Gilmore opposed to pay cuts for public sector

irish_bob

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html



So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

i understand that political parties cant ignore thier base but gilmore really has lost the run of himself when it comes to pandering to the public sector , he is way out left in comparrison to rabbitte who who suceeded and quinn before that , the more i listen to him of late , the more im convinced that unless fine gael can form a single party goverment without labour , the present goverment is a better option and that really says alot about the politcal class in this country

murphaph

irish_bob wrote: »

i understand that political parties cant ignore thier base but gilmore really has lost the run of himself when it comes to pandering to the public sector , he is way out left in comparrison to rabbitte who who suceeded and quinn before that , the more i listen to him of late , the more im convinced that unless fine gael can form a single party goverment without labour , the present goverment is a better option and that really says alot about the politcal class in this country

Been thinking the same the last couple of days. A terrible reality but quite possible....FF reelected! Labour to my mind are untouchable so long as they peddle the line that public sector wage cuts are a no-go. FF are the builders' party, so that leaves FG as the only viable alternative. Need a new leader before the next election though or he'll damage their chances.....FF can't be reelected after causing this mess with their buying of votes through poxy benchmarking!

Nody

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Raising taxes across the board fails. We are still for the most part a low tax economy. The tiger was built on consumption taxes which have dried up.

How many jobs have been lost since the last 2 budgets?? How much has consumer spending dropped??

We need to broaden the tax base. Its too narrow. There are too many people not paying any tax( apart from a 1% levy, Im open to correction on that). We need a third bracket for higher earners. We need to stop tax breaks for landlords, developers etc.

And you started so good and you fell so flat. None of your ideas will really expand the taxation base; reducing the tax credits would; lowering the limits would but adding more tax at the top does not.

The numbers have been shown over and over again; ~80% of the invidiual tax is currently paid by ~10% of the population; ~40% of the population pays no tax at all. Why do you expect the people who actually make a lot of money by hard work (lets face it you don't walk in to a 100k job from University) should pay for the big masses who pay nothing/very limited amount of tax now? If you want more tax revenue remove the tax credits and lower the bracets; don't try to shove more tax on the top that already pays far more of the bill then any one else. Do that and they will leave/set up consultancies to move their salaries out from the Irish system and you'll scream for yet another tax band to be added at the top.

The fact is there are ways to achieve savings without totally screwing middle income earners who always seem to be the worst hit. It just takes a little bit of imagination and creative thinking. Anyone can say cut cut cut. Its cutting in the right place that makes a person a good leader.

Yes and that means cutting down on social wellfare bill (the extras especially; rent allowance? No problem but you better be willing to live cheap etc.).

If you want to cut correctly you tell all unions to go feck themself and make the PS actually have real goals to achieve. Aggresive targets tied directly to their task and measured by customer satisfaction (i.e. public satisfcation of how their service is delivered and priced against private alternatives) and if they fail they get fired/moved to a lower level position and salary. Have the damn government and PS actually be accountable to deliver the service and failure to do so means the boot. That is what's needed but no government in Ireland will ever have the balls to actually take the required action and add some damn accountability to the system. It is far easier to blame it all on someone else and do half measures and pander and hope things will get better in the mean while instead.

Dickerty

Riskymove wrote: »

welfare is the biggest sectoral spend, it cannot be avoided

it encompasses a myriad of items, its not just dole and oap

There are huge opportunities here, thousands of recepients who are not as needy as the system would suggest.

Single mother's allowance + multiple children's allowance + rent relief, etc.?

Knock this on the head. Investigate recepients of multiple benefits and set a cap. Push harder on the single parent's allowance where it is likely that there is a partner also supporting. We did this in the 90's, people used to call to the door unannounced. Clamp down on this and PUNISH people, it is FRAUD.

I am willing to take a cut in children's allowance, and I don't believe it should be paid beyond the third child. If you have 4 or 5 kids, that is your choice, and the costs do not go up equally as you reuse cots, buggies, etc. Feeding 5 is not 5 times as expensive as feeding 1.

Berti Vogts

I think John Drennan summed it up at the weekend:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/open-honest-and-frank-bah-humbugdail-sketchjohn-drennan-1944000.html

It is no fun being Taoiseach when the Labour leader starts behaving like Fianna Fail in opposition.

Quandary

papachango wrote: »

Someone should suggest that the Private sector wages are 'benchmarked' to the Public sector wages. This might make the PS realise how out of touch they are with reality and that economic realities or the laws of physics cannot be changed or ignored to protect the Public dis-service anymore.

+1

Benchmarking needs to be applied to the Public Sector wage bill. It cant be a case of Benchmarking only when it suits them.

Taxipete29

Nody wrote: »

And you started so good and you fell so flat. None of your ideas will really expand the taxation base; reducing the tax credits would; lowering the limits would but adding more tax at the top does not.

The numbers have been shown over and over again; ~80% of the invidiual tax is currently paid by ~10% of the population; ~40% of the population pays no tax at all. Why do you expect the people who actually make a lot of money by hard work (lets face it you don't walk in to a 100k job from University) should pay for the big masses who pay nothing/very limited amount of tax now? If you want more tax revenue remove the tax credits and lower the bracets; don't try to shove more tax on the top that already pays far more of the bill then any one else. Do that and they will leave/set up consultancies to move their salaries out from the Irish system and you'll scream for yet another tax band to be added at the top.

Yes and that means cutting down on social wellfare bill (the extras especially; rent allowance? No problem but you better be willing to live cheap etc.).

If you want to cut correctly you tell all unions to go feck themself and make the PS actually have real goals to achieve. Aggresive targets tied directly to their task and measured by customer satisfaction (i.e. public satisfcation of how their service is delivered and priced against private alternatives) and if they fail they get fired/moved to a lower level position and salary. Have the damn government and PS actually be accountable to deliver the service and failure to do so means the boot. That is what's needed but no government in Ireland will ever have the balls to actually take the required action and add some damn accountability to the system. It is far easier to blame it all on someone else and do half measures and pander and hope things will get better in the mean while instead.

Well to begin I am obviously not a tax expert but I would of thought bringing more people at the lower levels widens the tax base and that was one suggestion I made.

I am totally against rent allowance. I believe it traps people in the system while lining the pockets of landlords and developers. Its a poor solution that needs to abolished as much as is possible as quickly as possible.

I doubt anyone would disagree that the PS need to be more accountable for the services they are supposed to provide. The notion that Unions are somehow the bad guys is a nonsense. They are there to do the best for their members. They will always seek higher wages, better conditions and oppose cuts. Its like dealing with a child. If the child wants something and you say no, but they kick, scream and demand it and you give in, you have lost and you have set the tone. Its the same thing. The Govt have given in so many times its foolish to think the Unions will back down or break when the know this Govt will eventually give in.

A higher tax band of 48% on single incomes over 100k( being proposed by Labour) is hardly punitive. Reducing incomes at the top through this method does not reduce the amount of money in the economy as much as it would if higher tax was applied to low wage earners. Higher wage earners have more disposable income, but dont neccesarily dispose of it. They are more likely to save a portion of it. Raising the tax rate for them reduces the amount they save( which we dont want people doing anyway we need them to spend). Thats the theory anyway, how well it works is another thing but the logic is valid.

Taxipete29

irish_bob wrote: »

i understand that political parties cant ignore thier base but gilmore really has lost the run of himself when it comes to pandering to the public sector , he is way out left in comparrison to rabbitte who who suceeded and quinn before that , the more i listen to him of late , the more im convinced that unless fine gael can form a single party goverment without labour , the present goverment is a better option and that really says alot about the politcal class in this country

The fact that you claim Gilmore is pandering just shows how little you have looked into what he says and what he has proposed. If the savings can be made through reduction of the overall pay bill without across the board cuts where is the problem?? The net effect is the same.

Many private sector firms have not reduced pay for staff. I would suggest they have found alternative methods of savings. Some have tried this and when it failed they went for wages. FF have made no attempt to make savings in the PS outside of core pay.

My point is when you are cutting the cloth you start at the egdes and work in. You dont start cutting at the centre.

gurramok

Yeh but Taxipete29, you do not seem to grasp that those savings on the PS bill has to be applied every year until 2014. (same for social welfare)

There is only so much cloth you can cut before wages are cut hence what Gilmore is saying is ridiculous.

On the point of the rich, it will only happen if every single country in teh world did not have a tx haven to prevent the rich from fleeing with their wealth. This point is been lost on the unions.

FlutterinBantam

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html



So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

No need to be confused Gurra, he will get it from taxes, or try to.

What he will do is stifle the last bit of entrepreneurship out of the country, end the ambitions of anyone who has the balls and gumption to take a risk and create employment for others.
He will cripple small and medium enterprises and drive anyone with a bit of chutzpa out of the country.

What will be left are the punters who want the safety blanket of a public service/semi state job, in they go and vegitate till pension time.

That's what Gilmore is saying and Ms. Burton, if I am wrong tell me!!

Dickerty

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Many private sector firms have not reduced pay for staff. I would suggest they have found alternative methods of savings. Some have tried this and when it failed they went for wages. FF have made no attempt to make savings in the PS outside of core pay.

I work in the Private Sector, in expense management. Unlike the public sector, you only staff according to your needs. You have normal staff turnover, and you only replace where you still have a need.

Most saves have been achieved by non-replacement of leavers, and migrating of the functions where there was an opportunity. But these are also big saves in re-negotiating vendor costs, rent reduction through better space utilisation, etc.

But once that is all done, if you still need to find saves, then salary is a big target. Unlike public sector, you MUST save or you will not survive. If you bust your budget in the public sector, it just adds to borrowing.

Taxipete29

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No need to be confused Gurra, he will get it from taxes, or try to.

What he will do is stifle the last bit of entrepreneurship out of the country, end the ambitions of anyone who has the balls and gumption to take a risk and create employment for others.
He will cripple small and medium enterprises and drive anyone with a bit of chutzpa out of the country.

What will be left are the punters who want the safety blanket of a public service/semi state job, in they go and vegitate till pension time.

That's what Gilmore is saying and Ms. Burton, if I am wrong tell me!!

You are very wrong.

In june Labour produced a document called Restoring Confidence-Labours proposals for economic recovery. This included such industry destroying ideas as an 18 month exemption on employer PRSI where the employer employs a person unemployed for 6 months and where they demonstrate its a new job being created.

The document can be found through this link

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/1243932820420700.html

Labour are about jobs public and private. That is why Eamon Gimore does not support strike action by the Unions and he has told them as much. Its hardly pandering now is it. It should also be noted that the many of the PS unions have no affiliation to Labour.

Labour have proposed a 3rd tax band. 48% on all Single incomes over 100k. Thats hardly punitive now is it.

Taxipete29

Dickerty wrote: »

I work in the Private Sector, in expense management. Unlike the public sector, you only staff according to your needs. You have normal staff turnover, and you only replace where you still have a need.

Most saves have been achieved by non-replacement of leavers, and migrating of the functions where there was an opportunity. But these are also big saves in re-negotiating vendor costs, rent reduction through better space utilisation, etc.

But once that is all done, if you still need to find saves, then salary is a big target. Unlike public sector, you MUST save or you will not survive. If you bust your budget in the public sector, it just adds to borrowing.

As you say yourself you try everything else first. There are many allowances etc paid to parts of the PS that dont exist in the private sector. Start eliminating those and you will be well on your way to making the necessary savings.

K-9

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Labour have proposed a 3rd tax band. 48% on all Single incomes over 100k. Thats hardly punitive now is it.

But its not that much different to the current system. 45% over 75k and 47% over 150k



Actually when you factor in that the Income levies have no tax credits, there maybe little difference.

ei.sdraob

well

im never voting for Labour again

jebus next election is gonna be all about voting the least bad of a terrible lot

Taxipete29

K-9 wrote: »

But its not that much different to the current system. 45% over 75k and 47% over 150k



Actually when you factor in that the Income levies have no tax credits, there maybe little difference.

I dont earn that much so really dont know for sure but I cant find any mention of the rates you are talking about on the revenue website.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

well

im never voting for Labour again

jebus next election is gonna be all about voting the least bad of a terrible lot

Isn't it always?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You are very wrong.

In june Labour produced a document called Restoring Confidence-Labours proposals for economic recovery. This included such industry destroying ideas as an 18 month exemption on employer PRSI where the employer employs a person unemployed for 6 months and where they demonstrate its a new job being created.

The document can be found through this link

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/1243932820420700.html

Labour are about jobs public and private. That is why Eamon Gimore does not support strike action by the Unions and he has told them as much. Its hardly pandering now is it. It should also be noted that the many of the PS unions have no affiliation to Labour.

Labour have proposed a 3rd tax band. 48% on all Single incomes over 100k. Thats hardly punitive now is it.

I'm only going on several interviews on radio with himself and Ms Burton.

Every time they are asked about pay cuts in the PS they dodge the issue.

They seem to want engagement with Govt. to agree work practice changes.

Now Pete, I don't know what that means to you, but I'm frikken sure what it means to me.

Endless turgid never ending talks about talks and and a morass of of conclusions that mean what after years?

Nowt Pete, Zilch,nada .

I'm too long in the game not to spot that one Pete.

Taxipete29

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm only going on several interviews on radio with himself and Ms Burton.

Every time they are asked about pay cuts in the PS they dodge the issue.

They seem to want engagement with Govt. to agree work practice changes.

Now Pete, I don't know what that means to you, but I'm frikken sure what it means to me.

Endless turgid never ending talks about talks and and a morass of of conclusions that mean what after years?

Nowt Pete, Zilch,nada .

I'm too long in the game not to spot that one Pete.

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

Nody

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

That it is a) not enough and b) it has to be reduced every year for the next four years which is not what he's putting on the table.

Honestly you're starting to sound more and more like the person who was apologisng for FF earlier over NAMA and saying that Cowen was doing his best so we should vote for him again.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

Because it is NOT an alternative as it is NOT aggressive enough, it DOES NOT save enough AND it will not keep on saving the money required! But beyond these "minor" issues it also don't address the core issue which is the glaring ineffefiencies in the PS which needs to be fixed by headcount reduction. We do NOT need so many people in administration etc.

How many times does the above line have to be repeated for you to get it? Let me repeat it; not enough saved, not addressing the core problem and hence not solving the damn problem.

Now can you please stop harping Gillmore lines as the message from God?

meditraitor

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

Now stop harping on about Gilmore, you will make more friends here if you harp on about FG Because as you know thier idea's on saving our economy from ruin are .................... SFA

Taxipete29

Nody wrote: »

That it is a) not enough and b) it has to be reduced every year for the next four years which is not what he's putting on the table.

Honestly you're starting to sound more and more like the person who was apologisng for FF earlier over NAMA and saying that Cowen was doing his best so we should vote for him again.

Because it is NOT an alternative as it is NOT aggressive enough, it DOES NOT save enough AND it will not keep on saving the money required! But beyond these "minor" issues it also don't address the core issue which is the glaring ineffefiencies in the PS which needs to be fixed by headcount reduction. We do NOT need so many people in administration etc.

How many times does the above line have to be repeated for you to get it? Let me repeat it; not enough saved, not addressing the core problem and hence not solving the damn problem.

Now can you please stop harping Gillmore lines as the message from God?

The reality is that hardlline right wing economics is not going to solve this countries problems. Govts are not private companies that can shed workers and cut wages as they see fit. They are answerable to the electorate. Your solutions directly alienate about a quarter of the population and indirectly about half altogether.

The PS wage bill and the welfare bill needs to be reduced. We agree on that. You however seem to think that you can strip wages and welfare for the next 4 years, hitting the low-middle incomes and the unemployed, disabled and elderly. Dont dare however ask people earning over 100k a year to make any sort of contribution.

What are you going to do with all those people you get rid of?? Put them on the dole?? Yes that will save a pile of money till the economy picks up. :rolleyes:

You dont solve a crisis in the finances by shifting the reality from one part of the spending bill to the other. How much would it cost to get rid of the numbers you think need to be shed??

The reality is that no Govt can ever make the kind of cuts necessary to solve the problem quickly. Thats the problem with democracy. Trouble is the alternatives are worse.

FlutterinBantam

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

Apologies Pete, I never heard him say that, any backup??

Taxipete29

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Apologies Pete, I never heard him say that, any backup??

Not sure about printed but he repeated it as early as this morning on Newstalk breakfast show. I will try to dig something up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1021/1224257148064.html

There ya go.

murphaph

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

If they don't involve sacking public sector workers and the same 5% is saved without touching core pay, what is the problem if they achieve the 5% cut by touching core pay? The 5% is still cut and doesn't go to the staff.

I believe it to be impossible to EFFICIENTLY reduce the pay costs by using these non-core pay methods. A clean axe to 5 or 10% of all core pay costs nothing to administer.

Taxipete29

murphaph wrote: »

If they don't involve sacking public sector workers and the same 5% is saved without touching core pay, what is the problem if they achieve the 5% cut by touching core pay? The 5% is still cut and doesn't go to the staff.

Very simple, cutting core pay effects their pension. Cutting allowances doesnt

FlutterinBantam

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Not sure about printed but he repeated it as early as this morning on Newstalk breakfast show. I will try to dig something up.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1021/1224257148064.html

There ya go.

Aaah now Pete (Tks for that by the way)

Forget that change in work practices waffle, we are men of the world, that won't happen.That's not what I meant.

Pay cuts..... chops off the wages... reduce the bill.

Something we can all understand, not vague waffle that would take yonks to negotiate.

murphaph

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The reality is that hardlline right wing economics is not going to solve this countries problems. Govts are not private companies that can shed workers and cut wages as they see fit. They are answerable to the electorate. Your solutions directly alienate about a quarter of the population and indirectly about half altogether.

The electorate would return FF if they saw them cutting 10%+ off the core pay of ALL public servants and perhaps 15% off all public servants earning over 100k.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The PS wage bill and the welfare bill needs to be reduced. We agree on that. You however seem to think that you can strip wages and welfare for the next 4 years, hitting the low-middle incomes and the unemployed, disabled and elderly. Dont dare however ask people earning over 100k a year to make any sort of contribution.

Everyone needs to be hit, including the unemployed. Those on over 100k per year obviously need to be hit as well.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

What are you going to do with all those people you get rid of?? Put them on the dole?? Yes that will save a pile of money till the economy picks up. :rolleyes:

If the public sector would just accept core pay cuts there'd be no need for any of them to be put on the dole. The problem is each individual in the public sector wants to keep his full salary and wants some other poor sod to get fired so he can keep it.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You dont solve a crisis in the finances by shifting the reality from one part of the spending bill to the other. How much would it cost to get rid of the numbers you think need to be shed??

Nothing. Shed no jobs, just cut pay by a minimum of 10% this year and we'll see again next year about another cut. Same staff. Same services. Lower pay. Same as in the private sector when your employer is in big trouble.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The reality is that no Govt can ever make the kind of cuts necessary to solve the problem quickly. Thats the problem with democracy. Trouble is the alternatives are worse.

Our situation is so serious that big cuts do indeed need to be made now. Not next year.

murphaph

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Very simple, cutting core pay effects their pension. Cutting allowances doesnt

But the pension is paid from current income as well. We need to reduce the amount paid to public service pensioners as well as those still in employment.

I don't think it has quite dawned on some people just how screwed the exchequer is. We have the most serious situation in the Eurozone, easily.

K-9

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I dont earn that much so really dont know for sure but I cant find any mention of the rates you are talking about on the revenue website.

You have to add on the income levies of 4 and 6%. They are calculated on total pay unlike normal tax rates.