Are ICTU insane

AARRRGH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not a question of punishment. We are collectively in trouble. I can say that I didn't do anything to bring it about, but as a good citizen I am prepared to carry a share of the burden involved in getting everybody out of it.

Even if I were to see it solely in terms of self-interest, I see it as being in my own interest that my fellow-citizens are helped when they are in trouble.

I am prepared to carry my share too (although I admit I am emigrating in a couple of months), but irresponsible people should not get off lighter than me.

It is not my fault so many people had children or bought homes without considering the financial consequences. Therefore I should not have to pay extra (i.e. more than them) to subsidise their mistakes.

The pain needs to be at worst equal, and at best harsher for those who made bad decisions.

97i9y3941

public sector are mad,why should there be one rule for the public sector and one rule for the private sector,taxing those private sector people again who pay for the public sector wages is just a spit in the face for them...

OMD

AARRRGH wrote: »

It is not my fault so many people had children or bought homes without considering the financial consequences. Therefore I should not have to pay extra (i.e. more than them) to subsidise their mistakes.
.

No one is saying you should

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

No one is saying you should

The unions are through calls for higher taxes or borrowing further over many years hence the interest bill be sky high. Our taxes have to pay that interest bill.

AARRRGH

OMD wrote: »

No one is saying you should

Someone on a previous page was suggesting a single person on 40k should take a bigger tax hit than a parent on 60k, as the parent probably has less disposable income.

For the sake of this argument I am the single person on 40k. I don't believe I should have to subsidise other people's life choices.

Tipp Man

ceret wrote: »

Isn't that what FÁS did/do? They had a budget of €1billion in 2007. And they still didn't help!

Jack must fancy another board seat

OMD

AARRRGH wrote: »

Someone on a previous page was suggesting a single person on 40k should take a bigger tax hit than a parent on 60k, as the parent probably has less disposable income.

For the sake of this argument I am the single person on 40k. I don't believe I should have to subsidise other people's life choices.

No I didn't. Although I can see how you would think I did.
My point is the unions (and many others) are saying pay cuts should be for those who can afford them. My point was that the amount you earn does not dictate how much you can afford. The type of example I used was a couple earning say 60K would be less able to afford a pay cut than a single person on 40K. It was in response to the OP who said the more you earn the more your pay should be cut. So looking at it the other way. Why should a married person with 2 kids take a bigger cut to support your life choices?

My main point though is that pay cuts should be targeted, not accross the board. Not all public servants earning 40K do the same work or are as skilled or as necessary to the ecconomy.

AARRRGH

OMD wrote: »

Why should a married person with 2 kids take a bigger cut to support your life choices?

No one needs to pay extra tax to support my life choices. I am the ideal citizen in our current economy: good job, no debt, lots of savings, no bad financial decisions. No one needs to pay extra tax to support my lifestyle.

I understand what you're trying to say that a high wage doesn't mean lots of disposable income, but again, everyone has to be responsibile for themselves so if they chose to have 4 kids that should be their problem, not mine!

OMD

AARRRGH wrote: »

No one needs to pay extra tax to support my life choices. I am the ideal citizen in our current economy: good job, no debt, lots of savings, no bad financial decisions. No one needs to pay extra tax to support my lifestyle.

I understand what you're trying to say that a high wage doesn't mean lots of disposable income, but again, everyone has to be responsibile for themselves so if they chose to have 4 kids that should be their problem, not mine!

But the point was that someone earning 40K a year (like you) should take a 5% pay cut and a person earning 60K should take a 7.5% cut. As I said ignore the kids. Why should a couple earning 60K a year take a bigger cut than a single person earning 40K. Not just a bigger amount but a bigger percentage. Their cut would be almost twice as much in monetary terms as the single person.

AARRRGH

OMD wrote: »

But the point was that someone earning 40K a year (like you) should take a 5% pay cut and a person earning 60K should take a 7.5% cut. As I said ignore the kids. Why should a couple earning 60K a year take a bigger cut than a single person earning 40K. Not just a bigger amount but a bigger percentage. Their cut would be almost twice as much in monetary terms as the single person.

Yeah, I can see your point: the cut or extra tax should be across the board; people should not be punished for being successful.

In a fair world it would work like that.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

But the point was that someone earning 40K a year (like you) should take a 5% pay cut and a person earning 60K should take a 7.5% cut. As I said ignore the kids. Why should a couple earning 60K a year take a bigger cut than a single person earning 40K. Not just a bigger amount but a bigger percentage. Their cut would be almost twice as much in monetary terms as the single person.

no no no
look back at your first post in this thread and stop meddling with numbers to try and justify your agrument.
look at my original post, nowhere did i say a couple on 60k to take a 7.5% cut

this is what you said

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.

its still 1 person earning against another.

just to refresh my payscale what i said should happen

20k-28k 0%
28k - 40k 2.5%
40k - 60k 5%
60k - 100k 7.5%
100k - 150k 10%
150k+ 15%

so a single person on 40k gets an overall cut of 300 euro or 0.75% pay cut

next married man working (wife not working should have no relevance) gets an overall cut of 1300 euro or 2.166%

hardly the 5% and 7.5% you were talking about

and aarrrgh's argument was why should he pay more to support some1 who had a family and kids, your first post of this thread says it all

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

no no no
look back at your first post in this thread and stop meddling with numbers to try and justify your agrument.
look at my original post, nowhere did i say a couple on 60k to take a 7.5% cut

this is what you said

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.

its still 1 person earning against another.

just to refresh my payscale what i said should happen

20k-28k 0%
28k - 40k 2.5%
40k - 60k 5%
60k - 100k 7.5%
100k - 150k 10%
150k+ 15%

so a single person on 40k gets an overall cut of 300 euro or 0.75% pay cut

next married man working (wife not working should have no relevance) gets an overall cut of 1300 euro or 2.166%

hardly the 5% and 7.5% you were talking about

and aarrrgh's argument was why should he pay more to support some1 who had a family and kids, your first post of this thread says it all

You are getting rather over excited here. I must have misread your post. I took it that when you said cut pay for public servants that each figure was the pay cut for that level. So when I read "40-60K 7.5%" I took it that you meant cut the pay of people earning between 40-60K by 7.5%. Now I take it that you did not mean this. It would have been clearer if your first figure was "0-28K 0%" rather than "20K-28K 0%."

But this is a rather minor point, the figures are unimportant really. The real question is still why should someone earning 60K take a bigger percentage pay cut than someone earning 40K? Why should the person earning 60K get a pay cut 4.3 times higher than the person earning 40K? Can I make a wild guess that your pay is nearer 40K than 60K?

c montgomery

OMD wrote: »

You are getting rather over excited here. I must have misread your post. I took it that when you said cut pay for public servants that each figure was the pay cut for that level. So when I read "40-60K 7.5%" I took it that you meant cut the pay of people earning between 40-60K by 7.5%. Now I take it that you did not mean this. It would have been clearer if your first figure was "0-28K 0%" rather than "20K-28K 0%."

But this is a rather minor point, the figures are unimportant really. The real question is still why should someone earning 60K take a bigger percentage pay cut than someone earning 40K? Why should the person earning 60K get a pay cut 4.3 times higher than the person earning 40K? Can I make a wild guess that your pay is nearer 40K than 60K?

Is 7.5 % not 50% or 0.5 times more than 5.0%?????
Where is this 4.3 times higher coming from??

And just to clarify the figures are very important, their what everyone is arguing over.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

You are getting rather over excited here. I must have misread your post. I took it that when you said cut pay for public servants that each figure was the pay cut for that level. So when I read "40-60K 7.5%" I took it that you meant cut the pay of people earning between 40-60K by 7.5%. Now I take it that you did not mean this. It would have been clearer if your first figure was "0-28K 0%" rather than "20K-28K 0%."

But this is a rather minor point, the figures are unimportant really. The real question is still why should someone earning 60K take a bigger percentage pay cut than someone earning 40K? Why should the person earning 60K get a pay cut 4.3 times higher than the person earning 40K? Can I make a wild guess that your pay is nearer 40K than 60K?

no i said opening this thread that i am abroad as i could not get a job here and that if i ever reached the 54% threshold i wouldn't move back.

on the figures, are you saying a person on 40k should get the same cut as someone on 60k, your whole argument is to be fair,surely someone on 60k get 2.166% cut can absorb it more than someone on 40k getting a 0.75% cut.

you are seriously starting to confuse me as to what you are arguing about here, you seem to change your mind a lot since the start of the thread.

pay cuts should of course increase the higher you go in the payscale

c montgomery

c montgomery wrote: »

Is 7.5 % not 50% or 0.5 times more than 5.0%?????
Where is this 4.3 times higher coming from??

And just to clarify the figures are very important, their what everyone is arguing over.

once again hes manipulating the numbers

hes taking actual cash difference 300 compared to 1300 but fails to recognise the 20k difference in pay

this guy should work for the banks, they'd love him

segaBOY

Why not just keep taxing the rich and turn us into the USSR.

Top earners already pay 80% of income taxes. Taxing the "rich" (who generally create wealth and jobs) to excess drives them away and takes employment with them.

RealityCheck

segaBOY wrote: »

Why not just keep taxing the rich and turn us into the USSR.

Top earners already pay 80% of income taxes. Taxing the "rich" (who generally create wealth and jobs) to excess drives them away and takes employment with them.

Then consider that 50% of the population are outside the tax net. Time for more to make a contribution. The tax base is not wide enough. People who urge the government to narrow it are deluded.

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

once again hes manipulating the numbers

hes taking actual cash difference 300 compared to 1300 but fails to recognise the 20k difference in pay

this guy should work for the banks, they'd love him

keeffo will you stop with the insults. I am not manipulating the figures. You are saying someone who earns 50% more than someone else (ie 40k compared to 60k) should have their pay cut 330% more (ie 1300 compared to 300). WHY? That is the point I am saying is unfair. A person earning 50% more should have their pay cut 50% more if you are trying to be fairer. Also when you mention the 20K difference in pay. This is obviously not take home pay. As a top rate tax payer, the extra 20K gross is the equivalent of about €6500 net.

My other point is that simple % cuts are not the way. Someone earning €100000 may be worth that depending on the work they do (they may not either), someone earning 40000 may not be worth that. To simply say everyone earning X amount of money should take a Z pay cut takes away any idea of the benefit of work. In other words why should I work hard and try to save the country money when I am going to be treated the same as the person who doesn't give a damm. Incidently on the news this morning FG were announcing plans to tackle this issue.

I also made the point that the tax system is unfair in that a family with 2 workers will take home substantially more money than a family with one worker on the same overall wage. That too is unfair.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

keeffo will you stop with the insults. I am not manipulating the figures. You are saying someone who earns 50% more than someone else (ie 40k compared to 60k) should have their pay cut 330% more (ie 1300 compared to 300). WHY? That is the point I am saying is unfair. A person earning 50% more should have their pay cut 50% more if you are trying to be fairer. Also when you mention the 20K difference in pay. This is obviously not take home pay. As a top rate tax payer, the extra 20K gross is the equivalent of about €6500 net.

My other point is that simple % cuts are not the way. Someone earning €100000 may be worth that depending on the work they do (they may not either), someone earning 40000 may not be worth that. To simply say everyone earning X amount of money should take a Z pay cut takes away any idea of the benefit of work. In other words why should I work hard and try to save the country money when I am going to be treated the same as the person who doesn't give a damm. Incidently on the news this morning FG were announcing plans to tackle this issue.

I also made the point that the tax system is unfair in that a family with 2 workers will take home substantially more money than a family with one worker on the same overall wage. That too is unfair.

this 330% is a stupid figure, i'm not insulting just getting sick of the figures you are branding here.

so your saying every1 should get the same paycut no matter what they earn

going by your figures
pay--> cut
40k --> 300
60k --> 450
90k --> 675

all getting the equal paycut of 0.75%

my point is according how far up the ladder the higher the cut
if we listen to you everyone should get the equal paycut from the min to the max

we are talking percentage of wage here

so saying some1 earning 60k takes 330% more of a cut than some1 on 40k is completely wrong. in real terms its 0.75% v 2.16% because the person on 60k is on a higher payscale and will still earn considerably more after the cuts

so now person originally on 60k earns roughly 48% more than the person originally on 40k. and remember the person on higher pay is taking the bigger cut cos it would work on a scale of earnings. and also if you want to bring taxes into it, correct me if i am wrong but if your pay gets deducted doesnt this also reflect on tax so the cut might be even less than 2.16% although only marginally in real money terms

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

this 330% is a stupid figure, i'm not insulting just getting sick of the figures you are branding here.

so your saying every1 should get the same paycut no matter what they earn

going by your figures
pay--> cut
40k --> 300
60k --> 450
90k --> 675

all getting the equal paycut of 0.75%

my point is according how far up the ladder the higher the cut
if we listen to you everyone should get the equal paycut from the min to the max

we are talking percentage of wage here

so saying some1 earning 60k takes 330% more of a cut than some1 on 40k is completely wrong. in real terms its 0.75% v 2.16% because the person on 60k is on a higher payscale and will still earn considerably more after the cuts

so now person originally on 60k earns roughly 48% more than the person originally on 40k. and remember the person on higher pay is taking the bigger cut cos it would work on a scale of earnings. and also if you want to bring taxes into it, correct me if i am wrong but if your pay gets deducted doesnt this also reflect on tax so the cut might be even less than 2.16% although only marginally in real money terms

I really cannot understand what you are trying to get at here.

Brian Griffin

These pay cuts i still take it are relating to the public sector?

If so then i do believe that the cuts should be graded upwards the more the person earns in the public sector. My reason for believing this, is that in my opinion, (which is as wrong as my spelling and grammar most of the time ), is that this is where most of the waste is.

I think that most educated public employees start on a good wage and this increases with time severed alot of the time and not based on increased responsibility and performance (I remember a number of teachers in my school, who i'm sure got there pay rise and definitely should not have). i do know people who work hard in the public service as well.

But again its a case of the bill cant be paid at the moment and somthing has to be done (no option is nice but...). and also a person on higher wage will be paying more of this money back in tax anyhow, so they well be paying else in tax.

sorry if this is a bit all over the place only thinking quickly.

other options seem to be:
blanket pay cut
targeted pay cut
more tax or borrow to pay the same bill
lay people off

these seem to be either unfair or difficult or stupid in my opinion.(but my opinion is not worth much)

Brian