Harney warns of IMF intervention within 2yrs?

jimmycrackcorm

#15 wrote: »

At least that would bring the salary levels down. Its is pointless giving money to someone, just to take it back.

Its much simpler and more efficient to just not give it to them.

In theory yes but in practice you cannot cut pay without agreement, you can however impose additional taxes and levies.

ashleey

There'll be no IMF while the ECB is financing the deficit. Check out the holdings of Irish Govt. bonds by the Irish banks that are swapped for cash. NAMA is just a pre agreed version of the same trick instead of exploiting the lifeboat for commercial banks as a de facto govt. bailout. The ECB are prepared to let this happen to prevent a break up of the euro. In return they have given the Irish govt. a time limit to get off this scheme. Now Lisbon has passed they don't need the kid gloves, hence the govt. is forced to act sooner rather than later. If people find out the pressure is from the Europeans they'll feel dumb for voting for Lisbon, hence the IMF references.

who_ru

The IMF cannot simply come in and take over, that's a ridiculous proposition.

The IMF can only 'take over' when (if) we have exhausted all other borrowing sources and cannot source money ourselves, as a result we would then have to borrow from the IMF and they would have a say in how the country is run.

the Govt & social partners have led us up a merry path this last 10 years, we were happy to be led up it it would seem, we got lazy and fixated with property and materialism via cheap money thanks to the ECB's low interest rate regime ( done to stimulate the german & french economies). the Govt spent spent spent and so did we. the whole property bubble was nothing more than a pyrimad scheme, if you got in early you made money, if you got in too late you got burned.

the very same politicians are now telling us 'brace yourselves for dire cuts, after all you did elect us time and time again and you knew what we would do, yes we bought your vote and you were happy to sell it, well now we - YOU! - better pony up and how'.

_Kooli_

#15 wrote: »

No he isn't. Its the same with PS pension levy. They were as well just to cut the pay instead of imposing a levy.

At least that would bring the salary levels down. Its is pointless giving money to someone, just to take it back.

Its much simpler and more efficient to just not give it to them.

Murph is not over complicating it, he is simplifying it.

It would be a simple process.
You are over complicating it too.
Lets agree to disagree.

thebman

eoinbn wrote: »

Of course there is the chance that the EU will not want the IMF running a euro-zone country and might step in instead, however that would send out a very dangerous signal to other countries. If other countries believe their is a safety net they also might live the highlife for 10 years and then just wait for German tax payers to bail them out.

Don't you realise we are borrowing off the ECB (ie. the EU) now not international markets!

The only reason we aren't Iceland is the ECB (EU). The IMF will only come in if invited that is why it is so important we keep the ECB happy. Calling in the IMF alone will put a lot of people off investing in Ireland IMO.

murphaph

_Kooli_ wrote: »

I think you are over complicating it here. Good thing you arent organizing it.

That's a good answer. Not.

How would you propose taxing this income without involving the Revenue Commissioners exactly?

_Kooli_

murphaph wrote: »

That's a good answer. Not.

How would you propose taxing this income without involving the Revenue Commissioners exactly?

You are making a bit of a meal out of this point dont you think?

No real cash would have to move out of the taxed part.
We have computers nowadays. I work with them every they. They are a really good invention. You should try them.

#15

_Kooli_ wrote: »

It would be a simple process.

ok, but a simpler process has already been suggested.

Instead of taxing social welfare payments, just cut them.

doc_17

the IMF won't be here anytime soon. it's just scare tactics

#15

_Kooli_ wrote: »

No real cash would have to move out of the taxed part.
We have computers nowadays. I work with them every they. They are a really good invention. You should try them.

Yes, but those computers in the revenue office also need people to work with them. More workers, more time, more cost = less efficiency.

eoinbn

thebman wrote: »

Don't you realise we are borrowing off the ECB (ie. the EU) now not international markets!

The only reason we aren't Iceland is the ECB (EU). The IMF will only come in if invited that is why it is so important we keep the ECB happy. Calling in the IMF alone will put a lot of people off investing in Ireland IMO.

You do know that that is impossible? No country can directly borrow from the ECB to fund their deficit. What happens is that Irish banks buy Irish bonds, at ~5%, which they then go to the ECB with and ask for the money to pay for the bonds at an interest rate of 1% which is in turn given to the government. It amounts to the same thing, but it would appear to be internal debt instead of external.

Also afaik we are only funding 20-25% of our deficit through the method above- the rest is funded by the international markets.

The_Conductor

The fact of the matter is- we are uncompetitive on a global scale, when compared with our major trading partners. Regardless of what the media would have you believe- there has been no noticeable paycuts in the private sector and the only discernable cut in the public sector has been the pension levy (the income levies being in common with the private sector).

We are borrowing 510 million a week- with a current borrowing requirement for 2009 now at 27.2 billion (aside from bailout funds- which are due to be another 32 billion before the end of the year, and a further 16.5 billion by the end of February 2010).

Certainly there are massive numbers of staff in the Public Sector- who really need to be redeployed to where they are most needed- but at proper salary scales- not the scales they may be currently on. HSE staff have refused to take vacant civil service posts- as in many cases, the salary cut would be as much as 50%. The ESRI have alluded to this in their public sector pay comparison report- where they found civil servants and local authority staff having the smallest pay disparities with the private sector- and educational and healthcare staff having far and away the largest pay disparities. Obviously- there will be hell to pay-if you try to tell the nurses they are earning on average 40% more than comparable staff in the private sector (and there are private sector comparisons) or teachers- that there is no basis in having a 25 point payscale that goes all the way up to 70k basic salary- when their civil service equivalents are 10 point scales up to 38k for graduate recruits, or 10 point scales up to 32k for admin staff.......
There has been lots of talk about how a much higher percentage of public sector employees have higher education than do the private sector. Fine- develop a core salary scale to push out across the entire public sector of say 30k per annum- give another 5k for a degree, 8k for a masters (if in a relevant discipline), and an job based allowance depending on the job (which could be additional leave- rather than financial- so a software developer could get extra leave, or a teacher would have a cost associated with their 3 months of summer holidays and multiple breaks during the school term etc). Do away with the notion of uncertified sick leave altogether- if you're sick- get a cert, if you don't- it comes out of your holidays. The fact of the matter is there are massive disparities in pay across the public sector- this needs to be hit on the head- in order to get people to redeploy to where they are most needed (I'm sure Social Welfare could do with a lot of help at the moment!!!)

Vis-a-vis social welfare- we're spending 42 million a day (yes, a day) on social welfare benefits. Thats almost 300 million a week- and rising (2009 forecast when you factor DSFA, HSE and Council disbursements is actually 23.8 billion). The mentality does appear to be that money really does grow on trees. People seem to think there is a magic money machine churning cash out the door. We need to compare our current social welfare model to that of our major trading partners- perhaps equal portions US/UK/EU. The idea of handing out 210 Euro a week in cash, rent allowance and other allowances to folk- has to end. We need to have a working universal healthcare system- a la the European model- but we also need to replace the cash element of disbursements with fulfillment of basic needs. A single supplier should be appointed to supply communion and confirmation uniforms, school uniforms, the education system needs to ensure that books are not changed on an annual/biennial basis, rent allowance needs to be reformed (its currently supporting the entire rental sector establishing a floor below which private rents have not fallen).....

A 5% reduction in pay for the public sector- along with a 5% reduction in all social welfare disbursements- simply will not do. We need a 15-20% cut in private sector pay, a 20-25% cut across the board in social welfare disbursements, and a 20% gross cut in the public sector paybill (targetted at the educational and healthcare sectors).

Public sector pensions are being bandied about too- since 1995 all new incoming people are Class A PRSI employees, drawing their contributory OAP in many cases as their sole pension. The lower paid public servants are paid too much- but they also pay more than the private sector towards their pensions. As you go up the ranks- you need to make them pay more towards their pensions- but also reduce the gross salary scales. Its not the case that a blanket cut can or should be imposed across the board- or that a blanket cut in gross pay is appropriate either (though it makes good news headlines). It'll be interesting to see what they do.....

AlekSmart

Vis-a-vis social welfare- we're spending 42 million a day (yes, a day) on social welfare benefits. Thats almost 300 million a week- and rising (2009 forecast when you factor DSFA, HSE and Council disbursements is actually 23.8 billion). The mentality does appear to be that money really does grow on trees. People seem to think there is a magic money machine churning cash out the door. We need to compare our current social welfare model to that of our major trading partners- perhaps equal portions US/UK/EU. The idea of handing out 210 Euro a week in cash, rent allowance and other allowances to folk- has to end. We need to have a working universal healthcare system- a la the

European model- but we also need to replace the cash element of disbursements with fulfillment of basic needs. A single supplier should be appointed to supply communion and confirmation uniforms, school uniforms, the education system needs to ensure that books are not changed on an annual/biennial basis, rent allowance needs to be reformed (its currently supporting the entire rental sector establishing a floor below which private rents have not fallen).....

A 5% reduction in pay for the public sector- along with a 5% reduction in all social welfare disbursements- simply will not do. We need a 15-20% cut in private sector pay, a 20-25% cut across the board in social welfare disbursements, and a 20% gross cut in the public sector paybill (targetted at the educational and healthcare sectors).

It'll be interesting to see what they do...

Indeed smccarrick it will be VERY interesting to see what "They" do....

Sadly one indicator of what "They" won`t do came in the Taoiseach`s Bodenstown Commeration speech today.....

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/politics/cowen-vulnerable-will-be-protected-in-budget-1917357.html

Reading between the lines it seems as if this 5% DSFA Benefit cut is as much as "They" think will be accepted by the "Vulnerable" before that group begins to turn nasty.

Strong unambigious leadership is probably the most required asset at the moment.
Sadly,that is exactly what is completely absent from the equation at this point in time.

Excellent post Smccarrick....deadly accurate and without any of the salad dressing which we have come to expect whenever the topic of DSFA Cuts is raised.

Tipp Man

smccarrick wrote: »

The fact of the matter is- we are uncompetitive on a global scale, when compared with our major trading partners. Regardless of what the media would have you believe- there has been no noticeable paycuts in the private sector and the only discernable cut in the public sector has been the pension levy (the income levies being in common with the private sector).

We are borrowing 510 million a week- with a current borrowing requirement for 2009 now at 27.2 billion (aside from bailout funds- which are due to be another 32 billion before the end of the year, and a further 16.5 billion by the end of February 2010).

Certainly there are massive numbers of staff in the Public Sector- who really need to be redeployed to where they are most needed- but at proper salary scales- not the scales they may be currently on. HSE staff have refused to take vacant civil service posts- as in many cases, the salary cut would be as much as 50%. The ESRI have alluded to this in their public sector pay comparison report- where they found civil servants and local authority staff having the smallest pay disparities with the private sector- and educational and healthcare staff having far and away the largest pay disparities. Obviously- there will be hell to pay-if you try to tell the nurses they are earning on average 40% more than comparable staff in the private sector (and there are private sector comparisons) or teachers- that there is no basis in having a 25 point payscale that goes all the way up to 70k basic salary- when their civil service equivalents are 10 point scales up to 38k for graduate recruits, or 10 point scales up to 32k for admin staff.......
There has been lots of talk about how a much higher percentage of public sector employees have higher education than do the private sector. Fine- develop a core salary scale to push out across the entire public sector of say 30k per annum- give another 5k for a degree, 8k for a masters (if in a relevant discipline), and an job based allowance depending on the job (which could be additional leave- rather than financial- so a software developer could get extra leave, or a teacher would have a cost associated with their 3 months of summer holidays and multiple breaks during the school term etc). Do away with the notion of uncertified sick leave altogether- if you're sick- get a cert, if you don't- it comes out of your holidays. The fact of the matter is there are massive disparities in pay across the public sector- this needs to be hit on the head- in order to get people to redeploy to where they are most needed (I'm sure Social Welfare could do with a lot of help at the moment!!!)

Vis-a-vis social welfare- we're spending 42 million a day (yes, a day) on social welfare benefits. Thats almost 300 million a week- and rising (2009 forecast when you factor DSFA, HSE and Council disbursements is actually 23.8 billion). The mentality does appear to be that money really does grow on trees. People seem to think there is a magic money machine churning cash out the door. We need to compare our current social welfare model to that of our major trading partners- perhaps equal portions US/UK/EU. The idea of handing out 210 Euro a week in cash, rent allowance and other allowances to folk- has to end. We need to have a working universal healthcare system- a la the European model- but we also need to replace the cash element of disbursements with fulfillment of basic needs. A single supplier should be appointed to supply communion and confirmation uniforms, school uniforms, the education system needs to ensure that books are not changed on an annual/biennial basis, rent allowance needs to be reformed (its currently supporting the entire rental sector establishing a floor below which private rents have not fallen).....

A 5% reduction in pay for the public sector- along with a 5% reduction in all social welfare disbursements- simply will not do. We need a 15-20% cut in private sector pay, a 20-25% cut across the board in social welfare disbursements, and a 20% gross cut in the public sector paybill (targetted at the educational and healthcare sectors).

Public sector pensions are being bandied about too- since 1995 all new incoming people are Class A PRSI employees, drawing their contributory OAP in many cases as their sole pension. The lower paid public servants are paid too much- but they also pay more than the private sector towards their pensions. As you go up the ranks- you need to make them pay more towards their pensions- but also reduce the gross salary scales. Its not the case that a blanket cut can or should be imposed across the board- or that a blanket cut in gross pay is appropriate either (though it makes good news headlines). It'll be interesting to see what they do.....

Excellent well thought out post

Do you think we need to dramatically reduce the numbers of staff in the PS as well as pay cuts?? In another thread comparing Irish PS numbers to German PS numbers we have about 50% more PS per capita than Germany, I think it was 9% of the workforce in Germany compared to 15-16% in Ireland (open to correction??). Surely a PS between 250-275k employees is where we should be aiming to be at. If, and its a big if, there were 100k less PS employees at the average of 966 a week then that a saving of not far off a hundred million a week or 5 billion a year (of course you'd have a 100k extra on the dole which would reduce this by quite a bit)

A frightening fact is that the state is paying for the livelhoods of about 800,000 adults between PS workers and the unemployed. Nevermind the OAP's, i've no idea how many of them there are but they must surely bring it up to over 1m people depending on the state for their weekly income. How long do people honestly think this can go on for??

ei.sdraob

gurramok wrote: »

Do nothing for 2 years and there will be 'no light'. Does she mean bankruptcy?

were already bankrupt technically

just there are still idiots buying our debt

murphaph

Tipp Man wrote: »

A frightening fact is that the state is paying for the livelhoods of about 800,000 adults between PS workers and the unemployed. Nevermind the OAP's, i've no idea how many of them there are but they must surely bring it up to over 1m people depending on the state for their weekly income. How long do people honestly think this can go on for??

That's a very interesting way of looking at things. 1m adults (this doesn't include the dependent children of all those adults) are paid for from the tax revenues of the remaining 3.5 million people, of whom how many are in the workforce (when you remove all the children and adults in full time education who depend on their parents financially in the state from that figure)? About 2 million actual private sector workers supporting 1 million+ people? This is indeed unsustainable.

The_Conductor

Tipp Man wrote: »

Do you think we need to dramatically reduce the numbers of staff in the PS as well as pay cuts?? In another thread comparing Irish PS numbers to German PS numbers we have about 50% more PS per capita than Germany, I think it was 9% of the workforce in Germany compared to 15-16% in Ireland (open to correction??). Surely a PS between 250-275k employees is where we should be aiming to be at. If, and its a big if, there were 100k less PS employees at the average of 966 a week then that a saving of not far off a hundred million a week or 5 billion a year (of course you'd have a 100k extra on the dole which would reduce this by quite a bit)

Yes- we do need to dramatically reduce the public sector employees- but in a targetted focused manner. We need to significantly restructure public sector payscales- so that staff can be interchanged between different organisations. While its true we have a massive public sector- we actually have the smallest civil service per head of population in the entire OECD- and HSE employees have refused to transfer to the civil service, unless they are allowed keep their current salaries- as the pay differential is far too great.

So- reform public sector pay- targetting cuts on the health and educational sectors- and enforce mobility between the different sectors with standardised payscales. Certain sectors- such as IT employees or graduate employment, instead of giving them pay rises- bump up their annual leave a little (if my memory serves me right- you need to be a HEO or higher before you get above statutory minimum annual leave in the civil service- whereas admin staff in the HSE on average have 7 days extra leave (and don't even think about teachers etc)).

Tipp Man wrote: »

A frightening fact is that the state is paying for the livelhoods of about 800,000 adults between PS workers and the unemployed. Nevermind the OAP's, i've no idea how many of them there are but they must surely bring it up to over 1m people depending on the state for their weekly income. How long do people honestly think this can go on for??

It can't go on- but no-one has the balls to stand up and say so. Harney has come closest to calling it as it is- and even she is mincing her words. She's not even standing for re-election next time round- so she has nothing to loose.......

The mentality of 'entitlement' is rife- people do not seem to realise that their EUR207 a week dole, EUR250 a week in rent allowance, Medical card and a rake of other benefits have to be paid for by someone. Unfortunately the average taxpayer simply can't pay it anymore- once you hit the higher band- when you factor in the levies- you're paying 60% gross (and this is on a salary of about 36k.......) It simply doesn't pay to work anymore- our welfare state is far too lucrative- and our poor taxpayers have far too high a burden. By all means have a gradiated supertax- kicking in at certain levels- but a 60% tax on all income over 35-36k just doesn't make sense......... I know I specifically state that I want time-in-lieu anytime I have to work overtime these days- I don't want to be paid for it........

ei.sdraob

murphaph wrote: »

That's a very interesting way of looking at things. 1m adults (this doesn't include the dependent children of all those adults) are paid for from the tax revenues of the remaining 3.5 million people, of whom how many are in the workforce (when you remove all the children and adults in full time education who depend on their parents financially in the state from that figure)? About 2 million actual private sector workers supporting 1 million+ people? This is indeed unsustainable.

nope

size of Irish workforce (including PS) is 2.27 million people (2008 estimate)

size of PS is 290,000 (2008)


either way cuts would have to be made, me thinks 20-25%

Amhran Nua

smccarrick wrote: »

The fact of the matter is- we are uncompetitive on a global scale, when compared with our major trading partners.

Good post but if we were that uncompetitive we wouldn't have as much FDI as we do. The way to restore liquidity to an economy is not to cut wages in the private sector.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

size of Irish workforce (including PS) is 2.27 million people (2008 estimate)

size of PS is 290,000 (2008)

Thats still a 2:1 ratio of people who pay for others. Astonishing really.

murphaph

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Good post but if we were that uncompetitive we wouldn't have as much FDI as we do. The way to restore liquidity to an economy is not to cut wages in the private sector.

I reckon the FDI has all but dried up and I know from personal experience that a lot of it has been in decline for years. Costs have crept up and up and Ireland has gone from being a cheap labour force to a very expensive one without delivering something extra for the increased costs.

The game is up. Everyone will be taking a battering and this is a lesson people need to learn from, even those who aren't in negative equity and on the dole.

Mr.Micro

Since we are one of the most expensive countries in Europe it is not hard to follow that the cost of doing business here will be expensive as high salaries are expected. Low corporation tax was a factor that certainly drew US companies but Obama is tightening up the rules there and enticing US companies to relocate back in the US.

Amhran Nua

murphaph wrote: »

I reckon the FDI has all but dried up and I know from personal experience that a lot of it has been in decline for years. Costs have crept up and up and Ireland has gone from being a cheap labour force to a very expensive one without delivering something extra for the increased costs.

We import so much into this country that its quite difficult to control the cost of living though - wages might drop without ever having an impact on for example petrol or energy costs. On the other hand things like rental costs are falling without wages dropping at the same time. I haven't the latest statistics for FDI handy but aside from Dell (who were leaving anyway, and when they are done with Poland they'll move on to the next wage barrel bottom destination) and a few others, its not doing too badly. In fact Irish exports (of which 90% are FDI related) were booming ahead of the rest of Europe as of August.

We can control energy costs, which are a vital factor for many businesses, and tax rates, we can control rates and commercial rents, corporate taxes, there are lots of places to look at before ever touching on private sector wages. Its important to keep those at a good level since that is what pays the public sector and also sits at the heart of liquidity, aggregate demand and the health of the economy as a whole.

All the banks ever did was offer a multiplier of spending power to a smallish subset of the workforce, boosting mostly property and cars, both of which have been in freefall since the start of this recession, and no harm either, economically speaking.

murphaph

Well my experience in the electronics sector is that Ireland has been losing FDI for at least 10 years. I listed off a ream of companies that have ceased operations in Ireland since around 1997.

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

Well my experience in the electronics sector is that Ireland has been losing FDI for at least 10 years. I listed off a ream of companies that have ceased operations in Ireland since around 1997.

Even Intel has mothballed 2 fabs.......

Amhran Nua

But the medical companies and pharmas are taking on more people. In the case of FDI also its quite important to keep in mind that they deal internationally, so an international recession will hit them - this has little enough to do with Ireland's competitiveness.

According to the National Irish Bank / OCO Investment Performance Monitor for 2008, Ireland attracted 1.9% of mobile Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2008.

The monitor says this is quite a good performance given the country's relatively small size with Irish GDP accounting for only 0.5% of global production. The survey is based on data from dFi Intelligence, a Financial Times company.

We're still punching far above our weight in attracting FDI, hence competitively, and while I do think there are many areas where the situation could definetely be improved, we cannot ever compete with countries like China and Poland on wages. Its just not doable, and attempting to do so will damage the economy even further. So other areas are where we should focus first. In fact most of the world's top exporters are first world countries.

irish_bob

smccarrick wrote: »

Yes- we do need to dramatically reduce the public sector employees- but in a targetted focused manner. We need to significantly restructure public sector payscales- so that staff can be interchanged between different organisations. While its true we have a massive public sector- we actually have the smallest civil service per head of population in the entire OECD- and HSE employees have refused to transfer to the civil service, unless they are allowed keep their current salaries- as the pay differential is far too great.

So- reform public sector pay- targetting cuts on the health and educational sectors- and enforce mobility between the different sectors with standardised payscales. Certain sectors- such as IT employees or graduate employment, instead of giving them pay rises- bump up their annual leave a little (if my memory serves me right- you need to be a HEO or higher before you get above statutory minimum annual leave in the civil service- whereas admin staff in the HSE on average have 7 days extra leave (and don't even think about teachers etc)).



It can't go on- but no-one has the balls to stand up and say so. Harney has come closest to calling it as it is- and even she is mincing her words. She's not even standing for re-election next time round- so she has nothing to loose.......

The mentality of 'entitlement' is rife- people do not seem to realise that their EUR207 a week dole, EUR250 a week in rent allowance, Medical card and a rake of other benefits have to be paid for by someone. Unfortunately the average taxpayer simply can't pay it anymore- once you hit the higher band- when you factor in the levies- you're paying 60% gross (and this is on a salary of about 36k.......) It simply doesn't pay to work anymore- our welfare state is far too lucrative- and our poor taxpayers have far too high a burden. By all means have a gradiated supertax- kicking in at certain levels- but a 60% tax on all income over 35-36k just doesn't make sense......... I know I specifically state that I want time-in-lieu anytime I have to work overtime these days- I don't want to be paid for it........

completley agree with you about the entitlement mentality when it comes to wellfare , i believe the blame for this lies in many ways with our overwhelmingly left wing media , people have been conditioned into thinking that we dont have a generous wellfare state in this country and that those on the lower rung of society have it tough when nothing could be further from the truth , be it on vincent browne or on the state broadcaster , radical leftists are wheeled out on a regular basis , that theese people represent but a tiny fraction of public opinion is grossly offensive to us the tax payer , i was listening to the news at one on saturday , rachel english had on her panel the odious ciaran allen , this is a man who despite holding no elected possition of any kind , has the balls to call on the state to confiscate private wealth on a grand scale , he also stated that income tax levels need to be raised to 70% for those earning over 70 k per year , while the ego of the man was truly astonishing , what is more astounding is that none of the other panelist or the rte presenter called him out on his on air call to bolshevism , the same goes for representitives of the poverty industry who appear on vincent browne at least once a week , telling us how awfull we are that we dont hand out enough social wellfare to the so called VULNERABLE , be it richard boyd barrett who has been appearing on radio and tv for years despite only having been elected to town council level recently to joe higgins who was able to have his voice heard in the media to the same degree after he lost his dail seat in 2007 up untill he became an MEP in 2009 , minority far left views are given a grossly disproportionate level of air time in this country

jimmmy

irish_bob wrote: »

completley agree with you about the entitlement mentality when it comes to wellfare , i believe the blame for this lies in many ways with our overwhelmingly left wing media , people have been conditioned into thinking that we dont have a generous wellfare state in this country and that those on the lower rung of society have it tough when nothing could be further from the truth , be it on vincent browne or on the state broadcaster , radical leftists are wheeled out on a regular basis , that theese people represent but a tiny fraction of public opinion is grossly offensive to us the tax payer , i was listening to the news at one on saturday , rachel english had on her panel the odious ciaran allen , this is a man who despite holding no elected possition of any kind , has the balls to call on the state to confiscate private wealth on a grand scale , he also stated that income tax levels need to be raised to 70% for those earning over 70 k per year , while the ego of the man was truly astonishing , what is more astounding is that none of the other panelist or the rte presenter called him out on his on air call to bolshevism , the same goes for representitives of the poverty industry who appear on vincent browne at least once a week , telling us how awfull we are that we dont hand out enough social wellfare to the so called VULNERABLE , be it richard boyd barrett who has been appearing on radio and tv for years despite only having been elected to town council level recently to joe higgins who was able to have his voice heard in the media to the same degree after he lost his dail seat in 2007 up untill he became an MEP in 2009 , minority far left views are given a grossly disproportionate level of air time in this country

True enough, plus I think the trade union point of view gets aired too much on RTE. Who is supposed to be running the country, the govt or the trade unions, and what would a trade unionist care or know about the good of the general economy anyway ? Trade unionists could not run an airline, never mind a country.

ardmacha

rachel english had on her panel the odious ciaran allen , this is a man who despite holding no elected possition of any kind , has the balls to call on the state to confiscate private wealth on a grand scale , he also stated that income tax levels need to be raised to 70% for those earning over 70 k per year , while the ego of the man was truly astonishing

While I think he is for the birds, Kieran Allen was calling for taxes that would also apply to himself, which is at least as reasonable as those on here who call for reductions in other people's standard of living so as to have more for themselves.

Who is supposed to be running the country, the govt or the trade unions,

The government is supposed to be running the country. Yet when there is a mess made it seems to all the fault of the unions.

thebman

ardmacha wrote: »

The government is supposed to be running the country. Yet when there is a mess made it seems to all the fault of the unions.

Not really. Its the unions fault for demanding stupid money.

Its the government fault for paying them. If you think people don't blame the government, read an opinion poll.

ardmacha

Its the unions fault for demanding stupid money.

Whatever about the present attitude of unions, what was stupid about the money they demanded? The country was booming, the government went out of its way to state that the boom was going to continue. The unions said in this booming economy, please give us an increase. What do you expect them to do, produce an economic analysis and try and refute the government, the banks etc?