Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

15,278 public sector workers earn more than €100,000

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    optocynic wrote: »
    I still don't see your point here.
    If you could prove that these 4% were not spending thier vast wealth in Ireland, I would take your side (maybe..).. but it is all just very envious ranting... especially when I see people using the phrase 'Average Joe'... who is this average Joe?..

    I guarantee that average Joe's salary (If he still has one) is most likely paid for by the 4% spending... purchasing goods and services...

    its recycled union rhetoric which when scrutinised quickly melts away


  • Options
    #183
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It's called "trickle-down", and many consider it to be a discredited theory.

    I know what it's called, and it is discredited in the US. Since they all have aspirations of being the next Trump.

    But in a tiny country like ours, Trickle-down will work.. and during the boom, it did work. The problem was, it was let run wild!

    Just look how much plumbers etc. were charging 5 years ago...

    Do you propose that we hit these "evil-wealthy" people for more tax? rather than let them spend?


  • Options
    #184
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    irish_bob wrote: »
    at what income level does one cease to be an ordinary worker , im curious because the unions want to slap a 60% plus tax rate on those earning over 100 k , many small business owners would earn over 100k and i assure you thier are few loopholes for the likes of those people

    Actually, I heard someone say that they wanted to impose it on a 'Household' with an income of 100k or more...


  • Options
    #185
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It's called "trickle-down", and many consider it to be a discredited theory.

    lets say you win 10,000,000 tomorrow in euro millions


    do you put money into bank account (interest on which will be taxed) and do nothing until you die (at which stage it gets taxed before passed on to siblings) all while running the risk of the bank disappearing as they are careless

    or do you spend the money in the economy by buying things (house,cars etc ect) or investing in stock market

    wealthy people do spend money and more than often its in local economy bringing jobs or investing in own or other companies, now since ireland doesnt produce everything, some of the money may leave such as if you decide to buy a beamer


  • Options
    #186
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    lets say you win 10,000,000 tomorrow in euro millions


    do you put money into bank account (interest on which will be taxed) and do nothing until you die (at which stage it gets taxed before passed on to siblings) all while running the risk of the bank disappearing as they are careless

    or do you spend the money in the economy by buying things (house,cars etc ect) or investing in stock market

    wealthy people do spend money and more than often its in local economy bringing jobs or investing in own or other companies, now since ireland doesnt produce everything, some of the money may leave such as if you decide to buy a beamer

    A BMW??.. Why you capitalist PIG!
    How dare you have such a public display of success!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    optocynic wrote: »
    A BMW??.. Why you capitalist PIG!
    How dare you have such a public display of success!

    judging by the amounts of German cars on our roads, there are alot of capitalist pigs in this country :D

    imagines a "guaranteed Irish" car :eek:


  • Options
    #188
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    erictheviking wrote: »
    I'm sorry but to insinuate that there exists some type of elite supertaxpayer that singlehandedly pays another section of the workforces taxes for them is ridiculous and petty. Everybody pays taxes in one way or another.
    erictheviking wrote: »
    That means nothing to your average Joe. Those 4% are probably on massive earnings. As a percentage of earnings do they pay more than the average person? I doubt it!

    Everybody pays VAT but I think you'll find that as regards percentages of earnings some are paying a lot more income tax than others.

    As an example, a single person on 50k will take home 36k (incl PRSI which as far as i'm concerned is a tax) so a 28% tax rate. Now a person on 100k will take home 60.5k so a 39.5% tax rate, while at the other end of the scale the person on 25k pays only 10% tax.

    The more you earn the higher %age you pay


  • Options
    #189
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    from listening to unions , one would think that every single one of the 350,000 people who work in the public sector could have been the founder of google had they not chosen to serve mother ireland instead , the reality is thier is a relativley small pool of very talented people who create most of the opportunties for the rest of us , i dont think its a good idea to put theese people on a tax hit list or making it thier sole role to fund the countrys services


  • Options
    #190
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    irish_bob wrote: »
    from listening to unions , one would think that every single one of the 350,000 people who work in the public sector could have been the founder of google had they not chosen to serve mother ireland instead , the reality is thier is a relativley small pool of very talented people who create most of the opportunties for the rest of us , i dont think its a good idea to put theese people on a tax hit list or making it thier sole role to fund the countrys services

    It is radical protectionism... and the public version of corporate welfare


  • Options
    #191
    erictheviking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭erictheviking


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Everybody pays VAT but I think you'll find that as regards percentages of earnings some are paying a lot more income tax than others.

    As an example, a single person on 50k will take home 36k (incl PRSI which as far as i'm concerned is a tax) so a 28% tax rate. Now a person on 100k will take home 60.5k so a 39.5% tax rate, while at the other end of the scale the person on 25k pays only 10% tax.

    The more you earn the higher %age you pay

    I'm not talking about people on 100k or below, I'm talking about the the people who earn more than this. ie the 4% who are saving us all!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    optocynic wrote: »
    I know what it's called, and it is discredited in the US. Since they all have aspirations of being the next Trump.

    But in a tiny country like ours, Trickle-down will work..

    We have a very high propensity to import. That make trickle-down a bad supposition for Ireland. Much of the benefit of any spending will be enjoyed outside the economy.
    and during the boom, it did work.

    How do you justify that claim? The boom was characterised by people on median incomes spending borrowed money.
    The problem was, it was let run wild!

    Although they might not have expressed in such terms, many people had aspirations to be the first Irish Trump.
    ... Do you propose that we hit these "evil-wealthy" people for more tax? rather than let them spend?

    I don't start there. I start by questioning whether such high pay differentials as we see in Ireland are socially good. This takes us right back to the starting point of this thread: the fact that so many in the public service have high pay levels. One reason (of several) is that benchmarking brought the rates of senior public servants up to levels comparable with senior employees in the private sector.


  • Options
    #193
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    irish_bob wrote: »
    from listening to unions , one would think that every single one of the 350,000 people who work in the public sector could have been the founder of google had they not chosen to serve mother ireland instead , the reality is thier is a relativley small pool of very talented people who create most of the opportunties for the rest of us , i dont think its a good idea to put theese people on a tax hit list or making it thier sole role to fund the countrys services

    i'd agree with that, as long as they are paying a fair share then i'm defo not in favour of taxing the "RICH" to unfair levels.

    Look if you have extorionate tax rates for the well off, 2 things happen, those in the country will leave if they can, but secondly its gives those not doing as well any incentive to start a business, expand a business, be creative or productive, work your ass off to get something. Surely that is the basis of any economy, give something that people can strive to achieve, and when they get there don't bloody well tax them to the hilt for working their ass off to get there.

    And another thing about high earners. Those that are earning a lot generally tend to also have a lot of responsibilites for that wage and have to put in a lot of extra work to get it. I certainly don't begrudge anyone earning a lot of money, good luck to them and my aim is to join them as soon as possible


  • Options
    #194
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    P. Breathnach wrote: »

    I don't start there. I start by questioning whether such high pay differentials as we see in Ireland are socially good. This takes us right back to the starting point of this thread: the fact that so many in the public service have high pay levels. One reason (of several) is that benchmarking brought the rates of senior public servants up to levels comparable with senior employees in the private sector.

    I agree with you on the benchmarking farce!
    But large pay differentials are of no concern... why does it not spur people on to work harder, and try to achieve... rather than rant about the 'rich'...


  • Options
    #195
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    optocynic wrote: »
    I agree with you on the benchmarking farce!
    But large pay differentials are of no concern... why does it not spur people on to work harder, and try to achieve... rather than rant about the 'rich'...

    You see this is the typical union bull (not yours but the message your responding too!!), have everyone the same, don't work too hard and then you won't show the useless idiots up for what they are.

    I think McDowell once said that we are not all equal and such a soceity would be a bad thing, and got completly derided for it. Fact is he is completly right.

    My boss is on a great wage, what drives me on in work is that i can get to his level as fast as i can by working hard and being productive.

    Soceity should not be based on getting everyone equal, thats the bloody problem in this country which is why a lot of people are better off on social than working


  • Options
    #196
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Tipp Man wrote: »


    My boss is on a great wage, what drives me on in work is that i can get to his level as fast as i can by working hard and being productive.

    this is the same for me in my public sector career


  • Options
    #197
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    this is the same for me in my public sector career

    But why try as hard as Tippman... since you will get an annual increas anyway... regardless of effort or productivity!!

    If there is one thing true of the majority of people.. we will usually take the easy way out, if it is offered to us...!


  • Options
    #198
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Riskymove wrote: »
    this is the same for me in my public sector career

    My post is made in the context of taxing people to the hilt on higher wages, the more you tax them the less incentive their is for people to strive to achieve


  • Options
    #199
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    optocynic wrote: »
    But why try as hard as Tippman... since you will get an annual increas anyway... regardless of effort or productivity!!

    If there is one thing true of the majority of people.. we will usually take the easy way out, if it is offered to us...!

    And to be fair to PS workers this is just human nature, if i was getting an annual increase pretty much regardless of how much effort i put in then to be honest you just would'nt bother putting in the effort

    The PS system is completly wrong and needs to be changed from head to toe


  • Options
    #200
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    optocynic wrote: »
    But why try as hard as Tippman... since you will get an annual increas anyway... regardless of effort or productivity!!

    not necessarily...and only up to a certain point in any event

    ....and it wont get me promoted

    My post is made in the context of taxing people to the hilt on higher wages, the more you tax them the less incentive their is for people to strive to achieve

    I dont really agree...if there was a further tax band implemented along the lines of whats being talked about, I would still be ambitious to move onwards and upwards...sure I'd prefer to pay less tax, but wouldn't everyone


  • Options
    #201
    erictheviking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭erictheviking


    optocynic wrote: »
    But why try as hard as Tippman... since you will get an annual increas anyway... regardless of effort or productivity!!
    Another misconception. I have a brother in the public sector and he will receive an increment until he reaches the top of his grade and thats it.
    optocynic wrote: »
    If there is one thing true of the majority of people.. we will usually take the easy way out, if it is offered to us...!

    And the easy way out here is to blame another section of the workforce for all our troubles!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    The PS system is completly wrong and needs to be changed from head to toe

    reform is certainly required and I set out my views on that many times

    the problem is that its being overlooked in current fixation on pay

    proper reform would lead to much better benefits to all than a blunt pay cut


  • Options
    #203
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    erictheviking wrote: »
    Another misconception. I have a brother in the public sector and he will receive an increment until he reaches the top of his grade and thats it.

    Until he is given a needless promotion to an unnecessary middle management role!
    erictheviking wrote: »
    And the easy way out here is to blame another section of the workforce for all our troubles!!!

    Well, I'm an engineer, and had absolutely nothing to do with the current situation!


  • Options
    #204
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    reform is certainly required and I set out my views on that many times

    the problem is that its being overlooked in current fixation on pay

    proper reform would lead to much better benefits to all than a blunt pay cut

    Of course you are right, but it would take too much time to implement... and Time is what we just don't have!


  • Options
    #205
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    optocynic wrote: »
    Of course you are right, but it would take too much time to implement... and Time is what we just don't have!

    funnily enough.....I have heard that many times....over many years!!

    you actually sound like what a Union would say about reform!

    couldn't we start the process NOW and benefit at the next bust, rather than never doing it?


  • Options
    #206
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    funnily enough.....I have heard that many times....over many years!!

    you actually sound like what a Union would say about reform!

    couldn't we start the process NOW and benefit at the next bust, rather than never doing it?

    We need to save money now!
    If the unions were not allowed to have a say, reform would happen... and happen quickly.

    Unfortunately, you have the Beardy-mouthpieces with their heads in the sand speaking FOR you!!

    You are one of the only voices of sanity for the PS I know of... speak up!


  • Options
    #207
    Alcatel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Alcatel


    Riskymove wrote: »
    funnily enough.....I have heard that many times....over many years!!

    you actually sound like what a Union would say about reform!

    couldn't we start the process NOW and benefit at the next bust, rather than never doing it?
    Why not do both at once?

    We do have a short term problem (that will be a long term problem anyways requiring cuts later as we pay interest on our loans) of a deficit we cannot afford. Pay cuts are the answer here, and cuts elsewhere.

    But yes, we do need real reform. We ought to bring in auditors from top class businesses, some of whom have bigger workforces than our PS and whom have moved quickly to make changes to their business in the recession, and organisations like KPMG and account for every cent we spend, on pay, on services, on quangos, on tea trollies and phone bills, and totally rebuild the public sector with new contracts beginning 01 January the following year.

    But I'd like to see the unions swollow that. They're empty shirts when talking 'reform'.


  • Options
    #208
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    optocynic wrote: »
    We need to save money now!
    Why not do both at once?

    indeed, I am saying why not start a reform process anyway, independent of other actions....

    ...yes it'll take time and there'll be resistance but lets start it...otherwise it will never happen
    They're empty shirts when talking 'reform'.

    they are not the only ones...our Government masters are just as bad

    in any event we dont necessarily need to do what you suggest

    just support managers to allow for a proper system of performance review, with people held to account, with disciplinary measures applied where necessary


  • Options
    #209
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    just support managers to allow for a proper system of performance review, with people held to account, with disciplinary measures applied where necessary

    The unions would never allow that.
    All they do is protect the lazy and useless workers... and wasn't it you that said it is these lazy/useless tools that are the loudest union supporters?..


  • Options
    #210
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    You see this is the typical union bull (not yours but the message your responding too!!), have everyone the same, don't work too hard and then you won't show the useless idiots up for what they are...

    The message that optocynic was replying to was mine. You have misrepresented it beyond recognition. If you want to disagree with me, deal with what I said. Don't make things up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    optocynic wrote: »
    and wasn't it you that said it is these lazy/useless tools that are the loudest union supporters?..

    no I dont think so
    The unions would never allow that

    if we followed that, there wont be paycuts, would not have been a pension levy etc

    in any event there are many different unions representing different areas with varying influence and strength...you;d be surprised how much could be done in certain areas

    then again, the main place that unions need to be tackled is in health


Advertisement