Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Time to Tax the Rich
Options
Comments
-
While income tax rises would reduce a public sector workers take-home pay it doesn't affect their pension entitlements so it (like the pension levy) wouldn't be a pay-cut.
its not a pay cut to an individual, same as a private sector person wouldn't generally refer to a tax increase as a paycut (regardless of pensions)
but it does "reduce the cost of the public sector"0 -
It's a pretty short-sighted way of doing things though, surely you'd agree to that?0
-
1. It reduces the actual cost of maintaining the public sector. While it may not be called a paycut it is a method the state can easily utilise to cut the pay of their employees.It's a pretty short-sighted way of doing things though, surely you'd agree to that?
2. The pension levey IS a pay cut. People who will never get a pension from a public sector job have seen the "pension" levy taken from their wages (tempory staff, contractors etc) That to me is a pay cut. If it were a pension levy it surely wouldnt effect them.
What do you mean by short sighted?
Yeah, its a blunt instrument, just like the pension levy, and its anything but fair, but its one hell of a fast way to cut the cost of maintainin the public sector.
I am not argueing with any of these instruments by the way, just trying to highlight a few misconceptions out there.0 -
1. It's a method by which the government can cut the take-home pay of their employees and reduce the *current* cost of maintainting the public sector.
2. To those people who don't get a pension, it's a paycut by another name but for those who do qualify for a pension, it's an extra tax.
Short-sighted as in while the government gets more of what they're paying their staff back, it still has to provide for their pensions at a point in the future. We have a structural deficit in our exchequer, thus we need structural changes to remedy the situation.0 -
1. It's a method by which the government can cut the take-home pay of their employees and reduce the *current* cost of maintainting the public sector.
2. To those people who don't get a pension, it's a paycut by another name but for those who do qualify for a pension, it's an extra tax.
Short-sighted as in while the government gets more of what they're paying their staff back, it still has to provide for their pensions at a point in the future. We have a structural deficit in our exchequer, thus we need structural changes to remedy the situation.
Indeed it cuts the current cost of maintaining the sector, thats generally what those emergency and normal budgets were for - cutting the current costs. The "Pension" levy was used in the same manner, and we wont be seeing the end of that ever I reckon, whatever about changes in income tax.
In a longer term scenario (which will effect future pension entitlements) a standard paycut was implemented as well as changes to the pension scheme (which I believe hold true for new entrants).
I am not sure what else you are expecting a government to do in the space of 14 months, with all the other real world issues that could stop them doing any more.
I am not saying they did everything right and I dont agree with a lot, but they've done what many have asked for in that time period.
We've had some of those structural changes you ask for, with more to come in the next 2/3 and possibly more budgets.
If you want to see the lazy jackasses let go and performace based pay brough in, expect that to take years amid lots of industrial unrest.
In response to 2. Its a paycut. There are many reason why you couldnt call it an extra tax.0 -
Advertisement
-
The money is there to pay the public sector alright.
But guess where it is.
In the pockets of you, I and the public sector workers. Since we pay so little tax (apart from the public sector who pay more tax now than the rest of us - yes the levy is a tax on being a public servant) compared to the rest of Europe.
Increase income tax. More money for revenue. Less money for you and I in the private sector. Less expenditure on wages in the public sector. So we take a cut in take home and so do the public sector.
Time to face up to the facts. We Irish in general dont pay enough tax. If you want to hit the public sector again, now you have to hit us all equally. All this screaming and begrudging isnt going to deflect the hatchet from the private sector again.0 -
The money is there to pay the public sector alright.
But guess where it is.
In the pockets of you, I and the public sector workers. Since we pay so little tax (apart from the public sector who pay more tax now than the rest of us - yes the levy is a tax on being a public servant) compared to the rest of Europe.
Increase income tax. More money for revenue. Less money for you and I in the private sector. Less expenditure on wages in the public sector. So we take a cut in take home and so do the public sector.
Time to face up to the facts. We Irish in general dont pay enough tax. If you want to hit the public sector again, now you have to hit us all equally. All this screaming and begrudging isnt going to deflect the hatchet from the private sector again.
Thats not really where I was going with my posts to be honest.
Increasing taxation is not a good option in my opinion.
While our income tax rates MAY appear to be low, we get shafted on the stealth taxes. PRSI (What does this entitle us to any more) Excise duty on fuel, carbon tax on fuel, VRT on cars, capital gains tax, Stamp duty, Health insurance costs, car insurance, car tax, toll roads, VAT etc etc............
Theres only so much taxation one can take before it is no longer viable to work anymore.0 -
I'd like to see the industrial unrest tbh. I'd like to see public sector unions broken and / or banned.Indeed it cuts the current cost of maintaining the sector, thats generally what those emergency and normal budgets were for - cutting the current costs. The "Pension" levy was used in the same manner, and we wont be seeing the end of that ever I reckon, whatever about changes in income tax.
In a longer term scenario (which will effect future pension entitlements) a standard paycut was implemented as well as changes to the pension scheme (which I believe hold true for new entrants).
I am not sure what else you are expecting a government to do in the space of 14 months, with all the other real world issues that could stop them doing any more.
I am not saying they did everything right and I dont agree with a lot, but they've done what many have asked for in that time period.
We've had some of those structural changes you ask for, with more to come in the next 2/3 and possibly more budgets.
If you want to see the lazy jackasses let go and performace based pay brough in, expect that to take years amid lots of industrial unrest.
Structural changes wouldn't happen overnight but there's always low-hanging fruit to be plucked. In the space of 14 months my old employer shaved it's payroll by over 30% through paycuts and redundancies. I don't think it's unrealistic to want similar from the government.
Outline some of them so. For a minority of workers not in the pension scheme, I agree that it was a cut:In response to 2. Its a paycut. There are many reason why you couldnt call it an extra tax.
Here's why I'd consider it an extra tax to the majority of public sector workers:- It doesn't affect their nominal salary.
- It doesn't reduce their pension entitlements.
EDIT: I should clarify, I'm not in favour of the levy. I think it and the paycut were unfair ways of dealing with structural problems within the various public sector organisations and wouldn't have been necessary in the fashion they were applied had the unions not represented their members in such a greedy and arrogant fashion.0 -
What ever happened to "the country is broke, we need the money argument"?0
-
It still stands. Saying I don't agree with how the levy or the paycut were implemented does not mean the same thing as saying I think public sector pay should be reduced.
The unions need to be ignored and real changes made: cutting rates for given roles by a given percentage (e.g. all Clerical Officers within the Civil Service get a 5% cut as they're seriously overpaid by market standards); a decimating of numbers of admin staff in the HSE; re-allocation of staff amongst departments to areas where retirements are heavier than others / people have been sacked for lack of performance; slashing of top level pay in line with a similar cut to TD/ministerial pay; ignoring old demarcation rules to allow nurses move between wards and reduce the reliance on agency staff; merging departments / agencies / quangos that have huge overlaps and letting the surplus staff go; removing allowance payments to teachers for simply having their degree and hdip (i.e. the minimum requirements for the job); a scrapping of the increment system and all future raises based on a performance review with direct supervisor who is constrained to grade staff fairly (i.e. not everyone under them can have 'above average' performance) and in relation to the governments ability to pay a raise; a freeze on IT hardware / equipment purchases with senior management sign-off required to allow necessary purchases to go ahead...
I'm sure others (particularly those in the public sector) could add dozens of measures to that list.
Nothing unfair in there. Pain for certain people, certainly but nothing that's inequitable.
I'd also be in favour of a lowering of the limit at which one starts to pay tax, taxing part-time workers on a pro-rata basis (e.g. only work 20 hours a week, only get half your tax credits etc.) and a raising of the base rate of tax by a couple of percent.0 -
Advertisement
-
MysticalRain wrote: »What ever happened to "the country is broke, we need the money argument"?
The country is not broke.
Taxes are too low. The money is in our pockets.
Saying "the country is broke" is Just like people rolling out the "The country cant take higher taxes line". They are catch alls for deflecting the focus from the normal private sector to the public sector. Time for us all to face up to reality.0 -
Depends on your definition of broke i suppose but in next few years our national debt is likely to hit 200billion an dhoushold and private debt is also very large. GNP may be still high but it is being kept high by governmnet borrowing. I dont think people relaise how bad things are gonna get in next few years.The country is not broke.
Taxes are too low. The money is in our pockets.
Saying "the country is broke" is Just like people rolling out the "The country cant take higher taxes line". They are catch alls for deflecting the focus from the normal private sector to the public sector. Time for us all to face up to reality.0 -
So every working person in the country should take a €13333* tax hike?
Don't know about you but I don't have that in my back pocket...
(*Back of an envelope 20billion divided by 1.5 million workers)0 -
I dont particularily want to see industrial unrest as the time for unrest was really when the whole thing blew up in the first place. The same government are in place, the same inner circle are still there.I'd like to see the industrial unrest tbh. I'd like to see public sector unions broken and / or banned.
Structural changes wouldn't happen overnight but there's always low-hanging fruit to be plucked. In the space of 14 months my old employer shaved it's payroll by over 30% through paycuts and redundancies. I don't think it's unrealistic to want similar from the government.
Outline some of them so. For a minority of workers not in the pension scheme, I agree that it was a cut:
Here's why I'd consider it an extra tax to the majority of public sector workers:- It doesn't affect their nominal salary.
- It doesn't reduce their pension entitlements.
EDIT: I should clarify, I'm not in favour of the levy. I think it and the paycut were unfair ways of dealing with structural problems within the various public sector organisations and wouldn't have been necessary in the fashion they were applied had the unions not represented their members in such a greedy and arrogant fashion.
Industrail unrest now destablises a country heading towards stabilisation.
You're old employer had no moral or political aspects tied to those cuts and redundancies, just the cold hard bottom line. And that is what differentiates both employers. Its one of the key difference between them, there are more but for the purposes of this discussion it is the main one.
Its a cut in net take home pay. If you want to call it a tax so be it. I think calling it a tax gives the government more credit than they are due. While you may not think it effects their pension entitlement I believe it effects it in a major way. You are paying more now than you were 18 months ago for the exact same thing. That to me is a reduction in entitlements.
I think we are both on the same page in general so I dont think it is worth arguing the semantics as we both disagree with how the cuts/savings were implemented.
I personally am very peeved that we've still no short, medium or long term strategy for creating somewhat sustainable jobs. If anything, the government has taken the onus of companies to pay people with this Work Placement Programme they have come up with. Its the only scheme I've seen that MAY get people back to work but its nowwhere near enough.0 -
I agree with much of the rest of your post so I'll try and explain where I see the difference here. A pay cut would reduce the persons gross salary. Since the pension scheme for most (all?) public sector workers is defined benefit this reduces the basis on which the pension amount is calculated thus diminishing the value of the pension. Charging a levy / tax on the gross pay while diminishing take - home salary does not reduce the figure on which the person's pension will be based.While you may not think it effects their pension entitlement I believe it effects it in a major way. You are paying more now than you were 18 months ago for the exact same thing. That to me is a reduction in entitlements.0 -
So every working person in the country should take a €13333* tax hike?
Don't know about you but I don't have that in my back pocket...
(*Back of an envelope 20billion divided by 1.5 million workers)
So would you rather divide your exagerated €20bn by the smaller number of public sector workers? :rolleyes:
Of course you would, because its clear you arent interested in helping get the country back on track. You are only interested in getting someone else to take the pain.0 -
I understand the concepts involved. However, the cost of that pension has increased. That to me is a direct impact on pension entitlements. While you may be getting the same pension (the value has remained the same) you have put a hell of a lot more into it (the younger getting hit the hardest).I agree with much of the rest of your post so I'll try and explain where I see the difference here. A pay cut would reduce the persons gross salary. Since the pension scheme for most (all?) public sector workers is defined benefit this reduces the basis on which the pension amount is calculated thus diminishing the value of the pension. Charging a levy / tax on the gross pay while diminishing take - home salary does not reduce the figure on which the person's pension will be based.
While obviously this isnt actually how it works, so long as it is being called a pension levy and not a paycut that's the way I will rationalise it.0 -
Read Post 133 in this thread and consider how idiotic it is to post before reading an entire thread.So would you rather divide your exagerated €20bn by the smaller number of public sector workers? :rolleyes:
Of course you would, because its clear you arent interested in helping get the country back on track. You are only interested in getting someone else to take the pain.
I've already stated in this thread that I think a raise in income tax is a good idea but in addition to rather than in place of a massive reduction in the current expenditure of the country. When the vast majority of the costs of the public services provided by our government are wages that's the first place to look for savings. It's basic logic.
On a personal note, as someone who used to work in the exporting sector of the Irish economy, in the last 18 months I've taken a 20% pay cut, the levys, an 100% pay cut, lived on the dole for 3 months and had to take up short-term employment in the UK commuting back and forth on the weekends in order to provide for my family. I've taken (more than?) my share of "the pain" so I have little sympathy for those whose union representatives are the root cause of so many of our problems whinging about a 5% reduction in take home pay that doesn't affect their more than generous pension. As I've said again and again on these boards, the paycut and levy weren't implemented fairly but the PS only have their own unions to blame for that.0 -
I agree with much of the rest of your post so I'll try and explain where I see the difference here. A pay cut would reduce the persons gross salary. Since the pension scheme for most (all?) public sector workers is defined benefit this reduces the basis on which the pension amount is calculated thus diminishing the value of the pension. Charging a levy / tax on the gross pay while diminishing take - home salary does not reduce the figure on which the person's pension will be based.
well the public service took a pay cut on top of the levy and therefore their pensions have been/will be reduced.
They are likely to be reduced further following the recent decisions by Government to (a) bring in average wage as determinant and (b) cut the link to future pay awards
there have already been other structural changes such as the introduction of Class A PRSI so that the contributory pension will reduce the amount paid by the state
therefore the position is roughly that someone retired over the last ten years on say €50k salary gets a pension of €25k probably contributed around 6% towards that and it is all paid out of current funds.
someone retiring under the new structure will retire on less than €25k pension (depending on career), will have contributed say 13% plus paid Class A PRSI towards the contributory pension and will recieve:
the contributory Pension of €12k and the balance from current funds
in addition future increases to that pension will be far lower than previously
I would say thats a significant change0 -
Read Post 133 in this thread and consider how idiotic it is to post before reading an entire thread.
I've already stated in this thread that I think a raise in income tax is a good idea but in addition to rather than in place of a massive reduction in the current expenditure of the country. When the vast majority of the costs of the public services provided by our government are wages that's the first place to look for savings. It's basic logic.
On a personal note, as someone who used to work in the exporting sector of the Irish economy, in the last 18 months I've taken a 20% pay cut, the levys, an 100% pay cut, lived on the dole for 3 months and had to take up short-term employment in the UK commuting back and forth on the weekends in order to provide for my family. I've taken (more than?) my share of "the pain" so I have little sympathy for those whose union representatives are the root cause of so many of our problems whinging about a 5% reduction in take home pay that doesn't affect their more than generous pension. As I've said again and again on these boards, the paycut and levy weren't implemented fairly but the PS only have their own unions to blame for that.
My heart bleeds for you. Now i can see where your prejudice is coming from.
However, if you were good enough at your job and prepared yourself in case you might need to fight a pay cut or move job so you didnt have to take one you would have been fine. I get it. You're sore because you were too lazy to insulate yourself when you had the chance. Now you want all to suffer just because you did. Its your own fault you suffered a cut and nobody elses. Public sector workers had absolutely nothing to do with your inability to gain some bargaining power in the job market. Yet you complain about them as if it was their fault you had a 20% cut. Now thats idiotic.
You have not taken more than your fair share of the pain. You have taken your share of the pain that was coming to you because of your lack of employability outside your own company/sector. While it might hurt, it was in your hands to insulate yourself before it happened.0 -
Advertisement
-
An interesting take on things that shows your sense of entitlement Guell.
As it happens, my previous position disappeared as a result of a colapse in capital spending due to the recession and the slide of sterling against the euro. Nothing to do with my own actions. As it happens, I'm pretty good at my job and there's plenty of work for someone with my skillset in the UK where I'm currently working for more than my previous salary. I'm also good enough at what I do that despite an embargo on recruitment, senior management in an Irish public sector body are trying to recruit me at the moment and I'm hoping to let them... but that's neither here nor there tbh.
Why should any worker be "insulated" from the effects of a recession? Why should I have "fought" against a pay cut if my employer couldn't afford to pay me what they used to? I accepted the reality that my old employer could go under (they still might) if I didn't take the paycut. I accepted the reality that their work had just dried up and couldn't afford to keep me on the payroll with no income generating work coming in for me to do. I shook hands with my old manager when he made me redundant, accepted his apologies that he couldn't do anything more for me than the package on the table and a good reference, told him there was no hard feelings and that I'd pick up the phone if he wanted to talk to me about opportunities in the future.
The public sector workers who are opposed to taking any kind of cut are failing to accept the reality that their employer can't afford their current numbers and/or wage levels.
Everyone is going to suffer because of the recession. If the job opportunity I'm discussing at the moment works out for me I'll be expecting to be hit with paycuts on whatever I negotiate as my salary within the year. Most public servants I know expect more pain and seem to have more (completely understandable imho) issues with the uneven distribution of that pain within the PS than the fact that they're going to have to shoulder their share of it.0 -
I have no sense of entitlement. I am confident in my ability to resist wage cuts and when they cant be resisted i am confident in my ability to be able to move somewhere else instead.
Its nobodys fault but your own that you didnt prepare yourself for any downturn.
If you had prepared yourself properly just in case (as everyone should do) you would be in a position to either refuse the cut, or move somewhere else, because you would have been employable enough that you had some weight behind your decisions. You dont take a cut if you dont have to. You had to because you were not good enough or diversified enough to have anywhere else to go where you would avoid a cut.
True it wasnt down to anything you did, it was down to what you did not do.
That applies to everyone in every walk of life. If someone wants to sit in work and mozy on without improving their prospects on an ongoing basis then they have only themselves to blame when they hit hard times.
The truth hurts, as you can see from my previous post being infracted, you are not the only one that this applies to.0 -
From what I can see, you were infracted because instead of attacking my points you got antagonistic. With your attitude, I really doubt your ability to find work eleswhere is as high as your estimate it to be tbh.
Not having anywhere else to go where one can avoid a cut in this market is no indication of the level of a person's skills or their diversity. To be fair, there were decisions I made along the way with my old employer regarding my career path which contributed to my being made redundant. Had I not accepted a promotion into an emerging field of our business which was heavily reliant on a UK client base in it's early stages, I'd probably still have a job (though I'd not have avoided a pay-cut and it would have been on a lower salary). And, as I've already pointed out, I had somewhere else to go, and I get paid higher here, I'd just rather work and pay tax at home.
The clue you seem to be missing is in the name 'labour market' though. It's a market where prices can go up or down. Demand for every service I can think of outside of reposessions, debt collection and liquidating has plummeted. Individuals are paying off their debts instead of spending. Companies are avoiding any investment they can.
There's simply not the work out there for the vast majority of us to continue charging what we once did for our skills. You seem to believe you're immune to this and entitled to a certain level of income and that those of us prepared to accept the reality of the market are lacking somewhere.
So, not knowing you from adam I'm left having to come to one of two conclusions:
1. You're either so unbelievably talented that you're immune to market forces.
or
2. You've no understanding of market forces and believe you're entitled to not be affected by the downturn because you're special.
Given the fact you're attempting to argue against the need for cuts in public sector spending, I'm inclined to think that you delude yourself into believing you're special rather than actually being so.
(EDIT: BTW, if you're actually trying to concince people that there's merit in your arguments, you'd get a lot further by dialling back the antagonism)0 -
I have no sense of entitlement. I am confident in my ability to resist wage cuts and when they cant be resisted i am confident in my ability to be able to move somewhere else instead.
Its nobodys fault but your own that you didnt prepare yourself for any downturn.
If you had prepared yourself properly just in case (as everyone should do) you would be in a position to either refuse the cut, or move somewhere else, because you would have been employable enough that you had some weight behind your decisions. You dont take a cut if you dont have to. You had to because you were not good enough or diversified enough to have anywhere else to go where you would avoid a cut.
True it wasnt down to anything you did, it was down to what you did not do.
That applies to everyone in every walk of life. If someone wants to sit in work and mozy on without improving their prospects on an ongoing basis then they have only themselves to blame when they hit hard times.
The truth hurts, as you can see from my previous post being infracted, you are not the only one that this applies to.
If you are so confident that you can get a higher wage somewhere else, why haven't you moved already? The pay cuts have already happened....and only the deluded think they will be reversed0 -
-
Count Dooku wrote: »Can I legally refuse tax increase?:rolleyes:
Yes, if you have enough money and specialist advice. It might entail moving to Monaco or Malta or some other hellhole.0 -
If you are so confident that you can get a higher wage somewhere else, why haven't you moved already? The pay cuts have already happened....and only the deluded think they will be reversed
I have moved job last year because i wouldnt take a cut. I got redundancy. Then i moved to my current company. I was asked to take a paycut in this company not long ago. I refused. I didnt get cut and im still here. Both people who took cuts and those who refused cuts are still here.0 -
Count Dooku wrote: »Can I legally refuse tax increase?:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
What is the point of that comment?0 -
I have no sense of entitlement. I am confident in my ability to resist wage cuts and when they cant be resisted i am confident in my ability to be able to move somewhere else instead.
Its nobodys fault but your own that you didnt prepare yourself for any downturn.
If you had prepared yourself properly just in case (as everyone should do) you would be in a position to either refuse the cut, or move somewhere else, because you would have been employable enough that you had some weight behind your decisions. You dont take a cut if you dont have to. You had to because you were not good enough or diversified enough to have anywhere else to go where you would avoid a cut.
True it wasnt down to anything you did, it was down to what you did not do.
That applies to everyone in every walk of life. If someone wants to sit in work and mozy on without improving their prospects on an ongoing basis then they have only themselves to blame when they hit hard times.
The truth hurts, as you can see from my previous post being infracted, you are not the only one that this applies to.
Congratulations! You have won a 48-hour ban, during which I invite you to consider that this is a discussion forum, not a "have a go at people" forum. If you have a difficulty with that, or with that rule being enforced, which it so far appears you do, then you're not welcome here.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »Yes, if you have enough money and specialist advice. It might entail moving to Monaco or Malta or some other hellhole.
last i checked neither Monaco nor Malta were "hellholes"
the poster has a point, we obviously cant fix this by taxation alone (neither is anyone suggesting that the public sector take all the brunt), and increasing it too much will only have a range of negative effects0
Advertisement