December Budget

n97 mini

ardmacha wrote: »

I think you have limited understanding of the situation. Increments do not affect pay scales, they represent movement along a scale.

Which means pay rates are restored. A PS friend of mine didn't so much mind the pay cut(s) as he will be back to the same salary again in four years. Doesn't apply to people at the top of the scale of course, but they are earning more than him anyway.

ardmacha

Which means pay rates are restored. A PS friend of mine didn't so much mind the pay cut(s) as he will be back to the same salary again in four years.

Why are people being deliberately obtuse on this matter?

The pay rates are not restored.

The individual may reach a salary at a later point in their career that they would otherwise have reached earlier, but this is no different in the private or public sectors, although the way this happens may vary from job to job.

daltonmd

The Public sector pay bill is about 20billion a year.

We simply cannot afford it, it is no longer sustainable. It isn't about what people are entitled to or indeed what cuts they have already taken, it is a basic matter of economics.

ardmacha

The Public sector pay bill is about 20billion a year

.

or a bit less and of course the net bill is much less than that.

GNP is about 130billion, so the net PS pay bill is about 11% of this. Why exactly is this proportion unaffordable?

Blowfish

ardmacha wrote: »

.

or a bit less and of course the net bill is much less than that.

GNP is about 130billion, so the net PS pay bill is about 11% of this. Why exactly is this proportion unaffordable?

It's simple, GNP has nothing to do with government revenue.

The government tax take for last year was €31 billion. It's pretty easy to see why €20 billion on PS wages is way too high, especially as it contributes to the €12 billion deficit.

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

.

or a bit less and of course the net bill is much less than that.

GNP is about 130billion, so the net PS pay bill is about 11% of this. Why exactly is this proportion unaffordable?

"Monthly exchequer returns released yesterday show the State’s income to the end of October was €28.9 billion, ahead of the €27.3 billion it recorded for the same 10-month period last year."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1103/1224306979864.html

We "earn" about 33 billion and 20 billion is wages. We are borrowing the money to pay wages that are out of kilter to what we earn as a country.

ardmacha

It's simple, GNP has nothing to do with government revenue.

Now there is a widely inaccurate statement, even by the standards of this board! Is there any point in carrying on when people come out with the likes of this?

Head The Wall

Can we spend that GNP, I don't f**king think so. We can only spend what we have and what we can borrow

Blowfish

ardmacha wrote: »

Now there is a widely inaccurate statement, even by the standards of this board! Is there any point in carrying on when people come out with the likes of this?

Naturally, GNP and Government revenue can affect one another, but they are not linked and the dependance between the two varies wildly:

ardmacha

There is a pattern in the above graph, when expenditure increased the tax intake was increased to fund it. The situation since 2008 is a disgrace, where expenditure has increased while revenue as a % of GNP has been allowed to decrease. If government revenue is brought to 1995 levels as a % of GNP (not an outrageous year) then this closes half the gap and expenditure can be reduced to meet this.

Gumbo

daltonmd wrote: »

The Public sector pay bill is about 20billion a year.

you might want to have a re-think on that figure, the actual cost of the PS pay bill is nowhere near that.

Cill Dara Abu

Blowfish wrote: »

Naturally, GNP and Government revenue can affect one another, but they are not linked and the dependance between the two varies wildly:

Interesting graph, looking at the Revenue levels in circa 2004-5 and 2010 are at the same point why is this considering the collapse in 2008?

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

There is a pattern in the above graph, when expenditure increased the tax intake was increased to fund it.

One could equally argue that when tax intake increased, government spending increased as well.

ardmacha

One could equally argue that when tax intake increased, government spending increased as well.

One could, but there are very few years on that chart that support this. But the chart clearly shows that when expenditure increased that income was increased with a lag.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

But the chart clearly shows that when expenditure increased that income was increased with a lag.

Thats is one interpretation. As I said, it could be that as taxation increased, spending increased. During the boom period, the governments revenue went up due to increased income through stamp duty. The increase in spending was more likely a result of the increase in taxation reciepts it was recieving during that period.

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Not taking a pay cut now - is not a victory - if it threatens the short to medium term existence of your job!! I thought that would be clear.

I don't understand how people don't see this.....I think they just don't want to.
The guys in the ESB didn't want to see it, now they're exploring the potential for 1000 lay offs. But sher "it won't happen to us".

Didn't expect to be vindicated so quickly, but as I was saying above...............

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/union-condemns-proposal-to-cut-teacher-numbers-527290.html

A report in today's Sunday Times said that the Education Minister Ruairi Quinn and Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin are in discussions to cut the number of teachers at primary and secondary level by between 1,500-2,000.

Good loser

ardmacha wrote: »

One could, but there are very few years on that chart that support this. But the chart clearly shows that when expenditure increased that income was increased with a lag.

You're incredible.

Let everybody pay more taxes to keep teachers in the style to which they are accustomed (plus increments).

In the interim keep borrowing.

ardmacha

You're incredible.

Thank you. However, I am merely logical, I only seem incredible because logic is rather lacking around here.

Let everybody pay more taxes to keep teachers in the style to which they are accustomed (plus increments).

The reason why you are paying more taxes is not because of public services which cost a lot less than some years ago. The reason why you are paying more taxes is because many of your fellow citizens are paying less, owing to unemployment and the like. You might show some willingness to contribute rather than just complementing me.

daltonmd

kceire wrote: »

you might want to have a re-think on that figure, the actual cost of the PS pay bill is nowhere near that.

It's not my figure to rethink kceire. We have a public service that is collapsing. A social welfare that is stretched to capacity. We have people on trolleys all over the country, victims of crime begging for charity while criminals get cosmetic surgery because they have low self esteem.

We have a private sector tearing the guts out of the public service because they feel that they are spoiled and cossetted. And the harsh reality is that the PS are protected. They have a job for life, income every week. In a recession where all around are losing their jobs or taking cuts in hours and pay the PS can still pay their bills.

Now it is a complete fallacy that the entire PS is on great wages. I know that. There are frontline services that you wouldn't do for any money. But there is a part of the PS that is completely overpaid for the jobs that they do. There are great people who do great work, but that doesn't make up for the fact that there are people there who are grossly overpaid and simply waste.

The PS is paid for out of income that the private sector pay. Yes you can say they pay taxes and the net cost is less. But that income is already counted in the gross income. You have to earn it before you can spend it and we just don't have it.

sarumite

ardmacha wrote: »

T
The reason why you are paying more taxes is not because of public services which cost a lot less than some years ago. The reason why you are paying more taxes is because many of your fellow citizens are paying less, owing to unemployment and the like. You might show some willingness to contribute rather than just complementing me.

Logic would suggest that the housing boom played a role in the governments increasing tax take, not just employment. Government spending increased when it had a tax bonanza, its logical that government spending should decrease when those taxes are no longer there.

kippy

murphaph wrote: »

Not a direct attack on your post as I agree largely with it but the gross pay of the majority of public servants (ie, those not at the top of their payscale) will have by now increased beyond the gross pay they were on before the implementation of the cut & pension levy (which was a carefully crafted paycut designed not to impinge on retired politicians' pensions I imagine).

Workers outside the protected ranks of the public sector will on average have seen their gross reduced AND have had the taxes you mentioned applied to this reduced gross.

I suppose it keeps boiling down to this however:
We have a 12.6bn current deficit which is unsustainable. We can introduce some new stealth taxes to a point and I am prepared to pay more (in principle), especially in more sustainable taxes based on property.

However, there is absolutely no way we can increase tax revenues by ca. 40%, in a period of very slow growth, which is what would be needed to close the deficit. It's completely impossible and I doubt any open economy has ever done so. Spending must be tackled.

Given that, there are 2 large blocks of expenditure:
The public sector wage bill
Social Welfare

It is simply not realistic to think we can reduce current spending without reducing those somehow. The government will IMO almost certainly make further cuts to social welfare, if not the base payments then things like rent supplement and some of the myriad of "extras" that the more skilled social welfare "careerists" tend to receive.

So, should all the savings come from reducing social welfare or should public sector pay not also be on the agenda? How long can we kick this can down the road waiting for the growth fairy?

(We can dream that the PS will magically reform itself and deliver so many new efficiencies that no paycuts will be needed but it's not likely)

I was specifically addressing the post that I quoted (where the poster said that the NET salary of a public sector worker would be the same now as it was pre 2009 because of increments) which is plainly not the case for the reasons I have stated.
I totally agree with what you are saying. It is plainly obvious that more salary cuts are required in the public service. The fact that the CPA stops this happening gives the government very little room to move on cutting costs and as a result slows down the time taken to get to parity with income/expenditure.
I do believe however that cuts would be more palatable if and when we see some justice done on the criminals that have had a large part to play in the mess we are in.

daltonmd

kippy wrote: »

I was specifically addressing the post that I quoted (where the poster said that the NET salary of a public sector worker would be the same now as it was pre 2009 because of increments) which is plainly not the case for the reasons I have stated.
I totally agree with what you are saying. It is plainly obvious that more salary cuts are required in the public service. The fact that the CPA stops this happening gives the government very little room to move on cutting costs and as a result slows down the time taken to get to parity with income/expenditure.
I do believe however that cuts would be more palatable if and when we see some justice done on the criminals that have had a large part to play in the mess we are in.

Absolutely spot on kippy. The reality is that in order to preserve the pay bill and the SW bill we are cutting health and education. At a time when more should be going into the future generations we are propping up two departments where wages make up a huge chunk of the budget.

99nsr125

Nody wrote: »

but the simple reality is that with 50% not paying tax

I pay at the marginal rate.

Those 50% don't pay (income) taxes because they don't earn enough.

That's an inditement of our inability to build a balanced economy
and this was a known problem 5 years ago.


Pumping low earners for more than 10% of their income becomes
socially destructive and a net cost when people start to drop out
of the labor market.

Those 50% do pay in the form of USC and PRSI which will be
increased.

If you want a good idea of what's coming read the following document

fliball123

galway2007 wrote: »

o ya sure the public sector workers dont pay tax
idiot or what?

Attack the post not the poster...why should their pay perks and pensions be off the table when everything else is being cut...Hows about benchmarking III

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

ok so, just to respond to this :

Private employee makes 2k, pays 500 in tax every month. State gains 500 - Thats fair enough and totally agree with you.

PS worker makes 2k, pays 500 in tax every month. State losses 1500 - Yes but those services still need to be provided. so even if you sack the PS worker, somebody else still needs to be paid to provide this service. some govt. depts cannot make a profit and shouldnt. who provides and maintains the roads that the private employee gets to work on?

who provides and maintains the water network that the private employee uses? etc etc etc etc

Its time to look at what we can actually afford not what we think we should have

fliball123

Vizzy wrote: »

Love this.
It's about time that the PS started to stand up for themselves and stop cowtowing to all the PS bashers who wouldn't have taken a job there when they could earn 3 times as much as a plasterer or a chippie(and fair play to them if they could get it).
I have sympathy for anyone who has lost their job over the last few years but I certainly don't intend to apologise to anyone because I have a job.

BTW,on top of being protected by CPA,and having a tracker I'll be getting my increment next week.
Happy days.

Your thing of earning 3 times as much has been disproved many times on this site...If your going to be smug..be smug just stop lieing about it...Kenny needs to wake up and bring in Benchmarking III

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

When you strip away one off handouts to banks what is the actual yearly deficit we are running?

Once again I have shown we are paying twice yes at least twice for our deficit without out taking the banks into the equation...nearly 100billion for the difference of what we take in and pay out and nearly 50 billion for the banks...the banks problem is now known and is maneagable..the deficit is decreasing but will bring this 100billion up to nearly 200billion with 5/6 years when the interest is applied

fliball123

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The most frustrating thing about this of course is that all these "savings", taxes and cuts won't actually do anything to improve matters in Ireland or for the Irish people - it'll be going straight out the door to pay the gambling debts of private institutions and investors, so Enda and co get another "attaboy" from their/our EU masters

Of course, given the drama around Greece and reports (as I saw today on the Euronews channel) that more individuals than companies are filing for bankruptcy in Portugal at the moment, plus the worsening Italian situation, I think we might have been better to put that €3.6 billion on a bet that the Euro won't even be here this time next year!

And ya know what? Despite all the scaremongering about what a default or leaving the EU would do to Ireland (and yes, that said of course it'd be very tough and painful too), it'd still be better than this long drawn-out "death by a thousand cuts" farce we have been enduring the last few years with no end in sight.

Once again I will type this so people understand only one third of our debt is due to thus said gambling debts..the other two thirds are due to our deficit..As I say the CPA, Unions, Gov, benchmarking and the social welfare rates rocketing over the last decades have done twice as much damage to our ecconomy than any banker ever has and yet people still see the big villan as the bankers ... Its called smoke and mirrors people deflect as much away from the real problem and hopefully the people deflecting can continue eating lobster and cavier....Benchmarking III is so badly needed and social welfare is in need of cutting. I am actually supprised that the IMF have not called for such a mechanism

ardmacha

We have a private sector tearing the guts out of the public service because they feel that they are spoiled and cossetted. And the harsh reality is that the PS are protected. They have a job for life, income every week. In a recession where all around are losing their jobs or taking cuts in hours and pay the PS can still pay their bills.

Much of this is nonsense though. PS jobs are protected because as you say there are always people falling ill, looking for education or seeking protection from criminals, so these services remain in demand. Some guy with a cyclical job takes out a big loan based on overtime earnings in a once in a lifetime boom, earnings that did not represent that person's long term earning capacity. Now they can't pay their loan and they look enviously down the road at the more prudent PS guy who can still change his car. But because they feel this way doesn't mean that they are right.
If hospitals were privatised those who work in them would still have jobs as people who were ill would still chose to pay for treatment over other expenditure. This arises in the private sector too, the guy who drives the milk lorry has continuing business while the guy who drives the JCB does not.
As for people all around taking cuts, the IBEC survey shows more people getting rises than cuts at present and most people staying pretty much the same. Some people have cuts, to be sure, but others have increases. The former group are more vocal than latter.

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again I have shown we are paying twice yes at least twice for our deficit without out taking the banks into the equation...nearly 100billion for the difference of what we take in and pay out and nearly 50 billion for the banks...the banks problem is now known and is maneagable..the deficit is decreasing but will bring this 100billion up to nearly 200billion with 5/6 years when the interest is applied

That doesn't answer my question.

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

These calculations are interesting, if rather simplified. But are irrelevant to the discussion. My original point was that Irish teachers in 2009 had salaries that were a smaller proportion of general Irish salaries than a German teacher's was of general German salaries in 2009. Irish teachers had a cut in salary since then. As German teachers also have a scale and as a German teacher has also progressed along that scale the fact that the Irish teacher has done so is irrelevant to this discussion.

On the general point of increments, teachers are a particular case as they have a long scale with many increments. Many parts of the PS have shorter scales with multiple grades and you have to be promoted to a higher grade to start receiving increments again. So quite a large proportion of people may be at the top of their scale. There is a case for a checkpoint or two for teachers as well.

So now your comparing Ireland with Germany .??? REALLY...sorry how is Germany's ecconomy these days??? compare that with Irelands Ecconomy..or better what about Germany's deficit with Irelands...Your digging a bigger hole for yourself...We can no longer afford wages proportionately or not with the likes of Germany any more

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

Sorry what was the question?

ardmacha

fliball123, why do you quote my posts and then put text below that quote which suggests that you haven't read or understood the text quoted?

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

fliball123, why do you quote my posts and then put text below that quote which suggests that you haven't read or understood the text quoted?

Where did I do that..all I did was respond to your post? which puts the post to which you are responding to in quotes by default? and if you bring up a comparison with Germany its only right that you look at it in its full context?

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

Much of this is nonsense though. PS jobs are protected because as you say there are always people falling ill, looking for education or seeking protection from criminals, so these services remain in demand. Some guy with a cyclical job takes out a big loan based on overtime earnings in a once in a lifetime boom, earnings that did not represent that person's long term earning capacity. Now they can't pay their loan and they look enviously down the road at the more prudent PS guy who can still change his car. But because they feel this way doesn't mean that they are right.
If hospitals were privatised those who work in them would still have jobs as people who were ill would still chose to pay for treatment over other expenditure. This arises in the private sector too, the guy who drives the milk lorry has continuing business while the guy who drives the JCB does not.
As for people all around taking cuts, the IBEC survey shows more people getting rises than cuts at present and most people staying pretty much the same. Some people have cuts, to be sure, but others have increases. The former group are more vocal than latter.

You see, we are not paying for the service because we can't afford to because the bulk of the budget is made up of entirely wages and pensions. Services in health and education are being cut to meet the wages bill.

In regards to looking enviously at the more prudent guy who can change his car, he may have been prudent as you say and may not have gotten the big loans in the boom, but he got the big pay increases didn't he?
He accepted the big pay increases when times were good, so following on from that logic he may have to accept the big cuts that will be brought in.

You're also saying that in the private sector people took pay cuts and quoting IBEC, stating that more people in the Private sector are getting pay-rises, that's called capitalism.

If a company is doing well in the private sector (after no doubt having to restructure to survive the recession) then staff are absolutely entitled to be rewarded with a pay rise.

The PS has not restructured sufficiently to adapt, they haven't scaled down wages and pensions enough. It is bloated and overpaid and mark my words the IMF will demand cuts and changes.
As has been said here before, even without the banking debt we have a deficit problem that has to be addressed.
Borrowing and continue to borrow for an inefficient public service that is not doing it's job, particularly in health and education, because the budget is being used to simply pay staff is not sustainable.

It is no longer about what people say or think they need. It is down to what we can pay and as soon as people wake up to that fact the better for all.

ardmacha

Another post which claims that the PS is "bloated" while at the same time saying that there are not enough people to service schools and hospitals. Many of you obviously don't read your own posts.

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

Another post which claims that the PS is "bloated" while at the same time saying that there are not enough people to service schools and hospitals. Many of you obviously don't read your own posts.

His point is that instead of tackling the over paying in the ps ..services are being cut.....you just do not pick up on what is blatently in front of you

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

Another post which claims that the PS is "bloated" while at the same time saying that there are not enough people to service schools and hospitals. Many of you obviously don't read your own posts.

Where did I say that? Please point out to me where I said that there were not enough people to service schools and hospitals?

There are enough people, in some cases too many and a good portion are overpaid in contrast to the earnings we are bringing in and the services we are providing, or not as the case maybe.

Can you not see where most of the budget goes on wages and pensions that services are being squeezed because there is not enough money to provide them?

Is that so difficult to comprehend?

ardmacha

A previous poster was kind enough to post this



We are trying to maintain many additional services while raising less revenue from the economy (as a proportion) than in the mid 90s. We need to increase revenue to mid 90s levels. If we do this and remove some of the extra stuff accumulated since then, it will be possible to fund schools and the like that have always existed.


Is that so difficult to comprehend?

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

A previous poster was kind enough to post this



We are trying to maintain many additional services while raising less revenue from the economy (as a proportion) than in the mid 90s. We need to increase revenue to mid 90s levels. If we do this and remove some of the extra stuff accumulated since then, it will be possible to fund schools and the like that have always existed.


Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Sorry, you didn't answer my question.

Moving on...

fliball123 wrote: »

His point is that instead of tackling the over paying in the ps ..services are being cut.....you just do not pick up on what is blatently in front of you

*cough* her.... lol.


This is simply the case though and PS workers simply refuse to see that digging their heals in is causing so much damage for the future generation that are suffering in the schools because of cutbacks.
I don't expect anyone to put their hands up and offer to take a cut but please look at the whole situation:

One of the arguments I hear most from PS workers (I should at this point state that I am a frontline PS worker.) is that they have huge mortgages to pay and their bills are rising. Now this is where I go back to shoring up the spending power of the euro left in our pockets.

The money all goes either to banks or to the ESB or other companies who are making huge profits. The banks were recapitilised yet many people, let's stay with PS workers for the moment, are digging in their heals about these pay cuts to REPAY BANKS.

I certainly don't believe that there are many PS workers trying to sustain a lifestyle that they might have had in 2006, they are not and I know that from my own circumstances and those of friends and colleagues . But instead of the government forcing banks to deal with the issues of unsustainable mortgages, we are stuck in this Private V PS divide. And that suits this government.

But mark my words. When this government finish taking every drop of blood that they can and the banks get back all that they can in the next couple of years, this government will turn around and say "whoops" we STILL have a massive deficit and the IMF are DEMANDING that we cut PS pay, then this will happen.

We will all have been beaten to submission and afraid to walk out the door because we will be left there.

The CPA, while appearing to protect PS workers in the short term, it is really an agreement between the unions and the government that we will take any medicine coming down the line and not be in a position to strike. Because we signed a contract.

If we break it. They will get rid of us.

How many thousands on the dole would take jobs at 60% of our pay???


How long will it take for people to comprehend this.

And they have form, this government.

NOT ONE CENT MORE.

Remember that one?

Edit to add. The CPA protected higher earners in the PS as well as pensions and those nearing retirement. Many of these higher paid along with being management, are also union reps.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

A previous poster was kind enough to post this



We are trying to maintain many additional services while raising less revenue from the economy (as a proportion) than in the mid 90s. We need to increase revenue to mid 90s levels. If we do this and remove some of the extra stuff accumulated since then, it will be possible to fund schools and the like that have always existed.


Is that so difficult to comprehend?

You're talking about increasing taxes by 12.6bn, or about 40% to close the deficit, in a fairly stagnant economy, heading towards reduced foreign demand for our exports as the world economy contracts.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Spending has to be addressed for heaven's sake.

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

A previous poster was kind enough to post this



We are trying to maintain many additional services while raising less revenue from the economy (as a proportion) than in the mid 90s. We need to increase revenue to mid 90s levels. If we do this and remove some of the extra stuff accumulated since then, it will be possible to fund schools and the like that have always existed.


Is that so difficult to comprehend?

In 1997 GROSS CURRENT EXPENDITURE was about 17bn.

In 2009 it was almost 56bn.

After 3 harsh budgets (or is it 4??) the projected expenditure for 2011 is..........

Close to 53bn.....

Growth projections for this year???

2012?????????
2013????????


Extra stuff? Indeed, but once you acknowledge that "extra stuff" is salary and pensions along with SW...

Pharaoh1

It is not a surprise to me that those best organised and those with the most power have moved to protect themselves at the expense of the rest and this will be borne out in the budget.
Remember the last budget saw significant SW cuts but no reduction in (especially higher level) PS pay.
It appears this budget will do the same and the fact that there will apparently be no income tax increases means that the household charge, more VAT/Carbon taxes etc... will hit lower income groups proportionately harder.
I wonder could we possibly have a situation where 200k Enda Kenny (for example) will maintain the exact same after tax salary while the income of an unemployed person is reduced?

Just one probably fairly small area that is never much mentioned that the budget could tackle. Several relatives of mine are in receipt of full 40yr public service/semi state pensions AND full contributory old age pensions.
In the past a small enough number of contributions were necessary to qualify for the OAP (probably related to the marriage ban)
I know that most of the local guys who retired from the ESB at 60 or much younger in many cases falling over themselves to "work" for local builders during the boom. They used to do a few hours a week to get themselves on the books and clock up stamps to ensure they were double pensioned.
I suppose those were the rules at the time but this group are effectively an elite of sorts who could be asked to contribute something.

Blowfish

ardmacha wrote: »

A previous poster was kind enough to post this



We are trying to maintain many additional services while raising less revenue from the economy (as a proportion) than in the mid 90s. We need to increase revenue to mid 90s levels. If we do this and remove some of the extra stuff accumulated since then, it will be possible to fund schools and the like that have always existed.


Is that so difficult to comprehend?

In other words, in the midst of one of the toughest economic periods Ireland has had in a long time, you actually want to reduce our international competitiveness?

Dannyboy83

ardmacha wrote: »

As for people all around taking cuts, the IBEC survey shows more people getting rises than cuts at present and most people staying pretty much the same. Some people have cuts, to be sure, but others have increases. The former group are more vocal than latter.

Most people are staying the same. While tax increases continue.
A net loss.

The public sector are bucking this trend.
Public sector employees continue to receive increments. While tax increases continue.
Potentially a net gain.

One would expect that the very nature of what we are trying to accomplish (increase revenue without reforming spending) would render the above impossible. In some cases, pay rates will have effectively been restored since the 2009 reduction (minus pension entitlements) .

http://agenda.ibec.ie/39ugsijcs6s
The pay section of the survey found that the vast majority of firms had implemented wage freezes in both 2009 and 2010, and this trend is set to continue for the remainder of 2011 and into 2012. Seven out of ten companies expect no change or a fall in their 2011 pay bill, with 73% freezing basic wage rates. The average expected change to basic pay rates in 2011 is flat at -0.12%, and about 6% of companies are planning pay reductions.

Early indicators for 2012 show that two-thirds of companies expect their pay bill to stay the same or reduce, with 67% planning to freeze basic wage rates. The average expected change to basic pay rates in 2012 is flat at 0.43%, with about 2% of companies contemplating pay reductions.

We expect the high degree of realism in 2010 concerning pay developments to continue through 2011 and into 2012. Most people are very realistic about pay expectations and general pay increases are off the agenda in favour of measures to keep people in jobs. Any pay increases this year have generally been by exception on productivity grounds.

http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~ibec-pay-survey-pay-freezes-to-continue-in-2011-and-2012-04-07-2011/$file/IBEC+Pay+Survey+2011.pdf

WalterMitty

ardmacha wrote: »

A previous poster was kind enough to post this



We are trying to maintain many additional services while raising less revenue from the economy (as a proportion) than in the mid 90s. We need to increase revenue to mid 90s levels. If we do this and remove some of the extra stuff accumulated since then, it will be possible to fund schools and the like that have always existed.


Is that so difficult to comprehend?

That graph by itself is largely meaningless. As is comparing % of GNP spent on current government expenditure here versus say Sweden. Its comparing apples and oranges in most cases. The likes of Sweden have huge state sector doing lots more things than here, like nearly all GPs working for state whereas here they are nearly all private, large numbers in armies which we dont have so doesnt show up in our expenditure.

In services like physiotherapy and childcare staff are frequently state employed in other states where states they spend high % of GNP.

The structure of economy has also changed a lot during the period that graph relates to and the state did as you would expect become less and less important as the economy developed from 60s onwards. Large state companies in likes of shipping became private and labour intensity fell with mechanisation.
In 1960 few housewives worked after marriage and they did a lot of economic activities that didnt show up in statistics like child minding,food preparation,cleaning,minding elderly neighbours and realtives all of which nowadays are done largely by private sector and hence show up in GNP whilst most housewives now continue to work and have to spend their incomes on things like childminding and prepared food and nursing homes and cleaners.
We are also a young population which means we have (in theory anyway)to spend less on likes of health,nursing homes etc than older populations with vast majority of population in 18-70age group.
You will note that the huge spike in expenditure in 1980s lead to us almost inviting the IMFin untill the tallaght strategy which saw public expenditure cut drastically and economic growth took off as state took its foot of the economy's neck.
All these things must be considered when assesing level of state expenditure but you just want to use the figures crudely to justify being amongst highest paid public servants in Europe. Even in countries like Sweden where they spend a high % of GNP on goverment current expenditure they actually pay the public servants a lot less than here in Ireland and they are not in an IMF/EU/ECB bailout, justifying their prudence perhaps?Why do you think you are worth so much more than the public servant doing your job in France or sweden when your coutnry is in receivership?
If our average public service pay which is close to 50k gross was reduced to nearer EU average which is more like 35k then we could actually increase numbers in public service and make the jobs of those that work in public service more pleasant and rewarding and reduce the numbers having to emmigrate or sit on dole.

ardmacha

Several relatives of mine are in receipt of full 40yr public service/semi state pensions AND full contributory old age pensions.

I very much doubt this. Someone entitled to full PS pension isn't eligible for the contributory old age pension. Someone eligible for the contributory old age pensions has their PS pension reduced by the amount of the contributory old age pension. Of course someone with a private pension receives the full amount regardless of the old age pension, not sure about semi-states.

In other words, in the midst of one of the toughest economic periods Ireland has had in a long time, you actually want to reduce our international competitiveness?

The boom is over. I am arguing for reference to the mid 90s before boom revenues distorted things. People found life perfectly possible in the mid 90s and they will again. As for competitiveness, the government revenue structure then proceeded the fastest period of growth in Irish history.

Remember the last budget saw significant SW cuts but no reduction in (especially higher level) PS pay.

A perspective of more than one budget is needed. PS pay was cut in other budgets. In any case welfare rose much faster than PS pay during the boom and welfare recipients have not been subject to the tax increases etc the pay recipients have.

Public sector employees continue to receive increments. While tax increases continue.
Potentially a net gain.

Some individuals will see a gain. Some individuals in the private sector in organisations who scales are frozen will also see a gain because they will be promoted etc. So what?

Gumbo

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

Several relatives of mine are in receipt of full 40yr public service/semi state pensions AND full contributory old age pensions.

Admit it now, your telling lies!
Anybody entitled to a full PS pension cannot claim the state pension also so you have your facts way way way wrong im afraid!

Pre 95 staff get 50% of their salary as pension but not state pension.
Post 95 staff get the state pension plus the difference that makes up their 50% salary statement, so your post has no merit and is purely ther to ignite a flame war or similar :rolleyes:

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

I know that most of the local guys who retired from the ESB at 60 or much younger in many cases falling over themselves to "work" for local builders during the boom. They used to do a few hours a week to get themselves on the books and clock up stamps to ensure they were double pensioned.
I suppose those were the rules at the time but this group are effectively an elite of sorts who could be asked to contribute something.

another lie, any ESB worker that retired in the last few years or indeed retireing in the next few years would of been there long enough to enter the DB pension scheme, which is run exacty as the PS scheme, so no state pension added to their pension payments. ESB now operate a DC scheme with the employee purchasing a pension fund on the open market with their contributions when they retire.

daltonmd

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Most people are staying the same. While tax increases continue.
A net loss.

The public sector are bucking this trend.
Public sector employees continue to receive increments. While tax increases continue.
Potentially a net gain.

One would expect that the very nature of what we are trying to accomplish (increase revenue without reforming spending) would render the above impossible. In some cases, pay rates will have effectively been restored since the 2009 reduction (minus pension entitlements) .



http://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~ibec-pay-survey-pay-freezes-to-continue-in-2011-and-2012-04-07-2011/$file/IBEC+Pay+Survey+2011.pdf

Hope you don't mind me saying..
You could put graphs up till the cows come home and quote any amount of respected experts and the majority of the PS will simply not accept what you say. It has to be said at this stage. This has been done to death over the past few years.

The bottom line is that we earn 33bn and spend over 50bn per year. We are a small, broke country with close to 15% unemployment and very little growth for the next couple of years.

We have huge levels of personal debt and our families and young people are leaving in droves.

We just can't afford it and this is not restricted to the PS. We pay our Doctors and solicitors too much, the HSE have deals done with pharmaceutical companies paying way to much for medication.

We pay our TD's too much, our presidents to much, we have too many existing perks that the likes of Bertie and Brian are still availing of.

And to add to all that we are still paying back Anglo bondholders.......

It can't go on forever, something has to give......

Blowfish

ardmacha wrote: »

The boom is over. I am arguing for reference to the mid 90s before boom revenues distorted things. People found life perfectly possible in the mid 90s and they will again. As for competitiveness, the government revenue structure then proceeded the fastest period of growth in Irish history.

In 1995, we were ahead of most of Europe when it came to competitiveness, now we are behind. See here and here. Making ourselves even more uncompetitive is a very very bad idea.