public sector VS private sector

meditraitor

Alcatel wrote: »

And do what? If you try and touch public sector pay the public sector will bring the country to a halt. So we can't solve that bit of our 20bn black hole of finance.
.

This is one of the reasons behind the current wave of anti CS/PS sentiment.

The CS/PS unions would have no qualms about advising their member to strike!

One word for them
Benchmarking

Give me a reason why there should not be a new benchmarking initiative?

Fergus08

gnxx. No I'm stating that the tax contribution of public sector workers - based on a rough estimate which might be a little less or a little more - was 4.08 billion in 2007. The total tax take from corporation tax in 2007 was roughly 7 billion. Public sector workers, less than one in seven of the workforce in 2007, paid the equivalent of 50% of the tax paid by ALL businesses in this country including Dell, Pfizer, Intel, Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc etc. This is 2007, we're talking about, when things were going well. In 2009 public sector workers are likely to pay MORE tax as their incomes are steady, while business pays less as profitability declines. Also, of course, taxes on income have increased but NOT on profits.

Business made profits of at least 49 billion in that same year, if you take 7 billion as 12.5% of their profitability in that year and extrapolate from that. And that's if you include no tax allowances whatsoever to business. I'm not a tax expert but I reckon there are significant allowances to business which means that the profit made in 2007 could well be higher than 49 billion.

The nett cost to the exchequer of public sector pay in 2007 was likely to be around 9 billion, after you take into account tax, PRSI, VAT, Stamp duties etc paid by public sector workers. And a significant portion of the fabled 6% of income tax payers who contribute 40% of the tax take are likely to be public sector workers, given that you only a gross salary of a little over 60k to enter that exalted category

That is, public sector pay was 20% of private sector profitability in 2007. If corporation tax was raised to the level at which a low paid private sector worker inside the tax net pays it (i.e. 20%) that's another 4.2 billion (on my calculations) into the exchequer.

I know the argument that we need low corporate tax rates as an incentive to investment. But we also need a sense of perspective on the relative contributions of workers (in private and public sectors) and business to the exchequer vs. the benefits business derives from public expenditure.

I'm throwing in the towel now on this one, as I've spent long enough at it.

Nermal

Fergus08 wrote: »

gnxx. No I'm stating that the tax contribution of public sector workers - based on a rough estimate which might be a little less or a little more - was 4.08 billion in 2007. The total tax take from corporation tax in 2007 was roughly 7 billion. Public sector workers, less than one in seven of the workforce in 2007, paid the equivalent of 50% of the tax paid by ALL businesses in this country including Dell, Pfizer, Intel, Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc etc.

PS workers don't make a tax contribution, their entire income is paid by taxes on other sectors of the economy. Their 'contribution' is an accounting fiction.

Cuddlesworth

Fergus08 wrote: »

gnxx. No I'm stating that the tax contribution of public sector workers - based on a rough estimate which might be a little less or a little more - was 4.08 billion in 2007. The total tax take from corporation tax in 2007 was roughly 7 billion. Public sector workers, less than one in seven of the workforce in 2007, paid the equivalent of 50% of the tax paid by ALL businesses in this country including Dell, Pfizer, Intel, Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc etc. This is 2007, we're talking about, when things were going well. In 2009 public sector workers are likely to pay MORE tax as their incomes are steady, while business pays less as profitability declines. Also, of course, taxes on income have increased but NOT on profits.

Business made profits of at least 49 billion in that same year, if you take 7 billion as 12.5% of their profitability in that year and extrapolate from that. And that's if you include no tax allowances whatsoever to business. I'm not a tax expert but I reckon there are significant allowances to business which means that the profit made in 2007 could well be higher than 49 billion.

The nett cost to the exchequer of public sector pay in 2007 was likely to be around 9 billion, after you take into account tax, PRSI, VAT, Stamp duties etc paid by public sector workers. And a significant portion of the fabled 6% of income tax payers who contribute 40% of the tax take are likely to be public sector workers, given that you only a gross salary of a little over 60k to enter that exalted category

That is, public sector pay was 20% of private sector profitability in 2007. If corporation tax was raised to the level at which a low paid private sector worker inside the tax net pays it (i.e. 20%) that's another 4.2 billion (on my calculations) into the exchequer.

I know the argument that we need low corporate tax rates as an incentive to investment. But we also need a sense of perspective on the relative contributions of workers (in private and public sectors) and business to the exchequer vs. the benefits business derives from public expenditure.

I'm throwing in the towel now on this one, as I've spent long enough at it.

Why is the money paid out to employees of private firms left out of this argument?

Fergus08

OK, last comment. Nermal: that's dumb. The only word for it. I've shown that the public sector pay bill costs about 9 billion a year nett. That's all that the traded sector has to stump up. A mere 6 or 7% of GDP. For that they still got in 2007 49 billion, probably more, in profit.

And those other sectors of the economy couldn't function without the public sector. But there's no use making that patently obvious argument to some people - they'll never, never see the value and worth of the public sector. One that's out of all proportion to its cost.

Oh, **** it! There's no use! Definitely leaving this one!

Naz_st

gerry28 wrote: »

I don't know what your point is with this? Every country has its public sector and private sector, they have different rolls. The private sector generally generates income for the country and the public sector provide services. Are you saying we somehow should be grateful to you for generating tax to pay our wages?

No, I was responding to Fergus08, when he said:

Fergus08 wrote: »

So, 400,000 public sector workers contributed in 2007 at least 4.08 billion in incomes taxes. While the whole of business every corporation tax payer in the country, including some of the most profitable business in the world, contributed the princely sum of 7.3 billion. The contribution of public sector workers in 2007 was well over half of that of the whole of the business community in this country??? And the public sector are a burden??

To effectively point out what another poster has subsequently put more succinctly:

Nermal wrote: »

PS workers don't make a tax contribution, their entire income is paid by taxes on other sectors of the economy. Their 'contribution' is an accounting fiction.

oscarBravo

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Been there, done that, circle the wagons, close the thread.