Budget to be tougher!

amen

brightest to be hired by the state

well thats part of the problem who are the brighest ?

I left graduated from college in 1994. There was a civil service recruitment driver for AOs/EOs. Approx 10,000+ people applied and were called to appitude (including me).

Approx 2.5 years later I got a letter that I was approx number 400 out of 10,000 in order of ranking and would I like to come to interview. Of course at that stage I had a job in the private sector that I liked and enjoyed so I didn't go to interview.

I would take a bet that of the odd 400 hundred before me very few took up the offer as most had jobs. So the interviews keep going down the food chain until they manage to offer the job to someone.

The other problem is lack of outside recruitment to high level jobs in the Civil Service. There was an article in the Irish times a few months ago that all of the publicly advertised senior public services went to public servants bar one which went to someone who used to work in the public service.

Perhaps if we had more people in senior positions who have worked in the private sector we might have a more focuses and responsive ps.

daltonm

ninty9er wrote: »

As someone who sees the public sector as a cosily cosseted baby with plenty of toys in the pram, even I would have to disagree with that.

Any budgetary impact on the private sector has a de facto effect on civil and public servants as they pay the same taxes as everybody else.

The people calling for cuts to social welfare are indistinguishable by sector. I would say it's a fairly safe assessment that the majority of people in all sectors think a reduction in Jobseeker's Allowance is called for. Where I would disagree is in relation to Jobseeker's Benefit, as that's an accrued benefit that people have earned their entitlement to.

Let me expand on that point. I believe that the PS pay is on average around 900 pw ( €46K) and private sector is running at around 32k then this is not only unsustainable but unfair. We cannot pay one section of society at one rate and another at a far higher one.

Both private and public sector have the same commitments, the same issues and the same worries. The irony is that the PS will fight tooth and nail to preserve their income - to pay off their mortgages to the banks we are bailing out.

When I say we need to scale down as a nation then the PS cannot be excluded.

Godge

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Not to go off topic here, but it doesn't describe my experience. I receive rent allowance and found it quite difficult to find somewhere to live.

1) There wasn't much on the market .. about 90 properties for the whole of south dublin, about half of which were above the allowance threshold/had yet to be taken down.

2) When I did find a place, the landlord was EXTREMELY reluctant to reduce the rent by 20 euro a month to place it within the amount allowed. I found this very surprising as I had a deposit, a month's rent upfront, the place wouldn't be empty for a day, the rent was at the ceiling of the allowance so still really quite expensive yet they were quibbling about twenty euro a month?? So much for a renter's market! Also, they suggested I pay them the extra money on the sly, which I refused, as it's illegal. The landlord also said they'll review the situation in the new year and might evict me all for the sake of that twenty quid a month. I also know that the house has been in the family for generations so there is no mortgage problem.

South Dublin is your problem. Most of the working population can't afford to live in South Dublin. Many people originally from there have had to leave and move outside of Dublin. Not surprising therefore to find that you have problems finding a place on rent allowance there.

You would have no problem in Clonee, Adamstown or Balbriggan. Not saying that they are worse places to live but there is a surplus of accommodation.

Godge

daltonm wrote: »

Let me expand on that point. I believe that the PS pay is on average around 900 pw ( €46K) and private sector is running at around 32k then this is not only unsustainable but unfair. We cannot pay one section of society at one rate and another at a far higher one.

Both private and public sector have the same commitments, the same issues and the same worries. The irony is that the PS will fight tooth and nail to preserve their income - to pay off their mortgages to the banks we are bailing out.

When I say we need to scale down as a nation then the PS cannot be excluded.

But we do. We pay accountants, solicitors, dentists, doctors, pharmacists etc. more than the rest of us. There was a dentist on here on another thread complaining that his high fees meant he could only earn €86k. That is twice the public sector average, nearly three times the private sector average. But who is cutting his wage???

Welease

snaps wrote: »

Whats the difference between a property tax and stamp duty? Surely its the same thing?

Not generally.. Stamp duty would be when you purchase the house, Property tax would be a yearly tax on owning that house

snaps wrote: »

You cant bring in all these taxes in one go, imagine a family where the breadwinner has lost his/her job, now on social welfare, finding it hard to pay the bills etc, then all of a sudden, even more cash is needed to pay water/property tax?

Well thats what happens when you bankrupt a country.. taxes rise..
On the other hand.. we do (or will) own the banks there is no reason why they could not be forced to allow mortgage extensions i.e. change a 25 year mortgage into a 50 year mortgage (the Germans have 100 year mortgages available).

snaps wrote: »

Its all a receipe for country suicide. A property tax will kill the housing industry even more, who in their right mind is going to buy a property now, to be hit with all these new stealth taxes?

That wouldn't be a property tax, that would be stamp duty. The property tax will apply to owners, its not a purchase tax.

Godge

How to cut public sector pay while honouring the Croke Park Agreement? Two possibilities.

1. Tax relief on pensions is at the higher rate - 41%. Public servants pay pension contributions (6.5%) and also the pension levy (up to 9%). All of this is tax deductible at 41%. If you cut the tax relief to 20%, that is an effective pay cut for public servants. While it will also affect those private sector workers in pension schemes, only 30% of the private sector workforce is in a pension scheme. Also it will only affect those on the higher rate - the better paid.

2. Public servants recruited prior to 1995 pay a lower rate of PRSI - only about 1.5%. Abolish PRSI as suggested and introduce a flat rate social insurance contribution in or around the current level of Class A PRSI. Public servants recruited after 1995 are not affected while those in the private sector who pay PRSI are not affected.

Both of these ideas affect the public sector more than the private sector but are also compatible with the Croke Park agreement as they do not reduce the absolute level of pay. Watch this space.

ardmacha

1. Tax relief on pensions is at the higher rate - 41%. Public servants pay pension contributions (6.5%) and also the pension levy (up to 9%). All of this is tax deductible at 41%. If you cut the tax relief to 20%, that is an effective pay cut for public servants. While it will also affect those private sector workers in pension schemes, only 30% of the private sector workforce is in a pension scheme. Also it will only affect those on the higher rate - the better paid.

Discouraging pension contributions is not a particularly wise strategy, better perhaps to allow a substantial level of contribution but limit tax relief on these multimillion pension funds. It wouldn't raise much, but would help the optics. In terms of pensions the obvious measure is to reduce PS pensions by the amount that a person working on the same income has been cut.

2. Public servants recruited prior to 1995 pay a lower rate of PRSI - only about 1.5%. Abolish PRSI as suggested and introduce a flat rate social insurance contribution in or around the current level of Class A PRSI. Public servants recruited after 1995 are not affected while those in the private sector who pay PRSI are not affected.

Since all such people receive lower salaries than post 95 people (and the higher post 95 salaries are the ones always quoted) if they were required to pay the same contribution they would have to get the same salary so you wouldn't save anything much. It might be worth changing thing to harmonise everyone, presently pre 95 people could not be laid off as they are not eligble for welfare not having paid contributions.

Godge

ardmacha wrote: »

Since all such people receive lower salaries than post 95 people (and the higher post 95 salaries are the ones always quoted) if they were required to pay the same contribution they would have to get the same salary so you wouldn't save anything much. It might be worth changing thing to harmonise everyone, presently pre 95 people could not be laid off as they are not eligble for welfare not having paid contributions.

You have fallen for a common misconception.

The higher salaries were to compensate for higher pension contributions not for higher PRSI rates (both changes happended at the same time). The Department of Finance circulars gave the wrong impression for years.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circular2009/circ282009.pdf

Look at Appendix 2A of the above circular. You have to have both the superannuation contribution and the Class A PRSI for the higher salary.

Teachers have only one salary rate because they have always contributed to their pensions but they have different PRSI rates for pre and post-1995.

Godge

ardmacha wrote: »

Discouraging pension contributions is not a particularly wise strategy, better perhaps to allow a substantial level of contribution but limit tax relief on these multimillion pension funds. It wouldn't raise much, but would help the optics. In terms of pensions the obvious measure is to reduce PS pensions by the amount that a person working on the same income has been cut.


.

They have already standard-rated a number of different tax reliefs. Pension contribution may only be one of a number that are changed in this budget. It is amazing how much revenue you can raise without touching basic rates.