Dont cut our pay, Tax everyone else instead!!!

Sconsey

Gurgle wrote: »

So do many private-sector workers. Thats what's meant by a permanent pensionable job.

Do you honestly believe that? no private sector worker believes they are immune to downsizing and mandatory redundancy (even the bankers).

Gurgle wrote: »

The public sector does have more 'job for life' security, because the state isn't a profit-driven multinational which can pull the plug when it becomes costly to run. Surely they should be congratulated on making a smart career choice?

The concept of 'job for life' is a concept from the last century, it is not something Irish taxpayers can afford to maintain anymore.

Gurgle wrote: »

Every employee believes that he should be paid the salary in his contract for doing the job described in his contract.

Public sector salaries went down 9% across the board in addition to the levies applied to everyone. I've heard plenty of 'my mate took a 30% pay cut' stories, but I've seen no general stats on pay cuts in the private sector.

I haven't seen stats on that either, but have you seen the stats for unemployment increases? if the public service unions won't take pay cuts then the alternative should be redundancies...the cuts need to be made, the money is not there.

Gurgle wrote: »

Yes, it would be better to cut the numbers with a voluntary redundancy deal - like every company / employer does when it becomes inflated.
But the cowboys in the Dàil didn't do this during the boom (it was as inflated and inefficient then as now). They would have had no shortage of applicants at a time when private sector jobs were easier to come by and better paid.

Agree with most of this, private sector jobs were much easier to come by than private sector (at least for IT workers, speaking from my own experience), not sure about the 'better paid' part.

Gurgle

Sconsey wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that? no private sector worker believes they are immune to downsizing and mandatory redundancy (even the bankers).

In a permanent pensionable job you have a job for life or you will be compensated for the loss of that job.

Yes, multinationals do come and go, companies go bust, shops shut down etc etc but the principle of your employment is 'permanent' - a job for life.

max 73

dresden8 wrote: »

This deliberately ignores the effect of the public sector envy levy which is a cut in net pay.

technically its not a pay cut - the gross is still the same is it not?

ParkRunner

max 73 wrote: »

technically its not a pay cut - the gross is still the same is it not?

You can call it while you like but its effect was to reduce the amount of money spent on public sector pay.

_Kooli_

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hardly a spectacular rise in salary tbh.
And you arent even including the levies.
But sure my salary has increased by more than 300% since 2000. As has most peoples. Glad im not in the public sector.

People need to get off their high horses and put their begrudgery behind them. Everyone benefited over the years.
The truth is that it makes it easier for people to justify their own lack of a career by pointing at someone else and complaining about theirs.

And did you know that people in the public sector would be better off leaving the public sector pension fund and starting their own private pension with the full % they contribute to their pensions? But they are not allowed to. Allow them to do this and then you will see how many bail out of that pension scheme.

I have had arguments with people telling me that the public sector only pay 7% of their salary into their pensions. They dont even know what the publix sector actually pay for their pensions. And yet they think they speak with authority on it. They just swallow all the BS and then repeat it to each other like it was gospel.

Thats what FF want. They want you looking away at others and blaming others, while they happily take their own salary for as long as they can. And people are falling for it.

The real truth is that ANY of us who has a job, has to pay more tax. And we should all pay the same % of tax extra to be fair. Any of us without a job cant really do anything, unless we'd all like them to give back some of their dole too.

jimmmy

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Hardly a spectacular rise in salary tbh.

Many the person in the private sector wishes they were on ( in 2009 ) the 603 average wage the p.s. got in 2000 , never mind the 973 plus perks ( eg average no. of sickies, still subsidised pension, average shorter working hours, job security etc ) average wage in 2009

And you talk about others " happily take their own salary for as long as they can" ( your words, not mine).

Stark

_Kooli_ wrote: »

The real truth is that ANY of us who has a job, has to pay more tax. And we should all pay the same % of tax extra to be fair. Any of us without a job cant really do anything, unless we'd all like them to give back some of their dole too.

A shrinking private sector can't continue to support a bloated public sector forever. You can keep piling on the tax but eventually something's going to give.

_Kooli_

jimmmy wrote: »

Many the person in the private sector wishes they were on ( in 2009 ) the 603 average wage the p.s. got in 2000 , never mind the 973 plus perks ( eg average no. of sickies, still subsidised pension, average shorter working hours, job security etc ) average wage in 2009

And you talk about others " happily take their own salary for as long as they can" ( your words, not mine).

What has the increase in the dole been since 2000?

Or the average industrial wage?

joolsveer

What is the average PS (private sector) wage/salary? I don't think the average industrial wage is the same thing.

skearon

dresden8 wrote: »

That's what I said, rich scum would rather not pay tax. It's beneath them.

I didn't think we were disagreeing.

How are 'rich' people 'scum' ?

48% of income tax comes from a mere 4% of tax payers, this tax pays the welfare for the 'scum' who refuse to work etc

We need to stop attacking 'rich' people, and start encouraging them to generate more economic activity, which benefits everyone.

Stark

As far as I'm concerned as well, if I work my arse off over the next two years or so and manage to get a extra few k onto my salary, I would rather people didn't look at that money with a sense of personal entitlement. Not everyone is born into a position of wealth and if you want people to work towards positions where they can contribute more, then you have to leave them with some rewards for themselves. Many high earning business owners are where they are because they spent years working night and day surviving on pittances building a business that had no guarantee of even paying off. Broaden the tax base by making sure people who are in a position to contribute do so, but don't apply a policy of punishing people for making successes of themselves and assume that we'll continue to see future employment growth and tax revenue growth. That was communism's failing.

dresden8

max 73 wrote: »

technically its not a pay cut - the gross is still the same is it not?

Your use of the word "technically" suggests that even you don't really believe that statement.

Time Magazine

It'd be only wondeful if people starting looking at levels of income and stopped focusing solely on rates of change.

If a public sector worker is paid €1m and takes a huge massive gigantic 50% pay cut, he's still on €500,000 and can afford to take a bigger hit. His complaint that he's already taken a 50% cut is specious if an equivalent private sector worker only gets €100,000.

Yes, public sector wages have fallen 7% due to the pension levy. And yes, of course, the pension levy is a pay cut with a fancy name. But the reality of the situation is that if we want to talk about benchmarking public sector wages to private sector levels, 7% has not been enough.

_Kooli_

Time Magazine wrote: »

It'd be only wondeful if people starting looking at levels of income and stopped focusing solely on rates of change.

If a public sector worker is paid €1m and takes a huge massive gigantic 50% pay cut, he's still on €500,000 and can afford to take a bigger hit. His complaint that he's already taken a 50% cut is specious if an equivalent private sector worker only gets €100,000.

Yes, public sector wages have fallen 7% due to the pension levy. And yes, of course, the pension levy is a pay cut with a fancy name. But the reality of the situation is that if we want to talk about benchmarking public sector wages to private sector levels, 7% has not been enough.

So basically you are saying cutting anyone being paid above a certain amount, because they earn enough to take the hit.
This would apply to both public and private earning that amount.
Now you're talking. Seems fair to me. Except that the the public sector have a 7% head start already dont they.

dresden8

_Kooli_ wrote: »

So basically you are saying cutting anyone being paid above a certain amount, because they earn enough to take the hit.
This would apply to both public and private earning that amount.
Now you're talking. Seems fair to me. Except that the the public sector have a 7% head start already dont they.

Zing!

Stark

Why would the Government want private sector pay cut? The Government doesn't pay private sector wages. Now I'm not in favour of blanket cuts to public service wages; I think pay given to more recent hires has been "competitive" compared to the obscene salaries secured for the old guard through strike threats. The old guard doesn't deserve to be considered untouchable anymore.

_Kooli_

Stark wrote: »

Why would the Government want private sector pay cut? The Government doesn't pay private sector wages.

Well they cant can they.
But they can increase taxes.
Increasing the tax rate by a few percent or lowering the band thresholds would take a hell of a lot more money than cutting private sector wages any more, wouldnt it.

Stark

Because we tried that approach in the 80s and it didn't work, we just ended up with even less of a tax intake and still had a massive hole in the finances. Trimming the fat in public expenditure has been shown to work. Indefinitely hiking up the tax rates with no strategy in mind doesn't.

The unions can try resisting public sector reform but I'd like to see how they fare when the ECB decides to stop lending to us and the likes of the IMF are called in. Bear in mind that the 1.3 billion doesn't have to come from paycuts, it can come from eliminating waste as well.

irish_bob

Time Magazine wrote: »

It'd be only wondeful if people starting looking at levels of income and stopped focusing solely on rates of change.

If a public sector worker is paid €1m and takes a huge massive gigantic 50% pay cut, he's still on €500,000 and can afford to take a bigger hit. His complaint that he's already taken a 50% cut is specious if an equivalent private sector worker only gets €100,000.

Yes, public sector wages have fallen 7% due to the pension levy. And yes, of course, the pension levy is a pay cut with a fancy name. But the reality of the situation is that if we want to talk about benchmarking public sector wages to private sector levels, 7% has not been enough.

to borrow a phrase from another poster

quoted for truth

NewDubliner

Stark wrote: »

Bear in mind that the 1.3 billion doesn't have to come from paycuts, it can come from eliminating waste as well.

Such as bank bailouts and schemes to keep property values at artificial levels?

_Kooli_

Stark wrote: »

Because we tried that approach in the 80s and it didn't work, we just ended up with even less of a tax intake and still had a massive hole in the finances. Trimming the fat in public expenditure has been shown to work. Indefinitely hiking up the tax rates with no strategy in mind doesn't.

The unions can try resisting public sector reform but I'd like to see how they fare when the ECB decides to stop lending to us and the likes of the IMF are called in. Bear in mind that the 1.3 billion doesn't have to come from paycuts, it can come from eliminating waste as well.

We all have to row the boat together. Most people here just want the public sector to do the hard rowing while they take a rest.
As a previous poster said. We can take a few % of a hike in tax if all of us take it. Share the burden and it will be easier on all of us. Dont share it and one sector has to bear the full pain, while the rest of us laugh at them.

dresden8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Magazine
It'd be only wondeful if people starting looking at levels of income and stopped focusing solely on rates of change.

If a public sector worker is paid €1m and takes a huge massive gigantic 50% pay cut, he's still on €500,000 and can afford to take a bigger hit. His complaint that he's already taken a 50% cut is specious if an equivalent private sector worker only gets €100,000.

Yes, public sector wages have fallen 7% due to the pension levy. And yes, of course, the pension levy is a pay cut with a fancy name. But the reality of the situation is that if we want to talk about benchmarking public sector wages to private sector levels, 7% has not been enough.

irish_bob wrote: »

to borrow a phrase from another poster

quoted for truth

Quoted for truth irish_bob, people who earn more should be expected to pay more.

Respec.

And obviously, those earnings levels are more representative of the private sector upper echelons rather than the public sector, no matter what jimmmy might have you think.

Stark

_Kooli_ wrote: »

We all have to row the boat together. Most people here just want the public sector to do the hard rowing while they take a rest.
As a previous poster said. We can take a few % of a hike in tax if all of us take it. Share the burden and it will be easier on all of us. Dont share it and one sector has to bear the full pain, while the rest of us laugh at them.

Tax intake: 32bn
Public sector pay bill: 21bn.

Do you honestly think that we can just infinitely increase taxes to cover the public sector bill plus the increasing social welfare bill while unemployment continues to grow (thus less people paying tax)? You honestly think that 21 billion can remain untouched forever? Good luck with that.

dresden8

There is no pot of gold.

Just like there wasn't one in the 1980's.

Until we learned about the Ansbacher accounts, Cayman accounts and the offhsore dirt account promoted by Bev Flynn and her ilk.

Tax amnesty anyone?

If you believe the rich are stretched beyond endurance I've a bridge I think you might be interested in.

P. Breathnach

Stark wrote: »

Tax intake: 32bn
Public sector pay bill: 21bn.

Do you honestly think that we can just infinitely increase taxes to cover the public sector bill plus the increasing social welfare bill while unemployment continues to grow (thus less people paying tax)? You honestly think that 21 billion can remain untouched forever? Good luck with that.

From http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/other_releases/2008/progress2008/measuringirelandsprogress.pdf
GDP 2008: 181.8bn; GNI 2008: 155.9bn
Assume a fall of about 3% in 2009: A tax take of 32bn would amount to under 20% of GDP, and just over 20% of GNI. There would appear to be scope for some more taxation.

Note that I do not say that the public sector payroll should not be reduced. What I say is that we should consider tax increases as another component of a multi-part solution.

peter_de_tool

The financially clued-in know that a public sector pension is almost worth its weight in gold. Theoretically, a private sector worker can fund for a maximum of two-thirds of their final salary for retirement. However, they need to save 28% of their salary for 40 years to do so. A 7.5% contribution is laughable the pension levy should be at least 25%.

Time Magazine

_Kooli_ wrote: »

So basically you are saying cutting anyone being paid above a certain amount, because they earn enough to take the hit.
This would apply to both public and private earning that amount.
Now you're talking. Seems fair to me. Except that the the public sector have a 7% head start already dont they.

Do I think there should be considerable increases in taxation for all those above a certain limit? Yes, of course I do. Public and private. Agreed. I hinted at that with the post a few pages back where I put up graphs and all.

But I think those considerable tax increases should be on on top of public sector pay cuts.

TBH in my opinion it's quite simple. As a nation, we're spending more than we have. We need to increase taxation on just about everyone, agreed. But the hole is, roughly speaking, about €15,000 per household in the country. The hole is simply too large to be fixed by taxation. There needs to be substantial cuts elsewhere.

If you're serious about not making cut-backs in necessary surgeries, in special needs education, in overseas development aid and in welfare payments to our most disadvantaged, then you simply cannot leave the public sector pay bill untouched.

But hey, if you rank public sector pay over special needs education or vaccines for children in Africa, that's your choice, we're just not going to agree anytime soon.

Diarmuid

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Assume a fall of about 3% in 2009: A tax take of 32bn would amount to under 20% of GDP, and just over 20% of GNI. There would appear to be scope for some more taxation.

I thought you had lived through the 80's? Feeling a bit nostalgic for it? Or just want the younger people to experience those "golden years"? :rolleyes:

NewDubliner

peter_de_tool wrote: »

The financially clued-in know that a public sector pension is almost worth its weight in gold. Theoretically, a private sector worker can fund for a maximum of two-thirds of their final salary for retirement.

A public sector pension is not 2/3rds final salary.

The public sector pension is only as good as the next piece of emergency legislation. It can be wiped out at the flick of a pen.

_Kooli_

peter_de_tool wrote: »

The financially clued-in know that a public sector pension is almost worth its weight in gold. Theoretically, a private sector worker can fund for a maximum of two-thirds of their final salary for retirement. However, they need to save 28% of their salary for 40 years to do so. A 7.5% contribution is laughable the pension levy should be at least 25%.

Well then allow people in the public sector to opt out of the public pension scheme.
Give them back their 15% that they pay towards their pension and let them start their own private pension with it if they want. So then everyone is on a level playing field.

But then we lose the "But they have golden super duper pensions and i dont so they have to pay more so i dont have to." rant dont we. We cant have that.

But then we have another one. "The public sector have a job for life and i dont, so they should pay more than me". That one is simply not true either.