34,000 public servants want 3.5% pay rise

irish_bob

thebman wrote: »

These threads are getting old, has there been agreement in any of them?

Don't think so. The government should just announce their plans now so people know where they will stand.

+1

was listening to lunchtime with eamon keane on newstalk today , he had on ben dunne and liam griffin the hotelier , dunne went 1st with his usual populist clap trap but griffin made some great points , he spoke of how business can only do so much on costs in the present resecession when the rates charged by local authorities are actually going up and our electricity costs are the highest in europe , his basic premise was that all theese issues are problems of state and that the goverment needs to start showing leadership in theese and many other areas in order for the economy to get going again

elDiablo79

jimmmy wrote: »

Give them a 30% cut ( on average ) instead. And then explain to them they are then lucky to be getting the same as what their counterparts in other countries are getting. Our public service is the highest paid in the known world : it cannot continue. The national sabotage by their unions must cease.

Here. You go into hospital and try and work there for a day and in the conditions that we have to work in, cos let me tell you , you wouldnt last a minute. Understaffed wouldnt be a word for it. You try and look after 20 odd sick dependant patients while you have other patients that are trying to ecape from the ward because we havent got the staff to look them? You havent a clue about the work. And god forbid that you ever need help someday it will open your eyes and you would take back every word you said. Until you actually know what your talking about and give up the begrudging talk, zip it. 30% pay cut? Grow up. Maybe you should back the frontline staff in hospitals for once and be grateful for the care we give. We always bare the blunt and we work our asses off for the pay we get let me tell you.

elDiablo79

francish wrote: »

While it clearly is only a tactic, it still make my blood boild to hear of unions talk of pay rises. I believe it will back fire in that it only turns the private sector more against them.

I dont get any pleasure in seeing people getting a wage cut, the reality is public service must suffer a wage cut.

Your right about the unions, it is madness to be going in that direction. Dont know what they are thinking of to be honest. But we already got a two paycuts this year. Fair is fair

elDiablo79

elDiablo79 wrote: »

Your right about the unions, it is madness to be going in that direction. Dont know what they are thinking of to be honest. But we already got a two paycuts this year. Fair is fair

And its not 34,000 public servants want a payrise. Its the unions!! We dont want any more paycuts.

Amhran Nua

elDiablo79 wrote: »

Here. You go into hospital and try and work there for a day and in the conditions that we have to work in, cos let me tell you , you wouldnt last a minute. Understaffed wouldnt be a word for it. You try and look after 20 odd sick dependant patients while you have other patients that are trying to ecape from the ward because we havent got the staff to look them? You havent a clue about the work. And god forbid that you ever need help someday it will open your eyes and you would take back every word you said. Until you actually know what your talking about and give up the begrudging talk, zip it. 30% pay cut? Grow up. Maybe you should back the frontline staff in hospitals for once and be grateful for the care we give. We always bare the blunt and we work our asses off for the pay we get let me tell you.

Could you back up a few of the assertions in this post please. As I understand it Irish nursing staff do better than most (€56k average compensation) and there are a lot more of them than other comparable countries. Also could you give us a list of the duties that Irish nursing staff are no longer doing, such as drawing blood and helping to move patients?

Just the facts please.

deise blue

elDiablo79 wrote: »

Here. You go into hospital and try and work there for a day and in the conditions that we have to work in, cos let me tell you , you wouldnt last a minute. Understaffed wouldnt be a word for it. You try and look after 20 odd sick dependant patients while you have other patients that are trying to ecape from the ward because we havent got the staff to look them? You havent a clue about the work. And god forbid that you ever need help someday it will open your eyes and you would take back every word you said. Until you actually know what your talking about and give up the begrudging talk, zip it. 30% pay cut? Grow up. Maybe you should back the frontline staff in hospitals for once and be grateful for the care we give. We always bare the blunt and we work our asses off for the pay we get let me tell you.

Could'nt agree with you more , the level of begrudgery is breathtaking !
Coming from the Private Sector I did'nt quite realise the amount of work nurses, nursing assistants and doctors did until I had occasion to visit a geriatric hospital on an almost daily basis for a year , that workload dramatically increased as the cutbacks hit.
The view that the public sector don't work as hard as the private sector is risible.
The demand for a 30% pay cut is ridiculous and is based on a wish to see public sector workers punished for daring to have a job.
I was happy to read that the Tanaiste suggested at the small firms association that savings could be made through efficiencies/reform ( as suggested by Mandate ) rather than pay cuts !

deise blue

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Could you back up a few of the assertions in this post please. As I understand it Irish nursing staff do better than most (€56k average compensation) and there are a lot more of them than other comparable countries. Also could you give us a list of the duties that Irish nursing staff are no longer doing, such as drawing blood and helping to move patients?

Just the facts please.

For the facts see www.ino.ie , here's one for you a staff nurse at the top of the scale earns €46,541

Dannyboy83

deise blue wrote: »

Could'nt agree with you more , the level of begrudgery is breathtaking !
Coming from the Private Sector I did'nt quite realise the amount of work nurses, nursing assistants and doctors did until I had occasion to visit a geriatric hospital on an almost daily basis for a year , that workload dramatically increased as the cutbacks hit.
The view that the public sector don't work as hard as the private sector is risible.
The demand for a 30% pay cut is ridiculous and is based on a wish to see public sector workers punished for daring to have a job.
I was happy to read that the Tanaiste suggested at the small firms association that savings could be made through efficiencies/reform ( as suggested by Mandate ) rather than pay cuts !

Do you not understand what that means?
That means firing people

There are 2 ways to do it:
1. Keep the same staff and pay most of them 20% less
OR
2. Fire 30% of staff and pay the remainder at the same rate or slightly higher

Are you happy about that?
What about understaffing etc?

This is just me personally, but I would have preferred to take a 20% paycut from doorkwork (which we did anyway when licenses came in) and keep an extra man covering my back, than to keep the same money and start taking risks with everyone's safety.
If the man was dead weight, he wouldn't be there in the first place, he'd be fired.

Besides, they have been trying to figure out who should be hired and who should be fired (pen pushers) since the HSE was formulated, but nobody in the HSE wants to rock the boat.
If you can't tell your captain the ship that some people are setting fire to the ship, then the ship is going to sink with everybody on board.

mickoneill30

deise blue wrote: »

Could'nt agree with you more , the level of begrudgery is breathtaking !
Coming from the Private Sector I did'nt quite realise the amount of work nurses, nursing assistants and doctors did until I had occasion to visit a geriatric hospital on an almost daily basis for a year , that workload dramatically increased as the cutbacks hit.

Like the rest of the country. As you're coming from the private sector did your workload not increase this year. If not where do you work so I can apply there.

deise blue wrote: »

The view that the public sector don't work as hard as the private sector is risible.

I don't think people are saying that. They're just saying they get paid too much. If a nurse in Ireland is getting paid more than a nurse in the UK or elsewhere the question that has to be asked is why?

I heard on the radio this morning some muppet saying there's no statistics to say that the private sector has taken pay cuts. I've a mate that got made redundant yesterday. So I suppose technically she didn't take a pay cut. That'll make her feel better.

deise blue wrote: »

The demand for a 30% pay cut is ridiculous and is based on a wish to see public sector workers punished for daring to have a job.

It's more based on the wish for the country to have a public sector it can afford. If you have to keep on borrowing money to pay wages in the private sector I think that's called bankruptcy and what you don't do there is ask for a pay rise.

gerry28

If a nurse in Ireland is getting paid more than a nurse in the UK or elsewhere the question that has to be asked is why?

And one answer is the difference in cost of living in ireland is higher than the UK.

deise blue

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Do you not understand what that means?
That means firing people

There are 2 ways to do it:
1. Keep the same staff and pay most of them 20% less
OR
2. Fire 30% of staff and pay the remainder at the same rate or slightly higher

Are you happy about that?
What about understaffing etc?

This is just me personally, but I would have preferred to take a 20% paycut from doorkwork (which we did anyway when licenses came in) and keep an extra man covering my back, than to keep the same money and start taking risks with everyone's safety.
If the man was dead weight, he wouldn't be there in the first place, he'd be fired.

Besides, they have been trying to figure out who should be hired and who should be fired (pen pushers) since the HSE was formulated, but nobody in the HSE wants to rock the boat.
If you can't tell your captain the ship that some people are setting fire to the ship, then the ship is going to sink with everybody on board.

No , it does'nt mean firing people.
The 17,300 jobs that the McCarthy report suggest should go in the Public Sector can be achieved over a 2 year period by a combination of natural wastage and an incentivised early retirement package - nobody will be fired !
Of course nobody is happy with understaffing but that is the path that the current Government are hell bent on following.

Dannyboy83

gerry28 wrote: »

And one answer is the difference in cost of living in ireland is higher than the UK.

And the reason the cost of living is higher?
One reason is wages, and one subset is public sector wages.


http://www.finfacts.com/costofliving.htm
GLOBAL/WORLD COST OF LIVING RANKINGS 2009/2010

Dublin's ranking drops nine places to 25th most expensive city in the world.

Dublin ranks below Paris (13th), London (16th) and Rome (18th) and above Amsterdam (29th), Madrid (37th) and Barcelona (joint 38th).

The decline of rental prices in Dublin, coupled with the fall in the value of the euro against the US dollar, has caused Dublin to drop down in the rankings.

The cost of living is falling, so PS would be able to take wage cuts just like the private sector have, which will encourage another fall in the cost of living


You do have a point tho
A colleague of mine here bought a tire last week.
There are 3 tyre shops in this town.
Each of them wanted between 90 and 120 euro.
He bought the same tyre from Belfast, including delivery for 60 euro.

How are Irish businesses going to compete with that?

Dannyboy83

deise blue wrote: »

No , it does'nt mean firing people.
The 17,300 jobs that the McCarthy report suggest should go in the Public Sector can be achieved over a 2 year period by a combination of natural wastage and an incentivised early retirement package - nobody will be fired !
Of course nobody is happy with understaffing but that is the path that the current Government are hell bent on following.

But a 2 year period, at current lending levels, would mean another €48 billion euro. The cost of borrowing is not going to remain constant or drop.
Its going to go up along with interest rates.

You're talking about losing close to €55 billion again (Nama mark II) before there is any significant reform in the HSE, which is by far the biggest drain on the budget.

If our debt goes to that level, we will have passed a point of no return.
We'll be stuck in an interest trap we can't get out of.

I can't see it happening.

Do I want to see Guards and Nurses have a reduced quality of life? No.
Do I want to see reform in the public sector? Yes.

Solution: temporary wage reductions of 20%, lasting 2 to 4 years. During that time, implement reform in the public sector. After 2 years, bring the wages back up again, when the country can afford it.
Cost of living will fall simultaneously, as a direct result, meaning PS are not out of pocket. Ireland becomes more competitive, more jobs in private sector meaning more tax

Either that reform comes in December, or this country is done for.
It'll be Michael O Leary style management now, or IMF style management in 12 months.

akaredtop

Lazy B*stards should get a 25% reduction to come in line with the private sector. Also should pay an extra 16% into their guaranteed pensions.Should also be paying BIK on the permanent status of the jobs. How about that for a reality check for "Planet Public Service".

gerry28

Lazy B*stards should get a 25% reduction to come in line with the private sector. Also should pay an extra 16% into their guaranteed pensions.Should also be paying BIK on the permanent status of the jobs. How about that for a reality check for "Planet Public Service

Do you class this post as rational.

So you are calling for a reduction of take home pay of at least 41%. In your eyes we are all lazy B*stards - how on earth could you say that about 300,000 people and expect to be taken seriously??

Perhaps we should be flogged in the street too?

Dannyboy83

Everbody look here at 1 o clock, about to go another billion into debt (€71billion) at around 1.05pm
http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

Tipp Man

deise blue wrote: »

No , it does'nt mean firing people.
The 17,300 jobs that the McCarthy report suggest should go in the Public Sector can be achieved over a 2 year period by a combination of natural wastage and an incentivised early retirement package - nobody will be fired !
Of course nobody is happy with understaffing but that is the path that the current Government are hell bent on following.

Hold on now lets say 17,300 at the average of 966 a week, thats a total of 16.7m a week, we are borrowing 450m a week, where on earth is the other 433.3m going to come from. Do people not realise the scale of the problem that we are in??

We need to lose about 60,000 public sector employees to have any impact, slash social welfare and then we might be a quarter of the way towards the 450m a week

deise blue

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Like the rest of the country. As you're coming from the private sector did your workload not increase this year. If not where do you work so I can apply there.



I don't think people are saying that. They're just saying they get paid too much. If a nurse in Ireland is getting paid more than a nurse in the UK or elsewhere the question that has to be asked is why?

I heard on the radio this morning some muppet saying there's no statistics to say that the private sector has taken pay cuts. I've a mate that got made redundant yesterday. So I suppose technically she didn't take a pay cut. That'll make her feel better.



It's more based on the wish for the country to have a public sector it can afford. If you have to keep on borrowing money to pay wages in the private sector I think that's called bankruptcy and what you don't do there is ask for a pay rise.

I actually retired quite recently from a job in the finacial sector - no job losses , no increased work load and we received the 3.5% increase under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 ( that should narrow it down for you )
There is huge anecdotal evidence that pay cuts have been implemented in certain areas of the private sector but the general trend has been towards pay freezes and indeed the 3.5% increase referred to above has been paid by a number of companies.
The only current statistics available for the Private Sector were published by the CSO for the year ended the 31/12/2008 which show pay increases on the Private Sector.
Nobody seriously believes that a pay decrease of 30% is defensible or achievable and anybody who suggests such a figure just wants to see public sector workers suffer.

akaredtop

[quote=

gerry28;62359758]Do you class this post as rational.

So you are calling for a reduction of take home pay of at least 41%. In your eyes we are all lazy B*stards - how on earth could you say that about 300,000 people and expect to be taken seriously??

Perhaps we should be flogged in the street too?

How can you call being treated like everyone else irrational.Ok don't pay the extra 16% pension for the defined benefit pension and change to defined contribution instead. What Planet do ye live on!

irish_bob

gerry28 wrote: »

And one answer is the difference in cost of living in ireland is higher than the UK.

i hope you didnt hurt your brain coming up with that one

Dannyboy83

There is huge anecdotal evidence that pay cuts have been implemented in certain areas of the private sector but the general trend has been towards pay freezes and indeed the 3.5% increase referred to above has been paid by a number of companies.
The only current statistics available for the Private Sector were published by the CSO for the year ended the 31/12/2008 which show pay increases on the Private Sector.

The problem with Narnia economics tho, is that it doesn't take the people who lost their job in the private sector into account when working out pay increases et al.
So the huge anecdotal evidence shows that 100,000 people got a 2% increase to offset new taxes. What about the 1,000,000 who got a 10% decrease.
What about the 300,000 who got a lifetime 100% decrease?

Nobody seriously believes that a pay decrease of 30% is defensible or achievable and anybody who suggests such a figure just wants to see public sector workers suffer.

Nobody suggested a 30% cut.
A 20% cut is widely being suggested.
A 20% cut is both defensible and achievable for the mid to upper layers of the PS (not for the lower paid tier).

PS expenses have increased by 63% since 2004.
(I'm not going to go into the benchmarking/25% overpaid figure because I don't have solid proof of it).

If spending is reformed, brought back to 2004 levels, this country will stabilise and grow. Otherwise, its curtains.

No doubt some people want to see public sector workers suffer.
They have sod all to do with running the country tho.
If PS workers suffer, the people who run the country lose votes, do you agree?

deise blue wrote: »

I actually retired quite recently from a job in the finacial sector - no job losses , no increased work load and we received the 3.5% increase under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 ( that should narrow it down for you )

Seeing as we are being honest, I work in the IT sector and never got a 3.5% increase during the boom times despite being 10k off the avg. industrial wage.
I don't have an issue with the PS because they make more money than me, hell, I could take issue with some of my old employers in Texas who made millions off me for that (and did - hence I got a new job).

I do have an issue with the PS because they are being insanely greedy, driving this country into the ground BY WAY OF THEIR UNIONS, and rejecting all logic and rationality in order to justify it.

gerry28

i hope you didnt hurt your brain coming up with that one

short, simple and the truth.

deise blue

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The problem with Narnia economics tho, is that it doesn't take the people who lost their job in the private sector into account when working out pay increases et al.
So the huge anecdotal evidence shows that 100,000 people got a 2% increase to offset new taxes. What about the 1,000,000 who got a 10% decrease.
What about the 300,000 who got a lifetime 100% decrease?



Nobody suggested a 30% cut.
A 20% cut is widely being suggested.
A 20% cut is both defensible and achievable for the mid to upper layers of the PS (not for the lower paid tier).

PS expenses have increased by 63% since 2004.
(I'm not going to go into the benchmarking/25% overpaid figure because I don't have solid proof of it).

If spending is reformed, brought back to 2004 levels, this country will stabilise and grow. Otherwise, its curtains.

No doubt some people want to see public sector workers suffer.
They have sod all to do with running the country tho.
If PS workers suffer, the people who run the country lose votes, do you agree?




Seeing as we are being honest, I work in the IT sector and never got a 3.5% increase during the boom times despite being 10k off the avg. industrial wage.
I don't have an issue with the PS because they make more money than me, hell, I could take issue with some of my old employers in Texas who made millions off me for that (and did - hence I got a new job).

I do have an issue with the PS because they are being insanely greedy, driving this country into the ground BY WAY OF THEIR UNIONS, and rejecting all logic and rationality in order to justify it.

Dannyboy83 , I was responding to a poster who wanted to see a 30% decrease in pay , actually another poster suggested a figure of 41% !
Nor have I seen a mention of 20% , the media continually refer to a figure of either 5% or 10%.
I see the CSO have almost halved its estimate of the public versus private pay gap to 19.1% ( which figure does not reflect the 7.5% pension levy/pay cut ).
Unions exist to protect the terms and conditions of it's members , it's up to Governments to govern and then for Unions to respond as mandated by their members and that is what they are currently trying to do.

Dannyboy83

deise blue wrote: »

Dannyboy83 , I was responding to a poster who wanted to see a 30% decrease in pay , actually another poster suggested a figure of 41% !
Nor have I seen a mention of 20% , the media continually refer to a figure of either 5% or 10%.
I see the CSO have almost halved its estimate of the public versus private pay gap to 19.1% ( which figure does not reflect the 7.5% pension levy/pay cut ).
Unions exist to protect the terms and conditions of it's members , it's up to Governments to govern and then for Unions to respond as mandated by their members and that is what they are currently trying to do.

I don't believe that, and I don't believe you do either, but I understand that you have no choice but to follow that line as a result of your unions.
And that is the crux of the issue.

The unions are gonna cost you guys a whole lot of jobs (and it will be the wrong ones like nurses and guards, rather than managers who sign off on toilet paper)

deise blue

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't believe that, and I don't believe you do either, but I understand that you have no choice but to follow that line as a result of your unions.
And that is the crux of the issue.

The unions are gonna cost you guys a whole lot of jobs (and it will be the wrong ones like nurses and guards, rather than managers who sign off on toilet paper)

Don't patronise me - I absolutely believe in the concept of trade unionism , I firmly believe in the concept of protecting and indeed enhancing terms and conditions for members and I absolutely resent your comment that I don't !
This Government are not going to oversee nurses and guards losing their jobs - jeez they are unpopular enough !

optocynic

deise blue wrote: »

Don't patronise me - I absolutely believe in the concept of trade unionism , I firmly believe in the concept of protecting and indeed enhancing terms and conditions for members and I absolutely resent your comment that I don't !
This Government are not going to oversee nurses and guards losing their jobs - jeez they are unpopular enough !

So you would in fact support the government's removal of the deadwood managers/buraucrats?... Do you think your union would be so rational?

Theboinkmaster

deise blue wrote: »

Don't patronise me - I absolutely believe in the concept of trade unionism , I firmly believe in the concept of protecting and indeed enhancing terms and conditions for members and I absolutely resent your comment that I don't !
This Government are not going to oversee nurses and guards losing their jobs - jeez they are unpopular enough !

Deise you seem to miss the basic concept - the government is broke and doesn't have the money. Popularity is irrelevant - they WILL lose their jobs if the government can't afford to pay them.

It's simple math as there are only 2 ways to cut the wage bill - everyone takes a cut or people lose jobs. And the wage bill will be cut as the government simply doesn't have the money and the ECB will force them somehow.

Dannyboy83

deise blue wrote: »

Don't patronise me - I absolutely believe in the concept of trade unionism , I firmly believe in the concept of protecting and indeed enhancing terms and conditions for members and I absolutely resent your comment that I don't !

In that case, why would you support the unions?
They are not protecting your and your colleagues interests, they are protecting themselves.

i)The unions are not pushing for reform of the public sector (most notably the HSE).
ii)The unions have said nothing about the politicians, judges and consultants who are still earning ridiculous amounts of money.

That means it is the simple public sector worker who is going to suffer.
The PS Unions are fighting the wrong battle. Cutbacks are going to happen, they should be trying to ensure that the cutbacks are fair, and thatpoliticians are also reverse benchmarked.

This Government are not going to oversee nurses and guards losing their jobs - jeez they are unpopular enough !

Either this government will, or the next one will, or as a last resort the IMF will. And you know this.
This is a simple economic truth, and you as former financial sector employee know that better than anyone else.

Believe me, I do not want to see you suffer or my father who is a PS employee suffer either. If income tax could be increased without damaging the economy, I would agree to that.
Increasing the income tax will lead to a PS reduction anyway, as people will being to emigrate and the tax base will narrow even more, meaning even less PS workers can be afforded. I'm not going to spell that out, because I know for a fact you already understand this.

Lets move the debate away from emotion and inject a bit of pragmatism/realism.
Let me put the question to you:
A) How do you suggest we generate the €24 billion required without increasing income, excise, or corporate tax?
If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

Riskymove

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Lets move the debate away from emotion and inject a bit of pragmatism/realism.
Let me put the question to you:
A) How do you suggest we generate the €24 billion required without increasing income, excise, or corporate tax?
If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

I'd love to keep debate to pragmatism/realism but many (or if we are really honest most) posters on these threads have set positions and simply want to see certain thigns happen regardless of the overall big picture.


My points on your question


1. over a lot of threads recently we have seen many suggestions for bringing the gap between expenditure and revenue under control but it obviously boils down to the fact that expenditure needs to be reduced.

2. the expenditure is generally regarded as being of 3 parts


public pay bill, welfare and everything else


A. public pay bill
- this is more than just pay
- there have already been some measures introduced to reduce it
- there is a "notional" element in it regarding taxes (i.e. it includes gross pay rates so a certain percentage of it does not actually exist, if you know what i mean)

you can reduce it through many different ways (as we have seen so far) and while a paycut/increase in levy would be a quick, imple approach, it is not necessarily the only option;e.g. reduction of numbers, closure/amalgamation of organisations etc



B Welfare

-its currently the most costliest element and needs to be examined.
- schemes had an increase this year which seems to be prime for review
-Personally I would dislike the idea of a flat % decrease on everything and would rather a more rational approach to it.


C everything else

there seems to be a target of a 10-15% decrease in this spending for this year (and presumably into the future)

there are also a lot of capital projects which could be delayed/deferred for a short time at great savings

3 there is also sometimes a view that the entire gap needs to be closed; i dont agree, most countries have some element of borrowing and national debt; the issue here is to get that to a more sustainable level


summary
I can certainly see savings of 5-6 billion

probably broken into Pay - €2bn, welfare €2bn everything else €1bn or €2bn

Theboinkmaster

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In that case, why would you support the unions?
They are not protecting your and your colleagues interests, they are protecting themselves.

i)The unions are not pushing for reform of the public sector (most notably the HSE).
ii)The unions have said nothing about the politicians, judges and consultants who are still earning ridiculous amounts of money.

That means it is the simple public sector worker who is going to suffer.
The PS Unions are fighting the wrong battle. Cutbacks are going to happen, they should be trying to ensure that the cutbacks are fair, and thatpoliticians are also reverse benchmarked.



Either this government will, or the next one will, or as a last resort the IMF will. And you know this.
This is a simple economic truth, and you as former financial sector employee know that better than anyone else.

Believe me, I do not want to see you suffer or my father who is a PS employee suffer either. If income tax could be increased without damaging the economy, I would agree to that.
Increasing the income tax will lead to a PS reduction anyway, as people will being to emigrate and the tax base will narrow even more, meaning even less PS workers can be afforded. I'm not going to spell that out, because I know for a fact you already understand this.

Lets move the debate away from emotion and inject a bit of pragmatism/realism.
Let me put the question to you:
A) How do you suggest we generate the €24 billion required without increasing income, excise, or corporate tax?
If we do not reduce our expenditure and do not generate the extra €24 billion, what are we going to do?

Raising taxes just isn't an option - even if you doubled the current income tax rates & levies (for everyone in the country) it would only yield about €9bn. Every economist in the country agrees we've hit our maximum effective tax rates -> any more will drive the country into deeper recession due to the disincentives to work increasing.

And broadening the tax base, whilst fair and obsviously worthwhile, is far too complicated and costly at present. The government need measures which will start bringing in cash or saving it from 1 Jan on.

I believe PS pay and welfare make up 80% of the government's expenditure so it's quite simply really - either PS pay or welfare or both. End of. There are NO OTHER OPTIONS at present.