An Bord Snip Nua

Sparks

is_that_so wrote: »

What is more important about this document and the impending Commission on Taxation report is what we want to do about it.

What we do about it?

We don't get to do anything about it. We can bitch and moan all we want, but last I checked, I didn't have a vote in this and neither did you, and frankly, the Dail doesn't count for much either. We get to watch FF run roughshod over the Dail bringing in whatever budget cuts or other measures they want. We get a vote on Lisbon (again), and we might get a vote in the upcoming by-election (whenever they decide to hold it) and we get a vote at the next general election.

But voting on actual policy? Or even on who is put in charge of what department? We don't get to vote on that.

And I think that's got a lot to do with why people are getting angry about all of this.

Sparks

Dabko wrote: »

The unions are a bunch of trouble making ***** who are only justifiying the fee's their members pay them.

So they're earning their pay, you say. By representing the best interests of their members rather than the entire population, you say.
Wow.
That's shocking.

Philistine

whippet wrote: »

it would be counter productive to cut them to rates like that, you want to encourage capable bright minds to our politics, by paying rates like that you would discourage many potentially excellent politicans from choosing that career.

Again, arguments like this are just deflecting the attention from the real problems and issues.

They're all on 100k plus expenses and allowances now, yet what capable bright minds do we have? You're arguement of paying more to get a better calibre of person entering the Dail hasn't worked to date! No top entrepreneur or businessman / businesswoman in their right mind would enter politics.

whippet

Sparks wrote: »

What we do about it?

We don't get to do anything about it. We can bitch and moan all we want, but last I checked, I didn't have a vote in this and neither did you, and frankly, the Dail doesn't count for much either. We get to watch FF run roughshod over the Dail bringing in whatever budget cuts or other measures they want. We get a vote on Lisbon (again), and we might get a vote in the upcoming by-election (whenever they decide to hold it) and we get a vote at the next general election.

But voting on actual policy? Or even on who is put in charge of what department? We don't get to vote on that.

And I think that's got a lot to do with why people are getting angry about all of this.

if there was a vote on every bit of leglislation nothing would ever be done!!!!! the arguments get more nosensical as time goes on.

regardless of how, why and when we got here, we are here and measures have to be taken to get us out of it. An independent report has been published outlining how they feel the way forward is.

I for one hope that the government have the balls and the determination to progress this report.

whippet

Philistine wrote: »

They're all on 100k plus expenses and allowances now, yet what capable bright minds do we have? You're arguement of paying more to get a better calibre of person entering the Dail hasn't worked to date! No top entrepreneur or businessman / businesswoman in their right mind would enter politics.

because the rewards of private sectors risk are greater.

Anyone can stand for election, it is their democratic right.

The sitting members of the dail are there due to the fact that enough of the citizens of the country voted for them. The public obviously felt that they were the most competant, best option for their vote.

You might not like them but it is a democratic process.

JasonBourne 2.0

This report is an absolute joke. For a lecturer of economics at UCD he seems quite oblivious to the fact that if we cut over 17000 jobs and decrease social welfare this will have a disastrous knock on effect on the financial system and the real economy. If we reduce levels of income people cant afford as much goods/services and to borrow as much, putting a further strain on retailers and financial institutions with the end result being a longer recession.

Dabko

Sparks wrote: »

So they're earning their pay, you say. By representing the best interests of their members rather than the entire population, you say.
Wow.
That's shocking.

My point being here that just because they are employed by the members that pay their salaries, does not mean they should be objecting and leading their members into 'fights' that only cause a greater harm for the overall economy.

When there was plenty of cash flowing about, fine, get the best for the members. But now, do they not see we are ALL screwed? Or is this just the another case of pure greed, not matter what step of the social ladder they are on.
Greed, greed, greed...

whippet

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

This report is an absolute joke. For a lecturer of economics at UCD he seems quite oblivious to the fact that if we cut over 17000 jobs and decrease social welfare this will have a disastrous knock on effect on the financial system and the real economy.

I am sure this was taken in to consideration, but that is a statistic taken isolation, McCarthy's report is a wholistic road map for the economy.

Dabko

whippet wrote: »

I for one hope that the government have the balls and the determination to progress this report.

Point. Balls and leader ship is what is needed.

The people of ireland live under a democratic rule. We are supposed to be led. Its why we voted. They problem right now is, our 'leaders' are scared sh1tless. To hell with unions, to hell with rebelling groups of afflicted members of society - RULE for christs sake.

Sparks

Dabko wrote: »

My point being here that just because they are employed by the members that pay their salaries, does not mean they should be objecting and leading their members into 'fights' that only cause a greater harm for the overall economy.

You're missing the fact that the overall economy is not their concern.

1. They're paid to do a different job.
2. They're paid specifically to look after the best interests of a subset of the population.
3. They're paid by that subset of the population.
4. Asking them to do anything else is laughable.

But now, do they not see we are ALL screwed?

Are we? I mean, the economy's in trouble, yes, but I've not yet seen a single banker or TD given any real sanction for their role in causing all this.

Instead, what I see is the TDs looking after the bankers and themselves, employers looking after themselves, and basicly, an every-man-for-himself approach from the top on down. In those circumstances, not only are the unions right to do as they're doing, but doing anything else would be stupid. Right now, the first person to stand up and say "gosh lads, we'd best all pull together for the economy, where can I tighten my belt?" is going to get it right in the back of the neck from every other group. And not only the unions know this, so do those paying for the unions.

If you really have a problem with that, join the union and vote against that policy.

Sparks

whippet wrote: »

if there was a vote on every bit of leglislation nothing would ever be done!

Worked fine in Switzerland for a few hundred years...

regardless of how, why and when we got here, we are here and measures have to be taken to get us out of it. An independent report has been published outlining how they feel the way forward is.
I for one hope that the government have the balls and the determination to progress this report.

Hoping's fine. You're allowed do that.
It's about as effective as a small animal breaking wind against a wind turbine, but you're allowed do it anyway...

Sparks

Dabko wrote: »

RULE for christs sake.

:pac:

...I for one, welcome our new insect overlords...

Philistine

whippet wrote: »

because the rewards of private sectors risk are greater.

Anyone can stand for election, it is their democratic right.

The sitting members of the dail are there due to the fact that enough of the citizens of the country voted for them. The public obviously felt that they were the most competant, best option for their vote.

You might not like them but it is a democratic process.

Yes anybody can stand for election but that doesn't mean they're qualified to. And just because enough people voted for somebody doesn't mean that they think they are competent either.
You only have to listen to radio chat shows where people admit they voted for a candidate because their father, grandfather and great grandfather all voted for the same party! We're not the sophisticated electorate people claim we are in my opinion.
So yes, anybody can stand for election, but I just wish a few qualified, competent and people with a proven track record would stand.

astrofool

luckat wrote: »

Really, PullOut? Citation, please, if you wouldn't mind?

This is a widely available fact, and available within a few seconds if you put your mind to it. (google is your best best friend)

luckat

astrofool wrote: »

This is a widely available fact, and available within a few seconds if you put your mind to it. (google is your best best friend)

Heh, in other words you can't cite?

Carlow52

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

This report is an absolute joke. For a lecturer of economics at UCD he seems quite oblivious to the fact that if we cut over 17000 jobs and decrease social welfare this will have a disastrous knock on effect on the financial system and the real economy. If we reduce levels of income people cant afford as much goods/services and to borrow as much, putting a further strain on retailers and financial institutions with the end result being a longer recession.

If the above his so, how will the Government find the money to repay the 400 million a week it is borrowing at the moment to bridge the difference between income and revenue.

The public sector and social welfare are both a massive drain on the economy

Dabko

Sparks wrote: »

Instead, what I see is the TDs looking after the bankers and themselves, employers looking after themselves, and basicly, an every-man-for-himself approach from the top on down. In those circumstances, not only are the unions right to do as they're doing, but doing anything else would be stupid. Right now, the first person to stand up and say "gosh lads, we'd best all pull together for the economy, where can I tighten my belt?" is going to get it right in the back of the neck from every other group. And not only the unions know this, so do those paying for the unions.

If you really have a problem with that, join the union and vote against that policy.

I suppose until a new world order is established where the 'every man for himself' ethos is not the norm, then we must do nothing but take take take all we can get our grubby little hands on.

Ireland, what a great little nation. Pity about the irish.

luckat

Carlow52 wrote: »

The public sector and social welfare are both a massive drain on the economy

Carlow, in your ideal world, how would you run public services, and would you abolish all provision for people who haven't got work?

Here's what happens if there's no welfare (I didn't go looking for this, by the way, found it while looking for work-related other stuff):

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/07/08/from-bookstore-owner-to-homeless-another-terrible-tale-from-nw-23rd-ave/

From Bookstore Owner to Homeless: Another Terrible Tale from NW 23rd Ave.

6:00 AM July 8th, 2009 by Beth Slovic

The July issue [PDF] of WW’s neighborhood newspaper, The Northwest Examiner, has the story of one business owner hit particularly hard by the recession pummeling NW 23rd Avenue.

Folks who frequent the Northwest shopping hub know that Twenty-third Avenue Books closed suddenly in January. What they might not know is that the bookstore owner, Stephanie Griffin, became homeless after the store closed.

Startled neighbors discovered this in June, according to the article by Mike Ryerson on page 30 of the Examiner’s July issue. Griffin had started panhandling outside her old store, which was still empty at the time. (As of this week, it’s a lunch spot specializing in what one might call hand-held pot pies.)

Anyway, let’s get to the good news first. Even before the story about Griffin appeared in the paper this month, neighbors had gotten together to get Griffin’s cellphone reconnected — she owed $400 to the phone company. And they helped her find a place to live temporarily, so she could stop couch surfing and carry on with the job searching.

I met with Griffin at Anna Bannana’s Tuesday afternoon to talk about the book store she’d owned for three years and the response she got from passersby who saw her sign (pictured above) accusing Bush of causing the recession. One man told Griffin not to blame someone else for her failures. The driver of the UPS truck who used to deliver books to the store was more sympathetic. His jaw dropped when he saw Griffin on the sidewalk, she says. He then stopped his truck so they could talk. “Most people would ignore me and then say ‘Oh, the bookstore used to be there,’” Griffin said. “I would say ‘I used to own that store,’ and they would keep walking.”

Since losing her business, Griffin (who was an accountant before she took over Twenty-third Avenue Books) has sent out 77 job applications and had two interviews, she says. Her dream job, she says, would be to work in the payroll department at Powell’s Books. You hear that, Powell’s?

For Griffin, there was no single “oh ****” moment, no terrible epiphany when she realized she would have to close the store. It was more like a series of “oh ****” moments. She continued to get behind on rent. Then she had to fire her small staff. She worked by herself for several days, hoping Christmas 2008 might provide a boost. Then she realized, “I can’t do this myself and I can’t pay anybody else.”

Griffin, who’s 50, has food stamps to help her get by, she says. But food stamps can’t pay for things like soap or toothpaste, so neighbors have set up a fund to help Griffin get back on her feet. Donations can be made to Stephanie Griffin Fund, c/o Glenda Magistrale, Consolidated Federal Credit Union, 2021 NE Sandy Blvd., Portland, OR 97232.

Mr Digger

anyone know, does benchmarking not work in reverse.? and if it does why hasn't it happened..the private sector is now in freefall but the public sector still has the payscale and job for life...

deadhead13

Mr Digger wrote: »

anyone know, does benchmarking not work in reverse.? and if it does why hasn't it happened..the private sector is now in freefall but the public sector still has the payscale and job for life...

Public sector pay wasn't within the remit of the board. I don't think the government has the political will to address the issue.

jmayo

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

This report is an absolute joke. For a lecturer of economics at UCD he seems quite oblivious to the fact that if we cut over 17000 jobs and decrease social welfare this will have a disastrous knock on effect on the financial system and the real economy. If we reduce levels of income people cant afford as much goods/services and to borrow as much, putting a further strain on retailers and financial institutions with the end result being a longer recession.

Maybe he looked at all in basic accounting terms, where if revenues < expenditure then you have a wee little problem :rolleyes:

Of course the matter that values are approx. 37 billion and 60 billion respectively give it a realism.

Now do you seriously beleive that by not cutting people's welfare or salary, they will generate through consumer spending, the 5.3 billion he reckons he can save through these cuts ?

Or would you suggest we raise taxes or perhaps we head to the ECB or the bond markets for the money we need day to day ?

BTW did you work as the financial controller in a company I used to work in, where the receivor arrived in one day, because of the company's lack of cash flow ?

Carlow52 wrote: »

If the above his so, how will the Government find the money to repay the 400 million a week it is borrowing at the moment to bridge the difference between income and revenue.

The public sector and social welfare are both a massive drain on the economy

Exactly.
Most people around here think that a government can borrow ad infinitum from some mythical lending entity.
No wonder some people's household bdugets are so f**ked up if they can't get the basic concept of balancing a budget.

Either that or we still have "I am alright jack so screw the rest of you" is still alive and well, even after the demise of the celtic tiger.

KerranJast

Mr Digger wrote: »

anyone know, does benchmarking not work in reverse.? and if it does why hasn't it happened..the private sector is now in freefall but the public sector still has the payscale and job for life...

Benckmarking was just bribery to keep the Unions sweet and to prevent them striking the whole time. Was it Joe O'Toole who once compared it to an ATM? It was like the SSIAs. Free money to keep the recipients happy.

dresden8

Darragh29 wrote: »

You see this is more of it... How much are we paying that quango to tell us the blinding f*cking obvious?!??!?!?

Do we in all seriousness need another quango to tell us that a woman who can afford to drive a 100K top end truck to bring her kids to school in the morning, doesn't actually need, and should not be receiving, child benefit???

You'd be surprised how little tax those people in 100k high end trucks pay.

What would happen with taxation is that self-certifying farmers and self-employed would keep their big trucks and their child benefit and the normal everyday PAYE sap would get shafted.

Same thing happened with third level grants and fees when they were around.

irish_bob

luckat wrote: »

One criterion, surely?

Most of our public servants (and I'm not one) are not overpaid.

But if we want to look for savings in too-high salaries, fine! What about setting a top level to Dail and civil service salaries of €80,000 a year, and no perks? That should save a few quid.

by european standards most of our public servants are vastly over paid , ed walsh from the university of limerick was on matt cooper earlier , irish teachers are 75% higher paid then thier french counterparts , irish teachers are 55% higher paid than thier finnish counterparts , irish nurses are over 30% higher paid than thier uk counterparts , irish consultants are paid more than double of what they are paid in germany , irish police are paid more than double of what they are paid in australia , all theese countries are wealthier than ireland , somethings gotta give

irish_bob

Het-Field wrote: »

I think this report is testament to the fact that Biffo, Lenihan, and the deluded wing of the Fianna Fail Party, have been wrong when they have called the measures taken in the last 12 months as "tough". Some of those things in the report are absolutly savage. However, through wanton waste, expenditure and greed, they are absolutly necessary.

The sad thing is, I really dont believe that Cowen etc have the guts to implement the measures. I wouldnt be suprised if they folded to opposition to the report, and just go back to taxing the most socially mobile. The central bank have made it clear that taxation is no longer the answer, and it is enough. FF must cut expendiute in a large way. As is articulated by the report, spending will increase in 2009, and this is to keep the voters "happy".

Budget day could be a slaughterhouse if they choose to implement a variety of the proposed cuts. In the words of Terrell Owens "getcha popcorn ready" !

kevin myers predicted in his collumn yesterday that the goverment would not make the recomended cuts and would instead wait for the country to go under thus paving the way for the IMF and the savage cuts that would follow , this would in a roundabout kind of a way let fianna fail of the hook with voters as the actions would be seen to me made by some big bad faceless and nameless sword wielder in the IMF , knowing us irish , we would forgive fianna fail and let them back in at some stage down the line

turgon

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

If we reduce levels of income people cant afford as much goods/services and to borrow as much, putting a further strain on retailers and financial institutions with the end result being a longer recession.

It never occurred to you that by giving welfare people money, it is necessary to take it off of others?

Sparks wrote: »

That is pragmatism. What you're calling for in asking folks to not cut off their nose to spite their face is idealism.

Fair enough.

fly_agaric

The Economist wrote: »

Where does he say you can cut their pay?

Seriously, I'm really so sick of this argument. The govt. could have tried a "suck it and see" approach here instead of the usual "suck up to legal eagles because most of us are/were lawyers" approach.

Put the so-called "pension levy" on them and then see if the judges challenge it in the courts.
Would have been interesting...

Would be very edifying for Joe Public in Ireland to see a judge rule that himself and his compatriots should not pay any levy at all while their functionaries on a tithe of their salary get hit up for 4 % or so!

K4t

Dabko wrote: »

The unions are a bunch of trouble making ***** who are only justifiying the fee's their members pay them. They are, as another posters said, lining up to cause hassel so it looks like their jobs are necessary.

If you stop reading the Indo for a moment and listen to the Unions you will see that they acknowledge that serious reform and pay review is needed in the PS. Jack O'Connor(President of Siptu) has said this himself several times today even. However, they want equality and fairness also. They want things done properly and the burden being shared by everyone, not just the mid earners in the PS. Fair point imo.

Red Sleeping Beauty

techdiver wrote: »

You may call it snobbish, whereas I would call it realistic. We need future earners in the system, not future scroungers! You can be all PC about this if you want, but a child born to scumbag parents tend to become scumbags themselves.

turgon wrote: »

Because that will really help the billions of budget debts.

It about time everyone dropped their ideals and started being pragmatic.

If there's an idea at the heart of McCarthy's report, it is to target the most vulnerable in society - because they are the easiest to get to. Raising the top rate of tax on the highest earners in this country however, is a sacred cow to some people .

If these cuts are implemented we will see an even more unequal society and we can expect crime levels to soar even further as well as the quality of life for many people to plummet.

pmacdot

The Economist wrote: »

Fascinating contribution. We need to cutback €4bn, do you really think the UCD School of Economics can make much of a dent in that?

And fwiw McCarthy took a huge pay cut to go from the private sector to work for UCD. So your cynicism isn't just cheap, it's mis-placed.

There you have it ! He took a pay cut to work in public sector! Says it all!