EU set to give Ireland until 2014 to meet its budget deficit target

Idbatterim

the sense of entitlement is unreal! im a teacher, my expectation is a primary and holiday home in ireland and one abroad for good measure! ill have 2 or 3 cars in the driveway and multiple foreign trips! a stereotype but I actually believe these lunatics believe this is the norm! id like to see how tutors in other eu countries compare! oh wait, they dont! I hope to god the Goverment dont back down! Social Partnership, they only want a one way street! the cost of everything non government controlled! surprise surprise had dropped! I have said it before and ill say it again! if they arent happy why dont they leave their jobs? the position can be filled by someone far better and cheaper and who actually appreciates the job! its a win win situation!

Flex

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Just try running a business without public services.

Once again, Murphaph already pointed this out, and its something Im well aware of having spent most of the last 5 of 6 years studying economics and finance, private sectors existed long long long before public sectors, or even organised central governments. Public sectors as we know them arent actually that old at all.

Flex

MaceFace wrote: »

No - I replied that you can't just go on about how financially better off we will be if we make redudancies in the public sector.
There is major reform of the public sector needed but do people not realise that we can't just slash and burn by letting people go. Services will be affected and while people might not care, they certainly will when they come to rely on those services.
So, don't just look at the finances, a country is not a private company who is out to make profits.

What I said is perfectly correct. It costs the government less to have a person on the dole rather than working in the public sector, unless that public sector worker takes home less than €204 a week after tax.

I certainly know the public sector are very valuable to the country, dont get me wrong. But the fact of the matter is, if a substantial amount of public servants were let go, society would still carry on. And a country isnt a private company out solely for profits, but they have a responsibility to everyone in the country (as well as the EU) to manage the economy responsibly and balance the books.

I am in the private sector and I know exactly what "we" have to go through, but I also know that the PS had a 7.5% avg pay cut this year and will probably have another 7.5% in December.
Are many in the PS overpaid - YES. Do many of them have large debts that they will be struggling to pay with another pay cut and the cut in child welfare? Yes.

I am not defending the PS in anyway, more attacking those that only choose to see one side of the argument and insist on keeping the divide up between those in the public sector and those in the private sector.

I bet you one thing - those that are complaining about the public sector - if you worked there, you would be striking as well.

Im sure many of the 300,000 people who have lost their job as well as people put on short time would loved to have been able to strike to avoid that too, but they didnt have the choice. My father has been working for the same company for 26 years and a few months was put on week on-week off, effectively reducing his income by half. He didnt get to strike or lobby the government to pump money into his company so he wouldnt have to take that, like the public sector are doing now "Force everyone to pay more taxes to cover my pay".

The government at the moment is borrowing nearly half a billion euros every week just to cover its short term debts. Thats just to keep things ticking over. Thats something that worries me and as I said, Id happily fork out a much larger % of my salary to sort out our economy and I fully expect too in the next budget.

Flex

MaceFace wrote: »

More bashing just for the sake of it. Why not balance your argument by going into the details of the social aspect of what will happen if we lay off a load of people from the public sector?

It would save money for the government. Im not trying to upset people or anything, but what I said about how the government would save money and be better off economically by having less people in the public sector is perfectly valid (unless the public sector worker in question takes home less than €204 a week after tax).

By the way, its my view that a government doesnt create a public sector to simply provide people with jobs.

Flex

seangal wrote: »

ASK IBEC that question

Youre the one quoting it as fact.

P. Breathnach

Flex wrote: »

Once again, Murphaph already pointed this out and its something Im well aware of having spent most of the last 5 of 6 years studying economics and finance; private sectors existed long long long before public sectors, or even organised central governments. Public sectors as we know them arent actually that old at all.

By remarkable coincidence, industry as we now know it isn't actually that old either. If you want a model for a private sector without a public sector, then you are looking at a completely different model for that private sector.

Flex

seangal wrote: »

such a load of crap
doing u understand anything

I can tell this is going to be good.... :rolleyes:

a) most public sector take home between 300 and 600 a week so the saving would be between 100 and 400 euro

So you agree with my point.

b) they would have to pay some for of pay off

Which they cant afford too, so they need to make paycuts.

c) they would then get all there health service free
d) there would get there rent or mortgage relief
e) and god know how many more like back to school allowance ect

Youre above scenario paints the picture that the PS worker in question would still cost the government the same amount of money or more. If thats the case then why fear losing their job at all? In fact, why even work at the moment if that particular public servant is likely (according to your above example) be better off overall by being on social welfare and getting the benefits theyre entitled too? I bet that overall it would be a net gain for the government.

use you brain there is nothing to be gained by putting people on the dole

You completely missed my point

Flex

P. Breathnach wrote: »

By remarkable coincidence, industry as we now know it isn't actually that old either. If you want a model for a private sector without a public sector, then you are looking at a completely different model for that private sector.

Before I get into this, I know the public sector is valuable to a society.

I presume youre referring to people working in tertiary jobs? How would the private sector be different today if there were fewer people employed in the public sector, or if the public sector was paid less by the government?

P. Breathnach

Flex wrote: »

... I presume youre referring to people working in tertiary jobs? How would the private sector be different today if there were fewer people employed in the public sector, or if the public sector was paid less by the government?

I'll deal with the simpler part of your question first. I cannot see how paying the public sector less would have a significant impact on the private sector -- provided that the cutting of pay did not in itself cause major disruption. It would probably have some small impact in the reduction of some disposable income in the economy.

It's not easy to gauge the likely effect of reducing numbers in the public sector; a lot depends on where the jobs are cut. It is beyond reasonable dispute that some jobs could be cut without having a significant adverse effect on the private sector in the short or the longer term. Which jobs, and how many, would require a lot of thought. Most of the populist suggestions are far too simplistic - for example, the call to do away with all "bureaucrats". As we have little chance of influencing decisions, I am not going to burden myself with developing a strategy for cutting. That would be real work.

Of course, there is more to life than economic activity in the private sector. That is why government takes on matters like health and welfare. They are remotely supportive of the private sector, but are primarily concerned with the well-being of the people.

It makes sense to disassemble things in order to examine them, but if we want to change anything we need to consider the full impact of the change, not simply its impact in one area. In other words, we need to re-assemble the model and look at it as an entire system. That entirety includes the political part of the system: nothing can change without securing political assent.

[Apologies if this is unclear, or I have drifted too far from your questions: I had some wine with my dinner!]

NewDubliner

Flex wrote: »

By the way, its my view that a government doesnt create a public sector to simply provide people with jobs.

Look at the 'decentralisation' scam, and you might change your mind on that one. Apart from the extra people hired, it's causing major headaches in terms of staff mobility.

omahaid

As someone who has lived all their life on this isle and my family. Me, my wife and kids will move country if this government extend their repayment schedule just so they can pay PS wages and the dole. PS neither me or my family have ever been on the dole, we are nett and gross contributers to this country, I would go so far as to say we pay for 3 ppl on the dole.

seangal

Flex wrote: »

Once again, Murphaph already pointed this out, and its something Im well aware of having spent most of the last 5 of 6 years studying economics and finance, private sectors existed long long long before public sectors, or even organised central governments. Public sectors as we know them arent actually that old at all.

i think we all know that
but what type of conditions did people live in
like what was there right and how was there health
murphaph was talking about china so do u wnat the same again
and that to a public sector u got to study economics and finance for FREE o but you think we dont need a PUBLIC SECTOR
FLEX back to study for you i think

seangal

Flex wrote: »

What I said is perfectly correct. It costs the government less to have a person on the dole rather than working in the public sector, unless that public sector worker takes home less than €204 a week after tax.

for god sake will you go and do a full costing on what a person get on the dole and include rent allowance, medical card mortgage interest payment and all the rest they get free before you make a statment like this again.

seangal

Flex wrote: »

What I said is perfectly correct. It costs the government less to have a person on the dole rather than working in the public sector, unless that public sector worker takes home less than €204 a week after tax.

I certainly know the public sector are very valuable to the country, dont get me wrong. But the fact of the matter is, if a substantial amount of public servants were let go, society would still carry on. And a country isnt a private company out solely for profits, but they have a responsibility to everyone in the country (as well as the EU) to manage the economy responsibly and balance the books.

.



Im sure many of the 300,000 people who have lost their job as well as people put on short time would loved to have been able to strike to avoid that too, but they didnt have the choice. My father has been working for the same company for 26 years and a few months was put on week on-week off, effectively reducing his income by half. He didnt get to strike or lobby the government to pump money into his company so he wouldnt have to take that, like the public sector are doing now "Force everyone to pay more taxes to cover my pay".

The government at the moment is borrowing nearly half a billion euros every week just to cover its short term debts. Thats just to keep things ticking over. Thats something that worries me and as I said, Id happily fork out a much larger % of my salary to sort out our economy and I fully expect too in the next budget.

Flex wrote: »

I can tell this is going to be good.... :rolleyes:




So you agree with my point.



Which they cant afford too, so they need to make paycuts.



Youre above scenario paints the picture that the PS worker in question would still cost the government the same amount of money or more. If thats the case then why fear losing their job at all? In fact, why even work at the moment if that particular public servant is likely (according to your above example) be better off overall by being on social welfare and getting the benefits theyre entitled too? I bet that overall it would be a net gain for the government.



You completely missed my point

man live in the real world
it is a fact that some people be it private or public sector would be better off not working when they cover childcare and take in to account what they get free on the dole but they work cause they are not the type to sit about all day and do nothing
Yes in the longterm the public sector worker will be better off when they get to there pension (if they live that long) ther pension that yea think is free but the fact is we pay 2/3 of the cost since 1995

NewDubliner

seangal wrote: »

murphaph was talking about china so do u wnat the same again

To be fair, he also admired the economic model of Ireland under British rule around 200 years ago.

Head The Wall

seangal wrote: »

If it is not a pay cut what is it???
But one thing for sure it is not going in to my pension and before you go on and on we are paying 2/3 of the cost of our pension

Someone get the brain medicine for this lad

NewDubliner wrote: »

Look at the 'decentralisation' scam, and you might change your mind on that one. Apart from the extra people hired, it's causing major headaches in terms of staff mobility.

I bet all those civil servants that didn't want to move would now give up their negative equity in a home 90 minutes from Dublin and work somewhere outside the pale. If I'm wrong let them keep commuting and paying massive mortgages

seangal wrote: »

i think we all know that
but what type of conditions did people live in
like what was there right and how was there health
murphaph was talking about china so do u wnat the same again
and that to a public sector u got to study economics and finance for FREE o but you think we dont need a PUBLIC SECTOR
FLEX back to study for you i think

You're only trying to justify your job in the over inflated, bloated public sector

seangal wrote: »

for god sake will you go and do a full costing on what a person get on the dole and include rent allowance, medical card mortgage interest payment and all the rest they get free before you make a statment like this again.

Average public sector wage (Compliments of CSO) is E50,601, come back and tell me the average cost per person on the dole, you seem to be implying that it is more than this

seangal wrote: »

man live in the real world
it is a fact that some people be it private or public sector would be better off not working when they cover childcare and take in to account what they get free on the dole but they work cause they are not the type to sit about all day and do nothing

LIke a lot of public sector people, anecdotes don't fall from the sky, e.g rubber rooms and consultants in Donegal to name a few recent ones. Not the consultants choice but who puts them in this situation. Other public sector workers made this decision

seangal wrote: »

Yes in the longterm the public sector worker will be better off when they get to there pension (if they live that long) ther pension that yea think is free but the fact is we pay 2/3 of the cost since 1995

I think it's back to study for you Seangal, start with English

seangal wrote: »

FLEX back to study for you i think

murphaph

seangal wrote: »

ther pension that yea think is free but the fact is we pay 2/3 of the cost since 1995

Bullsh!t. You might pay 2/3 against the taxpayers' 1/3 or something but it's a defined benefit pension so the total cost for every pensioner is UNKNOWN until they die. Therefore you HAVE NO IDEA how much of your pension you are contributing towards, but I can guarantee you that if you have an average life expectancy it will not be anywhere near 2/3.

You should all be on defined contribution schemes and pay PRSI A and be entitled to the state pension. This is the sort of reform that's needed. Bring the public sector into line with the private sector vis-a-vis pensions and then that old chestnut is dispensed with and none of you public sector workers would have to hear it again. You wouldn't like a defined contribution pension compared to your defined benefit one (with tax free lump sum payment, that doesn't exist in the private sector).

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

Bring the public sector into line with the private sector vis-a-vis pensions

In line with which private sector? The one with the great 2/3rds pensions or the other private sector with just the state pension?

And, where does the public sector invest its contributions...the NPRF? And what happens to that money? The answer is that its given to Irish banks....who have the best pensions on the planet.:rolleyes:

Nice try. Seen 'cantillon' in the Irish Times today?

Head The Wall

NewDubliner wrote: »

In line with which private sector? The one with the great 2/3rds pensions or the other private sector with just the state pension?

And, where does the public sector invest its contributions...the NPRF? And what happens to that money? The answer is that its given to Irish banks....who have the best pensions on the planet.:rolleyes:

Nice try. Seen 'cantillon' in the Irish Times today?

Yes all private sector get 2/3rd's pensions. :rolleyes:

Public sector pension system at the moment is unsustainable (even before they brought in the FAS and UNI schemes recently) never mind in the future. Reform will happen to it.

eoinbn

NewDubliner wrote: »

In line with which private sector? The one with the great 2/3rds pensions or the other private sector with just the state pension?

And, where does the public sector invest its contributions...the NPRF? And what happens to that money? The answer is that its given to Irish banks....who have the best pensions on the planet.:rolleyes:

Nice try. Seen 'cantillon' in the Irish Times today?

The NPRF isn't a public sector pension fund, it's suppose to be a pension fund for the state pension and PS pension. The truth is that it is just a fancy name for an investment fund. The government taught that they would get a better return by investing the money than paying off national debt, or investing in infrastructure in ireland.

NewDubliner

eoinbn wrote: »

The government taught that they would get a better return by investing the money than paying off national debt, or investing in infrastructure in ireland.

Who did they teach?:rolleyes:

Bet seriously, do you really think that the money has been 'invested'? It's been put into Anglo, AIB and BoI. The NPRF actually decided theat these were bad investments, so the government passd a law forcing them to hand over the money for worthless Irish bank shares.

The word in the Irish Times is that in addition to demanding public sector cuts, big business has cast its eye over the remaining assets of the NPRF (your pension money) and is just waiting for it to be handed over to them.

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

In line with which private sector? The one with the great 2/3rds pensions or the other private sector with just the state pension?

And, where does the public sector invest its contributions...the NPRF? And what happens to that money? The answer is that its given to Irish banks....who have the best pensions on the planet.:rolleyes:

Nice try. Seen 'cantillon' in the Irish Times today?

The public sector should all pay class A PRSI and be entitled to a state pension. They should also have to join a defined contribution scheme (similar to almost any large multinational employer in the private sector) and take their chances on the stock market like the rest of us. Why should the ordinary workers of the future guarantee your overly generous defined benefit scheme?

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

take their chances on the stock market like the rest of us.

How does that work in practice? Does it involve other people paying more money for goods and services so that you can can have a comfortable pension?

murphaph wrote: »

The public sector should all pay class A PRSI and be entitled to a state pension.

Is this not already the case for most of the public sector?

And is it not true that thanks to the to the plundering of the NPRF by the private sector, the state pension payable to private and public sector workers will be from the taxes of future workers?

RealityCheck

Public sector vs private sector. Fianna Fail have learned well, divide and conquer. With the sort of sectoral war that is occuring right now its no wonder the country is in the toilet.

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

To be fair, he also admired the economic model of Ireland under British rule around 200 years ago.

Where did I do any such thing?? You must have a weak argument if you have to resort to making stuff up.

murphaph

NewDubliner wrote: »

How does that work in practice? Does it involve other people paying more money for goods and services so that you can can have a comfortable pension?

Have you never heard of a standard defined contribution pension scheme (what most of the world operates in)? It involves a mixed bag of investments, managed by a private firm who are charged with getting the best return the can for your pension.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Is this not already the case for most of the public sector?

I don't know about 'most' but I made sure to use the 'all' qualifier as I know at least some public servants pay class A PRSI.

NewDubliner wrote: »

And is it not true that thanks to the to the plundering of the NPRF by the private sector, the state pension payable to private and public sector workers will be from the taxes of future workers?

The fund was plundered by the government who have used it to fund a stabilisation of the banking sector (which was completely unregulated by the looks of things by the people who were supposed to regulate it on our behalf, and who were paid handsomely to do it-public servants). The banks are guilty. The public servants who were charged with regulation were guilty.

The state pension is a different animal to the PS pension-it is far lower (though needs reducing given the dire state of the public finances and falling cost of living) than the average PS pension.

Can you just answer me straight: Would you have a problem receiving the basic state pension and contributing to a standard defined contribution scheme (like any worker in Intel, IBM, HP.....) and being taken off the defined benefit scheme?

eoinbn

NewDubliner wrote: »

Who did they teach?:rolleyes:

Bet seriously, do you really think that the money has been 'invested'? It's been put into Anglo, AIB and BoI. The NPRF actually decided theat these were bad investments, so the government passd a law forcing them to hand over the money for worthless Irish bank shares.

The word in the Irish Times is that in addition to demanding public sector cuts, big business has cast its eye over the remaining assets of the NPRF (your pension money) and is just waiting for it to be handed over to them.

Blame my english teacher- we are blaming them for everything else

Originally the money was invested in stocks/property/commodities, both at home and aboard. The bailouts were just that. The government won't get a return on it directly but if we are to believe what we read then letting the banks go would of cost the country a lot more than the cost of the bailouts.

As I said above, the NPRF is just a pension fund in name. The real reason it was formed was to take money out of economy, and they should of taken more, to stop it from overheating- not to meet our future pension costs. Right now our pension cost is about €7bn, which is extremely low. If we were a fully developed country it would be ~€17bn. An extra €25bn wouldn't last long with a pension bill of that size.

NewDubliner

murphaph wrote: »

Where did I do any such thing?? You must have a weak argument if you have to resort to making stuff up.

Ireland was a part of the UK, 200 years ago?

murphaph wrote: »

the United Kingdom became the richest country on earth. No NHS, no organised police force etc.

murphaph wrote: »

Have you never heard of a standard defined contribution pension scheme (what most of the world operates in)? It involves a mixed bag of investments, managed by a private firm who are charged with getting the best return the can for your pension.

And how is this investment model doing at present? Where do the profits come from? Does the maximising of profit for these pension schemes lead to increased cost of goods and services for other people?

murphaph wrote: »

I don't know about 'most' but I made sure to use the 'all' qualifier as I know at least some public servants pay class A PRSI.

You're deliberately trying to mislead people into thinking that most of the PS don't pay full PRSI.

murphaph wrote: »

ICan you just answer me straight: Would you have a problem receiving the basic state pension and contributing to a standard defined contribution scheme (like any worker in Intel, IBM, HP.....) and being taken off the defined benefit scheme?

How much would be charged by way of administration fees? Are the returns guaranteed? Does the employer also make a contribution? Are the investments ethical?

Why would anyone with a defined benefit scheme, contractually agreed with their employer, switch to a defined contribution scheme?

irish_bob

RealityCheck wrote: »

Public sector vs private sector. Fianna Fail have learned well, divide and conquer. With the sort of sectoral war that is occuring right now its no wonder the country is in the toilet.

so are private sector workers supposed to be happy about the prospect of further tax hikes should the goverment give in to the public sector unions on not cutting pay

if the public sector win , everyone else looses

NewDubliner

irish_bob wrote: »

so are private sector workers supposed to be happy about the prospect of further tax hikes

so are private sector workers supposed to be happy about the prospect of further tax hikes...if the government raids their pension fund again, and takes out big loans to bail out the banks and artificially support the property market and then sticks them with the interest bill and huge losses on the investments?