbelievable. Really unbelievable. Buy me drink and after about 3 beers, I will entertain for hours on this subject.

This stupid and lazy entrepreneur needs to go back to work now.

Fergus08 wrote: »

Darragh - hold your horses, son. EVERYTHING that you've written about my personal circumstances in the public sector is untrue. I'm not going to go into details, you've really shown yourself to be exceptionally uninformed.

Many people currently with jobs in the public sector will be on the dole in a few months time - I could be, fingers crossed I won't be, one of them. Unions or no unions they're going to lose their job. And, it might interest you to know, that the unions in the public sector are more often than not the ally of management than of the people they represent - but that's a different debate altogether.


Now, my point. k-9: unions have a far better understanding of their role than many union-bashers think. They don't strike because they know it would be economic suicide. Contrast that with the accountancy and legal professions who still, even though the state is on its fiscal knees, are assisting the wealthy to avoid tax. Striking and tax avoidance are both legal activities, granted. Both of them in the current circumstances are economically detrimental. The unions are not striking, but the accountants are still working to prevent the state from getting its hands on much needed tax revenue. Explain how out-of-touch the unions supposed are, again???

Darragh, you need to get a couple of things straight. Although I'm sure your belief that you are an entreprenuer is central to your self-esteem you need to realise that your workers NOT you are the wealth creators. Without them you'd have no business, no wealth, nothing.

Secondly, entrepreneurs in this state are too stupid and lazy to do any kind of worthwhile economic activity. We get 'The Apprentice' and the business giant who presents it is a f**king car dealer, FFS!! We have a motivational entrepreneur who can't keep his mouth shut whose claim to fame is selling sandwiches. FFS, again! Another so-call entrepreneur who can't keep his mouth shut is a bookie, jesus wept?? Entrepreneurs won't scratch their arses without tax breaks, state agencies (staffed by public servants, of course) to make sense of their little ideas, export guarantees, state agencies again to help them market their ideas, state agencies to help them break into markets abroad. The list goes on and on. The state and public servants supports entrepreneurs, NOT the other way round.

Meanwhile the research and development that is going to power the so-called economiy is done EXCLUSIVELY by massively (for their qualifications and abilities) public sector workers. Business people in this country would rather invest in property than in the development of science and technology. The state and public sector workers, again have to try and push things forward. Our useless 'entrepreneurs' just couldn't be bothered investing in research and development, leave that to the public sector and whinge about them all.

Darragh, jimmmy, K-9 - you've nothing constructive to contribute to this debate. Spouting simplistic, cliched, easily refutable nonsense about the public sector is a sad way to spend your time. Public sector bashers would be advised to concentrate on positive suggestions.

Fergus08

That's fair enough. If the public sector is "wasting" money, as you put it, on R&D then why aren't the private investors stumping instead? Why is it considered acceptable for an entrepreneur who makes 300 million on a state granted phone licence to immediately shift it off-shore and not, for example, use it to set up a private sector R&D? That's the largest example, in money terms, that I can think off. Hundreds of billions in profit have been shifted off-shore by Irish entrepreneurs over the past 15 years. Why wasn't that invested in R&D during the so-called boom years? Without the state investing in R&D there will be no smart economy. Sure, a handful of private comapnies will, but not to the extent that's required.

So, your company has never taken a tax break - even if it's competitors were taking advantage? Never called on any of the state agencies involved in promoting trade to assist with anything? At all? That doesn't ring true.

And, remember, the boom was brought to us by the efforts of public servants in the IDA and other state agencies, not from the tax dodging 'entrepreneurs' of the day who were happy to see the state taking 60% in income tax from ordinary workers while contributing nothing themselves. Something we're going back to.

I appreciate that my generalisations about entrepreneurs are perhaps too sweeping, but there nothing in comparison to the bile and hatred directed towards the PS.

gnxx

A good example of the public sector at work !!

Why did the public sector (a) grant the license and (b) avoid implementing tax legislation to prevent this?

Maybe I will leave this to somebody in the public sector to explain.

Fergus08 wrote: »

Why is it considered acceptable for an entrepreneur who makes 300 million on a state granted phone licence to immediately shift it off-shore and not, for example, use it to set up a private sector R&D?

dresden8

gnxx wrote: »

A good example of the public sector at work !!

Why did the public sector (a) grant the license and (b) avoid implementing tax legislation to prevent this?

Maybe I will leave this to somebody in the public sector to explain.

Politicians.

gnxx

No. And completely true ...

Fergus08 wrote: »

So, your company has never taken a tax break - even if it's competitors were taking advantage? Never called on any of the state agencies involved in promoting trade to assist with anything? At all? That doesn't ring true.

K-9

Fergus08 wrote: »

And, one more thing, anyone who is concerned about 300 public servants being paid 165K but is not more concerned and agitated that the IMF reckon that it will cost us 24 billion (possibly more) to bail out the banks, is not someone who has a serious grasp of currents. Moreover, the taxpayer (disproportionately consisting of public sector workers) has been lumped with a mess created entirely by private businesses in the form of NAMA. That is infinitely more important than public sector pay - which at least will keep spending going for a few years.

Thing is these massive bank and developer profits allowed benchmarking, the pay increases and the big increase in Public Service numbers.

Infinitely, I wouldn't agree. Spending? When you are spending 60% of your tax revenues on the Public service, that will not keep spending going. That was tried in the 70/80's.

Fergus08 wrote: »

That's a bit OT, but the Unions have not been a beacon or anything like it.That's nonsense. The unions have represented their membership through the partnership process. During the so-called 'boom' the unions could have dumped partnership and engaged in a free-for-all. They didn't. They stayed in the process, kept wage artifically low, traded wages increases for tax cuts (stupidly, in my opinion). All at a time when inflation was running at 5% for YEARS and house prices were increasing by at least 25% every year for 10 years. When corporate profits were growing exponentially, when the country was "awash with money" as Mary Harney said. When the number of millionaires grew to 33,000, once millionaire for every civil servant, you could say.

YEP, they had no problems getting benchmarking, pay rises etc. out of the taxes on these Windfall taxes.

Fergus08 wrote:

And, benching marking is small change compared to the bail out for the banks.

If you call €10 Billion small change, yes!

Fergus08 wrote:

Public sector pay and public expenditure generally will at least shore up demand and consumption in a recession and will go some small way to preventing the recession becoming a recession. On the other hand, the bail-out, bank guarantee, NAMA etc all products of the private sector, could send us back to the economic stone age. Why that is of less concern to the public-sector bashers than the relatively trivial of public expenditure, is a mystery to me. My conclusion would be that they have a coherent grasp of current events, but have overheated imaginations and visceral unthinking hatred for the public sector.

Public sector pay will not do that if we can't afford it. On the banks, what's your alternative?

Fergus08 wrote:

The fact remains that you can't cut your way out of a recession, you need to spend, spend and spend again.

Wasn't that tried in 01/02 and look at the success it brought?

Fergus08 wrote: »

Now, my point. k-9: unions have a far better understanding of their role than many union-bashers think. They don't strike because they know it would be economic suicide. Contrast that with the accountancy and legal professions who still, even though the state is on its fiscal knees, are assisting the wealthy to avoid tax. Striking and tax avoidance are both legal activities, granted. Both of them in the current circumstances are economically detrimental. The unions are not striking, but the accountants are still working to prevent the state from getting its hands on much needed tax revenue. Explain how out-of-touch the unions supposed are, again???

They where going to strike, they didn't get the required support.

Depends on what the money is used for and what tax breaks are used. They are good reliefs on R&D, is that denying the state tax revenue, or eventually creating more wealth for the country?

Fergus08 wrote:

Secondly, entrepreneurs in this state are too stupid and lazy to do any kind of worthwhile economic activity. We get 'The Apprentice' and the business giant who presents it is a f**king car dealer, FFS!! We have a motivational entrepreneur who can't keep his mouth shut whose claim to fame is selling sandwiches. FFS, again! Another so-call entrepreneur who can't keep his mouth shut is a bookie, jesus wept?? Entrepreneurs won't scratch their arses without tax breaks, state agencies (staffed by public servants, of course) to make sense of their little ideas, export guarantees, state agencies again to help them market their ideas, state agencies to help them break into markets abroad. The list goes on and on. The state and public servants supports entrepreneurs, NOT the other way round.

The Apprentice is great TV, but it's TV. Nice rant though

Why does the State support entrpreneurs?

Fergus08 wrote:

Meanwhile the research and development that is going to power the so-called economiy is done EXCLUSIVELY by massively (for their qualifications and abilities) public sector workers.

If you have links for that, that would be great.

Fergus08 wrote:

Business people in this country would rather invest in property than in the development of science and technology. The state and public sector workers, again have to try and push things forward. Our useless 'entrepreneurs' just couldn't be bothered investing in research and development, leave that to the public sector and whinge about them all.

Is this the same state that pushed property tax breaks, against advice?
I take it, seeing as the Public Service is so important with support, aid etc. you'll be blaming the public sector too?

Fergus08 wrote: »

But if the best examples of our entrepreneurs are a car dealer, a sandwich maker and a bookie then we haven't a hope of getting out of this crisis.

Its TV

Fergus08 wrote:

My whole point in participating on this thread, which is a depressing experience, is to show that there is HUGE degree of interdependence between the public and the private sectors. And to try and refute the idiotic notion that the private sector carries the public sector, which it most certainly does not. The public sector and workers involved in it, facilitate economic growth, activity, wealth creation, and social cohesion. Without them there is no viable economy, period. The most corrupt economies and backward countries in the world are places where public servants are poorly paid and willing to take bribes. That does not happen here, as public servants are paid well enough to ensure that they don't have to undertake corrupt practices to supplement their incomes.

And then you have France!

Fergus08 wrote:

One example of the benefits to business of our public health system, imperfect and flawed as it is, can be see by comparing here with the US. The US car industry is about to go under because of the cost of health insurance for its workers. If the US federal government provided health care, instead of private companies and insurance companies, then that industry might have a better chance. So, you have an example here of where a private business is in danger because of a lack of a comprehensive taxation funded public health system.

And who pays for this new Health care?

Fergus08 wrote:

And again this debate, such as it is, is taking place at a time when the state has to fork out, according to the IMF, at least 24 billion euro to bail out a part of the private sector - the banks. NAMA has to be created to resolve the mess created by another part of the private sector - the building industry - which could see the state saddled with 90 billion euro in debts. A total of at least 114 billions, several years of the public sector wage bill. Gone, in a puff of smoke because of private sector recklessness.

And Public Sector.

Fergus08 wrote: »

K-9: I'm well aware that the state allows and facilitates tax avoidance. My point is that in these times to engage in tax avoidance is to undermine the public finances further. We don't have onerous capital taxes here, the wealthy don't have to engage in tax avoidance, they choose to. What that says about them and the professions associated with tax avoidance when then state is under severe fiscal strain should be clear.

You seem to have an ill informed view of what good tax breaks can do. Tax breaks on Pensions eg. are promoted for a reason.

Fergus08 wrote:

K9
Point out to me one large scale privately funded research and develop project that isn't a multinational in this state??? They don't exist!! Because our 'entrepreneurs' were too buying property and not investing in technologies that will actual sustain economic growth.

K-9 and Jimmmy - if you can provide examples to refute the above I won't contribute again.

Kerrygold, Airtricity etc.

Fergus08 wrote: »

Irish multinationals do count, yes. But only if you can prove that they have never had any involvement whatsoever with state agencies and the public sector workers who staff them. Or that have never availed of a tax break, a state grant, a state backed export guarantee, a state trade mission, state assistance in an export market. Who don't employ researchers who were educated in state universities at the expense of the state. That is, that have relied purely on private funding from their initial business ideas to bringing their products to the markets. Who have made a point of eschewing all support from the state. If you can demonstrate all of the above, then yes, certainly, Irish multinationals count.

I really don't see what you are getting at. The state should support R&D etc. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Fergus08 wrote:

I don't get your point about Obama? Yeah, we're a tax haven and we thought that with an oul nod-and-a-wink and a "how's your father" we'd fool the state authorities of proper economies like the US and Germany. We'll reap a bitter harvest for the IFSC. But you haven't addressed my point. Why if it's economic sabotage, as the Irish Times put it, for unions to strike, is it not also economic sabotage to indulge in tax avoidance at this critical time in the state's history??

You'd really need to take that up with the Times. Don't think I made that point. Any links to it though?

Fergus08 wrote:

As regards union membership density. The unions, to their eternal shame, were totally uninterested in recruiting in large part of the private sector. And, also, a "non-threatening" union environment was a big selling point for the IDA in the past.... As well as they when times are good lots of people think "sure, we don't need old-fashioned unions". But when times get bad, like now.... well ideas on unions change.....

Haven't seen any massive support for Unions. Then again, I'm in the middle on them, not a fan boy.

Fergus08 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't get what this has to do with my comments, above.

My queries regarding this thread still stand unanswered. It's supposed to generate outrage over the fact that 300 public servants have salaries in excess of 165K. It has succeeded in that.

But, I ask again, why does this matter when we will possibly have to bail out the banks, according to the IMF, to the tune of 24 billion; and it'll cost the taxpayer at least 30 billion and as much as 90 billion (possibly more) to bail out the property developers and the banks, again?

Secondly, no-one has addressed my point that the public sector supports and sustains the private sector. That individual wealth is not possible without a large degree of public provision.

I don't why you brought up the point. Don't think anybody doubts that.

Now, maybe you'd be kind enough to answer my previous posts.

dresden8

gnxx wrote: »

No. And completely true ...

Never took advantage of back to work schemes?

PRSI exemption schemes?

Those schemes were there to help the private sector.

No wonder your business is in the sh1t.

gnxx

Just to add a bit of clarity on this point.

It is very time consuming and costly to deal with the state agencies charged with assisting small businesses. Everybody involved in this area is aware of the difficulty.

Often the companies that benefit from this type of support are large, have good legal and accounting support and can work the system.

Fergus08 wrote: »

So, your company has never taken a tax break - even if it's competitors were taking advantage? Never called on any of the state agencies involved in promoting trade to assist with anything? At all? That doesn't ring true.

dresden8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fergus08

Now, my point. k-9: unions have a far better understanding of their role than many union-bashers think. They don't strike because they know it would be economic suicide. Contrast that with the accountancy and legal professions who still, even though the state is on its fiscal knees, are assisting the wealthy to avoid tax. Striking and tax avoidance are both legal activities, granted. Both of them in the current circumstances are economically detrimental. The unions are not striking, but the accountants are still working to prevent the state from getting its hands on much needed tax revenue. Explain how out-of-touch the unions supposed are, again???

They where going to strike, they didn't get the required support.

Didn't get the required support from union members. Who aren't always on strike. Who took the bigger picture. Who decided to take the hit for the country. Why, the public sector unions!

Out of touch public servants!

gnxx

What are you talking about? We are not in the sh**.

We are currently profitable and hiring staff.

dresden8 wrote: »

Never took advantage of back to work schemes?

PRSI exemption schemes?

Those schemes were there to help the private sector.

No wonder your business is in the sh1t.

dresden8

gnxx wrote: »

Just to add a bit of clarity on this point.

It is very time consuming and costly to deal with the state agencies charged with assisting small businesses. Everybody involved in this area is aware of the difficulty.

Often the companies that benefit from this type of support are large, have good legal and accounting support and can work the system.

So you couldn't be arsed putting the work in to getting the free money.

How about paying people with large families crap money so they could claim FIS and get paid directly by the state?

Do you just want the civil service to turn up with a wheelbarrow full of money at your front door?

dresden8

gnxx wrote: »

What are you talking about? We are not in the sh**.

We are currently profitable and hiring staff.

But I've been following boards closely for the last few weeks. The private sector types have been telling us that the private sector has been losing pay and jobs for the last year.

Are you calling these private sector types liars?

The private sector is on it's knees. Do you not know? Are you insane?

I don't care what the facts are, you are private sector so you're struggling under the public sector burden.

Learn how to play the game or shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gnxx

We are a technology business and can't hire people on "crap money".

dresden8 wrote: »

How about paying people with large families crap money so they could claim FIS and get paid directly by the state?

gnxx

Not applicable for us.

dresden8 wrote: »

PRSI exemption schemes?

dresden8

gnxx wrote: »

We are a technology business and can't hire people on "crap money".

I obviously can't say too much, but there are a lot of people out there on crap pay, whatever their sector.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

So you couldn't be arsed putting the work in to getting the free money.

How about paying people with large families crap money so they could claim FIS and get paid directly by the state?

Do you just want the civil service to turn up with a wheelbarrow full of money at your front door?

You can earn €600 a week after tax and PRSI and get FIS, if you have 3 kids. Madness.

gnxx

I suspect that we are at cross-purposes here. I was talking about my business rather than the private sector on the whole.

dresden8 wrote: »

I obviously can't say too much, but there are a lot of people out there on crap pay, whatever their sector.

dresden8

gnxx wrote: »

We are a technology business and can't hire people on "crap money".

At last there is probably some middle ground.

Not all public sector frolics naked in work and not all private sector works in the sugar mines for their overlords.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

But I've been following boards closely for the last few weeks. The private sector types have been telling us that the private sector has been losing pay and jobs for the last year.

Are you calling these private sector types liars?

The private sector is on it's knees. Do you not know? Are you insane?

I don't care what the facts are, you are private sector so you're struggling under the public sector burden.

Learn how to play the game or shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you trying to prove a point or something?

Do you get what the private sector is about.

If some companies are doing well, isn't it great. Contributing Taxes and Revenue to the economy. Bad companies for doing well, bad!

You really want them all to suffer? Have you thought this point out?

dresden8

Not all private sector workers have been made unemployed. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie

Not all private sector workers have taken a paycut. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie. Some have gotten their T15 pay increases. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie.

Some private sector workers are doing quite well. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie

All public sector workers have taken the pension levy cut.

P. Breathnach

dresden8 wrote: »

... Not all public sector frolics naked in work and not all private sector works in the sugar mines for their overlords.

Don't trumpet that as a new discovery: I think most people know that. Discussions here tend to be hauled sideways by the extremists.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Not all private sector workers have been made unemployed. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie

Don't see 2 million unemployed so no, they aren't all unemployed.

dresden8 wrote:

Not all private sector workers have taken a paycut. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie. Some have gotten their T15 pay increases. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie.

Yep, plenty of threads moaning about it. PAYE/PRSI revenues are down despite levies, so it would suggest that yes, many are losing hours and wages.

dresden8 wrote:

Some private sector workers are doing quite well. Contrary to the propaganda on boards.ie

Know 1 or 2 who are. It's the type of business they are in, recessions are good for them.

dresden8 wrote:

All public sector workers have taken the pension levy cut.

Health levies are up, Income levies are up. They don't pay a Public Service pension levy because they don't get a public sector pension.

K-9

Dresden8, sorry for stating the obvious, but we need private sector companies to do well, or else we are fecked.

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Health levies are up, Income levies are up. They don't pay a Public Service pension levy because they don't get a public sector pension.

Indeed. Public sector are the only ones to pay all three but are the only ones to get their state pension paid (for for seperately from their PRSI contributions) deducted from their civil service pension.

Private sector get their private pension plus their state pension

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Dresden8, sorry for stating the obvious, but we need private sector companies to do well, or else we are fecked.

Agreed. But the public sector enable and support the private sector, we are not enemies. No matter what IBEC want you to believe.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

It matters because the story about .1% of the public sector failed to mention that the number of high-earning employees in the private sector is considerable - tens of thousands, compared to just 300. In 2005, 3% of the private sector employees were on €100,000. These people are keeping a low profile right now.

So why whip up popular resentment against the PS?

The Irish Independent is a tool of big business. It owes millions to the banks, and depends heavily on advertising income from banks and property developers. The oligarchs that own it have done very well in the past by picking up public assets a low prices and making themselves very rich.

Now, the game is to bias popular opinion in favour of a fire sale of public utilities, such as gas, water, roads, electricity, health, education under the guise of 'privatisation, free market, competition, more efficient...'.

Guess, who'll buy the utilities and baragin basement prices?

I wonder how many of them where in construction companies ir heavily reliant on construction?

The figures for 08 will make interesting reading.