Average wage for dept of ag 52.5 K

blue5000

Interesting letter in this weeks 'comic' from minister for ag Simon Coveney where he corrects the article in previous week's copy about staff pay in the dept of Ag.

Total pay is 189M divided by 3600 staff is 52,500 euro on average by my calculations.

Does this include travel expenses at 1euro a km?

How many farmers make more than 52.5 k after interest payments?

What do you think folks, are they worth it?

Tora Bora

blue5000 wrote: »

Interesting letter in this weeks 'comic' from minister for ag Simon Coveney where he corrects the article in previous week's copy about staff pay in the dept of Ag.

Total pay is 189M divided by 3600 staff is 52,500 euro on average by my calculations.

Does this include travel expenses at 1euro a km?

How many farmers make more than 52.5 k after interest payments?

What do you think folks, are they worth it?

Sure isn't Whealan, paying that much in tax, and she having a handy old time.

whelan1

Tora Bora wrote: »

Sure isn't Whealan, paying that much in tax, and she having a handy old time.

sure i'm having a ball:D

johngalway

blue5000 wrote: »

What do you think folks, are they worth it?

That's going to take seconds of undisturbed thought...

Tora Bora

In all fairness, the most of the lads kin dept of ag, aren't too bad at all. If the top brass, in the dept of finance, and the central bank, and the financial regulators office, had been up to dept ag standards, we mightn't be exporting our young lads to Australia.

TheInquisitor

The wages in coillte aswell are madness. Average wage was €58869 for 2010

Min

Some of them are good, others should be getting other jobs or unemployment benefit.

The woman who came to see some cattle while sandals comes to mind, just a pity the animals didn't have some splattery thin dung...

bob charles

considering that is an average salary, some of the dept staff must be poorly paid. There are a huge amount of well qualified people (Vets and Ag professionals) working in the dept and they are taking serious wedge. Dont get too hung up about it. I reckon I give employment to one official as im constantly in communication with them

whelan1

Min wrote: »

Some of them are good, others should be getting other jobs or unemployment benefit.

The woman who came to see some cattle while sandals comes to mind, just a pity the animals didn't have some splattery thin dung...

we had a guy came out to look at stray sheep in his slippers:D

LostCovey

bob charles wrote: »

considering that is an average salary, some of the dept staff must be poorly paid. There are a huge amount of well qualified people (Vets and Ag professionals) working in the dept and they are taking serious wedge. Dont get too hung up about it. I reckon I give employment to one official as im constantly in communication with them

I know two people each over 20 years working in the Dept of Ag, earning less than 25,000 each, so the likes of them pull down the average alright.

LC

irishh_bob

LostCovey wrote: »

I know two people each over 20 years eworking in the Dept of Ag, earning less than 25,000 each, so the likes of them pull down the average alright.

LC

are they clerical officers ?

LostCovey

irishh_bob wrote: »

are they clerical officers ?

No they are a couple of grades below that.

LC

thats interesting

I don't know what is wrong with this salary.

People work. They get paid. Where's the problem?

LostCovey

thats interesting wrote: »

I don't know what is wrong with this salary.

People work. They get paid. Where's the problem?

Well its a problem for some people who believe that the upper levels of the Civil Service should be working for dole, and the lower tiers should be entirely voluntary.

They also want the civil service to improve and become more efficient.

Oh, and employ fewer people.

LC

pakalasa

The problem people have with it is that, civil service workers get paid far more than similar positions in the public sector. We've known this for years. This is mainly due to Bertie and Co. giving generous pay rises during the boom years. The problem is the construction industry that once financed this whole charade is now 'belly up', yet the civil service still get their high wages and we're , as a country are borrowing every day, to meet those payments.
And nothing will be done about it either, while Labour are in power.
'Whistling by the graveyard' is the phrase that comes to mind.

LostCovey

pakalasa wrote: »

The problem people have with it is that, civil service workers get paid far more than similar positions in the public sector. We've known this for years. This is mainly due to Bertie and Co. giving generous pay rises during the boom years. The problem is the construction industry that once financed this whole charade is now 'belly up', yet the civil service still get their high wages and we're , as a country are borrowing every day, to meet those payments.
And nothing will be done about it either, while Labour are in power.
'Whistling by the graveyard' is the phrase that comes to mind.

I agree mostly but....

- they have taken cuts both ways (less pay, more work because of the embargo & shortstaffing in many offices)
- most of them were not participants in the bubble

However, they are very visible, and unlike farmers, they are not in a position like some Boardsies in this forum to come on and say " Oh Lord look at this, I have a big tax bill, should I buy a new tractor".

I think you are right overall, but one of the big successes of the last government (and one of the few) was the cunning strategy to set public & private sector against each other, when neither actually set up the disaster we are all living with.

Everyone wants the Civil Sevice to be paid less, but they also want the nurse putting in their iv or the person processing their payment to be on top of their game, and in good form when you approach them.

LC

whelan1

i resent that remark lc , i came on here to ask advice as many other "boardsies" will be in a similar position when they do their tax returns , as per usual you turn a grand thread into a mocking one , thanks again

The_Conductor

blue5000 wrote: »

Interesting letter in this weeks 'comic' from minister for ag Simon Coveney where he corrects the article in previous week's copy about staff pay in the dept of Ag.

Total pay is 189M divided by 3600 staff is 52,500 euro on average by my calculations.

Does this include travel expenses at 1euro a km?

How many farmers make more than 52.5 k after interest payments?

What do you think folks, are they worth it?

Just to correct you on a few things-

1. The mileage rates for the civil service are available here. They max out at 58c per km max for a large car driving less than 6,000km per annum. This is reduced to 28c per mile over 6,000km. According to the AA and tax consultants Mazars- while this is a tax free payment, it does not cover the cost incurred and they are petitioning the Revenue Commissioners to allow the private sector increase the tax free mileage rates applicable in the private sector, above those in the civil service, as its not fair that the private sector should be tied to the lowered civil service rates. Hmmmmmm..........

Civil servants would also be entitled to subsistence payments when outside of their offices detailed here I.e. they are entitled to up to EUR33.61 if absent from their normal place of employment for greater than 10 hours, but not over night- or 13.71 for between 5 and 10 hours. Inspectors or other staff who habitually visit off-site farms etc- would not be automatically entitled to subsistence payments

2. This document details cost savings made by the department todate, and planned to end 2014 here

3. Presumably the headline 189M figure- also covers pensions to retired staff- which would drop the figure considerably? (I have no idea whether it does or doesn't- I had a look at the 2009 report here and it doesn't seem to report pensions separately). How many pensioners are there? Also- the pensioners would have had their pensions tied to the headline salaries of current serving staff- who will have had the numerous paycuts- however none of these were applied to the pensioners as far as I know? So- not only are the pensioners hidden in the figures- their pensions haven't been cut in a similar manner to the cuts the current serving staff have faced.

2. Interest payments by farmers are an allowable expense before determination of taxable income. A civil servant might qualify for TRS on a residential mortgage- but they do not have the same level of allowances that can (quite legitimately) be claimed by a self-employed person, or a farmer. They don't have the means to shield their income from the tax man- thus a headline salary of 52k- with normal deductions- results in a net income of 28,500 (i.e. a gross tax rate of about 45%)

I genuinely don't think we can compare like with like to be honest. The average staff member in the Department- pays a far higher proportion of their gross income in taxes and levies- than an average farmer does. They also do totally different jobs. How many technical jobs are there in the department- versus purely administrative roles? Are these better paid? Would a technical post be a better comparitor with a farming role? I have no idea........

irishh_bob

LostCovey wrote: »

I agree mostly but....

- they have taken cuts both ways (less pay, more work because of the embargo & shortstaffing in many offices)
- most of them were not participants in the bubble

However, they are very visible, and unlike farmers, they are not in a position like some Boardsies in this forum to come on and say " Oh Lord look at this, I have a big tax bill, should I buy a new tractor".

I think you are right overall, but one of the big successes of the last government (and one of the few) was the cunning strategy to set public & private sector against each other, when neither actually set up the disaster we are all living with.

Everyone wants the Civil Sevice to be paid less, but they also want the nurse putting in their iv or the person processing their payment to be on top of their game, and in good form when you approach them.

LC

your post is both inacurate and spurious

1st of all , the public sector gained more out of the celtic tiger than the private sector , wages in the public sector were always ahead of the private sector this past 15 years , the largest gap between public and private exists at the lower levels , a clerical officer in the civil service is much higher paid than a receptionist or a secretary working in a legal firm , accountancy , regular business etc



secondly , are you suggesting that we shouldnt cut the pay of the highest paid nurses in europe ( in europes 2nd brokest economy ) in case they might get the hump , let them , thier are many who will gladly replace our nurses

irishh_bob

LostCovey wrote: »

No they are a couple of grades below that.

LC

then they are very low skilled indeed , 18 k would be more than enough for such employees

irishh_bob

LostCovey wrote: »

Well its a problem for some people who believe that the upper levels of the Civil Service should be working for dole, and the lower tiers should be entirely voluntary.

They also want the civil service to improve and become more efficient.

Oh, and employ fewer people.

LC

what people are you talking about

the troika - IMF , ECB , EU

the irish tax payer

ps , all of the above are what happen when a country is broke , the public sector is still way over staffed and over paid

The_Conductor

irishh_bob wrote: »

then they are very low skilled indeed , 18 k would be more than enough for such employees

It may be more than enough- for such employees- however the issue there then arises- that they would be significantly better off on social welfare, than working......?

The_Conductor

irishh_bob wrote: »

your post is both inacurate and spurious

1st of all , the public sector gained more out of the celtic tiger than the private sector , wages in the public sector were always ahead of the private sector this past 15 years , the largest gap between public and private exists at the lower levels , a clerical officer in the civil service is much higher paid than a receptionist or a secretary working in a legal firm , accountancy , regular business etc

The public sector did do very well for itself during the boom times. However- and this is one of the key manners in which they have differed from the private sector- they have had sweeping cuts and levies across the board- whereas the way the private sector has dealt with the Irish Depression- is to cut jobs, not wages........ Look at recent statements from IBEC etc- even they are drawing attention to the fact that the reduction in costs in the public sector- has not been replicated in the private sector- and costs on employers in particular (such as employers PRSI) but also our social welfare system- make it next to impossible to take on employees.

We may bitch about how the public sector did so well during the good times- and indeed they did- however any pay increases afforded them- pales into insignificance when compared to the increases in social welfare we've made. The UK, our closest neighbour- has headline social welfare rates less than 1/3 as high as ours........ Is it any wonder people won't take lower paid jobs- when they are so much better off staying at home........?

irishh_bob wrote: »

secondly , are you suggesting that we shouldnt cut the pay of the highest paid nurses in europe ( in europes 2nd brokest economy ) in case they might get the hump , let them , thier are many who will gladly replace our nurses

Our two most cosseted public sector employees are the nurses and the teachers. Both are the highest paid in Europe. Its no coincidence that both professions are predominantly women- and almost fully unionised......

Sure- they are overpaid and have startling amounts of paid annual holidays. Can you honestly see anyone have the balls to take on either of them though?

The argument is we are an expensive country to live in- and indeed, so we are....... We need to redesign the country from the bottom up- why do we have the most expensive electricity and heating in Europe? Why do groceries cost consumers so much more here than anywhere else? Why do we pay such significant social welfare payments? Who should we benchmark ourselves against (Portugal is an obvious candidate in my opinion)?

We can't afford to go on like we're going- we are bankrupt- we are actually bankrupt.......

5live

smccarrick wrote: »

Just to correct you on a few things-

1. The mileage rates for the civil service are available here. They max out at 58c per km max for a large car driving less than 6,000km per annum. This is reduced to 28c per mile over 6,000km. According to the AA and tax consultants Mazars- while this is a tax free payment, it does not cover the cost incurred and they are petitioning the Revenue Commissioners to allow the private sector increase the tax free mileage rates applicable in the private sector, above those in the civil service, as its not fair that the private sector should be tied to the lowered civil service rates. Hmmmmmm..........

Civil servants would also be entitled to subsistence payments when outside of their offices detailed here I.e. they are entitled to up to EUR33.61 if absent from their normal place of employment for greater than 10 hours, but not over night- or 13.71 for between 5 and 10 hours. Inspectors or other staff who habitually visit off-site farms etc- would not be automatically entitled to subsistence payments

2. This document details cost savings made by the department todate, and planned to end 2014 here

3. Presumably the headline 189M figure- also covers pensions to retired staff- which would drop the figure considerably? (I have no idea whether it does or doesn't- I had a look at the 2009 report here and it doesn't seem to report pensions separately). How many pensioners are there? Also- the pensioners would have had their pensions tied to the headline salaries of current serving staff- who will have had the numerous paycuts- however none of these were applied to the pensioners as far as I know? So- not only are the pensioners hidden in the figures- their pensions haven't been cut in a similar manner to the cuts the current serving staff have faced.

2. Interest payments by farmers are an allowable expense before determination of taxable income. A civil servant might qualify for TRS on a residential mortgage- but they do not have the same level of allowances that can (quite legitimately) be claimed by a self-employed person, or a farmer. They don't have the means to shield their income from the tax man- thus a headline salary of 52k- with normal deductions- results in a net income of 28,500 (i.e. a gross tax rate of about 45%)

I genuinely don't think we can compare like with like to be honest. The average staff member in the Department- pays a far higher proportion of their gross income in taxes and levies- than an average farmer does. They also do totally different jobs. How many technical jobs are there in the department- versus purely administrative roles? Are these better paid? Would a technical post be a better comparitor with a farming role? I have no idea........

Oh thanks Shane. You spoil a perfectly good thread with facts:rolleyes:. How can we have a rant and a go at the public service if there are facts to muddy the water? I have a good mind to report you to a moderator:)

Grecco

Chill out lads, the moneys coming from Europe, let them keep sending it; they must surly know that were not going to pay it back yet they keep on sending it on.
Its a great old epicure isn't it:D

irishh_bob

smccarrick wrote: »

The public sector did do very well for itself during the boom times. However- and this is one of the key manners in which they have differed from the private sector- they have had sweeping cuts and levies across the board- whereas the way the private sector has dealt with the Irish Depression- is to cut jobs, not wages........ Look at recent statements from IBEC etc- even they are drawing attention to the fact that the reduction in costs in the public sector- has not been replicated in the private sector- and costs on employers in particular (such as employers PRSI) but also our social welfare system- make it next to impossible to take on employees.

We may bitch about how the public sector did so well during the good times- and indeed they did- however any pay increases afforded them- pales into insignificance when compared to the increases in social welfare we've made. The UK, our closest neighbour- has headline social welfare rates less than 1/3 as high as ours........ Is it any wonder people won't take lower paid jobs- when they are so much better off staying at home........?




Our two most cosseted public sector employees are the nurses and the teachers. Both are the highest paid in Europe. Its no coincidence that both professions are predominantly women- and almost fully unionised......

Sure- they are overpaid and have startling amounts of paid annual holidays. Can you honestly see anyone have the balls to take on either of them though?

The argument is we are an expensive country to live in- and indeed, so we are....... We need to redesign the country from the bottom up- why do we have the most expensive electricity and heating in Europe? Why do groceries cost consumers so much more here than anywhere else? Why do we pay such significant social welfare payments? Who should we benchmark ourselves against (Portugal is an obvious candidate in my opinion)?

We can't afford to go on like we're going- we are bankrupt- we are actually bankrupt.......

actually the most cossetted public sector employees are those who work in the ESB , i would also include GP,s as while they work in the private sector , they are sheltered in that thier is a cap on the number of doctors who can set up a GP practice , thus preventing competition

The_Conductor

Grecco wrote: »

Chill out lads, the moneys coming from Europe, let them keep sending it; they must surly know that were not going to pay it back yet they keep on sending it on.
Its a great old epicure isn't it:D

We're net contributors to Europe- and were party to the original Greek bailout, borrowing the money at less than we were getting back- just to be good Europeans, and here we have France and Germany stabbing us in the back.......

LostCovey

whelan1 wrote: »

i resent that remark lc , i came on here to ask advice as many other "boardsies" will be in a similar position when they do their tax returns

....only the self-employed ones whelan1, the rest will have their tax stopped at source whether they change their car or not. I wasn't really having a go at you, I was pointing out that there are swings & roundabouts.

whelan1 wrote: »

as per usual you turn a grand thread into a mocking one , thanks again

Ah well, I just don't have your literary flourishes at my disposal to sugar-coat my compositions W1, so I just struggle along as best I can.

Sure don't most people here understand me, even if they don't love me, and I think you are a bit of a sneaking regarder yourself!

I have noticed that you follow me around a lot, but it doesn't bother me, I take it as the kind of secret love that dare not speak its name.

LostCovey

LostCovey

irishh_bob wrote: »

your post is both inacurate and spurious/QUOTE]

Quite possibly, but if we are going to dwell on petty things like accuracy this forum will dry up very fast........

irishh_bob wrote: »

a clerical officer in the civil service is much higher paid than a receptionist or a secretary working in a legal firm , accountancy , regular business etc

Maybe so. I wasn't really making that argument Bob, more pointing out that averages are a bit of a nonsense. Most of the people we deal with in the civil service day-to-day are struggling pilgrims like the rest of us. By all means argue for public service pay cuts, but don't expect them to join in, and quoting €52,000 averages is pretty meaningless if it runs from the lowest grade to the secretary of the dept

irishh_bob wrote: »

let them , thier are many who will gladly replace our nurses

Word to the wise here. Keep your secret passions and ambitions to yourself Bob. People will tease you.

LostCovey