December Budget

Dannyboy83

ardmacha wrote: »

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?

If you'll reread my post, you'll see I said a net gain.

The fact is that everyone in in the public sector is seeing a gain, with the ongoing increments.
While less than 4/5s of people in the private sector are.

To simplify this for you:
The general trend is that the private sector are being heavily taxed and suffering reductions in their standard of living, to enrich people who are working in the public sector, during the greatest economic crisis in the history of this country.

Do you consider this fair?
And do you consider this sustainable?

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

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?

So what?


If some individuals in the private sector see a gain or they are promoted it is obviously because their company is making a profit.

Our company is NOT making a profit. As a company we are BORROWING money simply to pay wages. You cannot make a comparison to a private company getting pay rises, because It has nothing to do with the issue.

ardmacha

The fact is that everyone in in the public sector is seeing a gain, with the ongoing increments.

No. They are not. Not everyone receives increments

As a company we are BORROWING money simply to pay wages. You cannot make a comparison to a private company getting pay rises, because It has nothing to do with the issue.

You cannot compare the government with a private company. Period. No private company would give away its services at little or no cost when there was large demand for those services and they were losing money.

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

No. They are not. Not everyone receives increments

Of course they don't but everyone with less than 12 years service does and those with more service already received them and are now on LSI.

Which is why the CPA protected them.

Paulzx

daltonmd wrote: »

Of course they don't but everyone with less than 12 years service does.

That is completely factually incorrect. Every section of the public service has a differently formed increment scale.

Some operate on a 4 year scale, others on a 24 year scale and everything in between.

I haven't had an increment in over 3 years and have less than 12 years service. Every cut etc. has been absorbed in my take home pay.

Generalisations don't work

hangon

Sorry a bit OT,but i would appreciate if anybody could tell me how much in cuts including the 3.8 Billion coming in December amounts to since the first attempts to 'save' Ireland when we went bust amounts to?
thanks.

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

No. They are not. Not everyone receives increments



You cannot compare the government with a private company. Period. No private company would give away its services at little or no cost when there was large demand for those services and they were losing money.

But you can when it suits you? (see post number 80 on p12, where you draw comparisons.) You can't cherry pick when to use the private sector to your own advantage.

Christ though, you really do not get it. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to read what you are writing.

You are saying that a private company wouldn't give away it's services at little or no cost when there was a large demand???

If there is huge demand for the services of a private enterprise then it is a success and making money to enable it to pay it's staff.


When a company is not making money then it can do one of these two things.

A)Continue borrowing from a bank forever rolling over the debt. OR

Downgrade, restructure, implement redundancies, pay cuts ..All the while trying to do the same job they did before...Or close.

Ok, they can only do B.

ardmacha

Generalisations don't work

Generalisations are inaccurate, but they make ranting easier.

Dannyboy83

daltonmd wrote: »

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.

Well, members of my family are in the PS and civil service, some are pensioners. They almost all understand exactly what the story is. I don't think people will fail to understand, simply because they are in the PS.
The reason people fail to understand (or more aptly - 'pretend' to fail to understand) is nothing more than a very human cause: greed.

The excesses in revenue for example, seem to be positively trite, when compared with other branches of the public service. The Revenue seems to have a record for efficiency which any private sector company would be proud of, based on what I understand.

But there seems to be no comparison between certain branches when compared to others. Relatives of mine in the HSE could write a book on the insanity that goes on there tho. Some of the things I have heard have left me truely gobsmacked.
Education is fairly mental.
Semi-states - ESB. Mental.

So there are an awful lot of people in the public service who don't agree with what is going on.
They just don't happen to be as vocal as some of the militant people you may see on forums such as this - for various understandable reasons.

I have seen a lot of people change their minds in real life.
A number of friends and relatives changed their minds when they compared their conditions to other friends on the minimum wage, particularly after the USC came in.



But you are right - It's a different story on this forum.

So why do I do it?
I came to the same realisation ages ago, went away, came back. And it's still going on. I already know it's pointless to continue, I almost feel compelled to do it tho, lol.
I guess I just want the truth to be heard.

Besides, I find it entertaining to see how people come up with clever way to continually misrepresent facts. Some of the people who posts on the forum are expert liars!

daltonmd

Paulzx wrote: »

That is completely factually incorrect. Every section of the public service has a differently formed increment scale.

Some operate on a 4 year scale, others on a 24 year scale and everything in between.

I haven't had an increment in over 3 years and have less than 12 years service. Every cut etc. has been absorbed in my take home pay.

Generalisations don't work

I've never heard of anyone getting an increment after 24 years, maybe you could provide a link. If you cared to read my post I said that anyone with LESS than 12 years are on increments. I DID NOT specify anything about them after that, there may well be 4 yearly, but they are STILL increments.

My understanding is that after 12 years the LSI kicks in. That's the case in a lot of departments, unfortunately given the size and scale of the PS generalisations are really the only way you can work.

edit. Christ though we do ourselves no favours saying that there are increments UP TO 24 Years!!! Bloody hell nora!!

ardmacha

You could put graphs up till the cows come home and quote any amount of respected experts

There is little enough use of actual data in this forum and when people do include it, I have referenced it, while not necessarily agreeing with its interpretation.

The excesses in revenue for example, seem to be positively trite, when compared with other branches of the public service. The Revenue seems to have a record for efficiency which any private sector company would be proud of, based on what I understand.

But there seems to be no comparison between certain branches when compared to others. Relatives of mine in the HSE could write a book on the insanity that goes on there tho. Some of the things I have heard have left me truely gobsmacked.

I couldn't agree more. The point is that the Revenue have by and large the same type of terms and conditions and same unions etc as the less efficient parts of the PS, they are just properly managed. The best councils, schools, departments etc should be used to show what needs to be done, as these are much better than the worst ones. Ranting that they are all the same is unhelpful.

ardmacha

daltonmd wrote:

But you can when it suits you? (see post number 80 on p12, where you draw comparisons.) You can't cherry pick when to use the private sector to your own advantage.

Fair cop. Can I nuance what I said. Pricing of PS services is not the same as private ones, it determined for political reasons. The fact that water supply is a "drain" on public funds is because the government has decided to give it away free.

Paulzx

daltonmd wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone getting an increment after 24 years, maybe you could provide a link. If you cared to read my post I said that anyone with LESS than 12 years are on increments. I DID NOT specify anything about them after that, there may well be 4 yearly, but they are STILL increments.

My understanding is that after 12 years the LSI kicks in. That's the case in a lot of departments, unfortunately given the size and scale of the PS generalisations are really the only way you can work.

edit. Christ though we do ourselves no favours saying that there are increments UP TO 24 Years!!! Bloody hell nora!!

I'm sorry but which part of my post can you not understand.

If you are on a 4 year increment scale you get an increment at 1 years service, 2 years service, 3 years service and 4 years service.

You now have no more increments and have less than 12 years services. According to you everyone with less than 12 years services continues getting increments.

Proof of a 25 year increment scale as requested.

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/

Pharaoh1

kceire wrote: »

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:



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.

Not a lie at all.
Please see the attached link for details and look carefully at the qualifying requirements especially the section titled "Number of paid contributions"
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/older_and_retired_people/state_pension_contributory.html

For example one relative worked from age 16 to 20 for Bord na Mona and had 5 years of "stamps" and then aged 20 joined ESB and their superannuated scheme. Retired 2001 on the full ESB deal and knew exactly how many more contributions he would need to qualify for the contributory OAP which he duly did.
I have another relative now who has full contrib as well as nurses HSE pension. She was a couple of years short (due to the few years spent working in the private sector) for the full HSE pension but bought the years back which was fair enough.
I'm not saying these people are doing anything wrong as they are getting their entitlements under the system but I didn't realise until recently that you could get two full pensions from the state in the same way as you could say get a full pension from say AIB as well as the contrib OAP.
The difference here is of course that if you qualified for a 40 yr pension from AIB you would have had to have paid 40 years "stamp" as well to get the OAP. In say the HSE or ESB you did not have to pay this contribution.

Agree that this situation will not arise in the future as the qualifying requirements for contrib pension have changed a lot.

I just pointed out that this is an area that could be looked at before we look at those whose only income is the OAP or those who have OAP plus very modest private pension.

Paulzx

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

Not a lie at all.
Please see the attached link for details and look carefully at the qualifying requirements especially the section titled "Number of paid contributions"
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/older_and_retired_people/state_pension_contributory.html

For example one relative worked from age 16 to 20 for Bord na Mona and had 5 years of "stamps" and then aged 20 joined ESB and their superannuated scheme. Retired 2001 on the full ESB deal and knew exactly how many more contributions he would need to qualify for the contributory OAP which he duly did.
I have another relative now who has full contrib as well as nurses HSE pension. She was a couple of years short (due to the few years spent working in the private sector) for the full HSE pension but bought the years back which was fair enough.
I'm not saying these people are doing anything wrong as they are getting their entitlements under the system but I didn't realise until recently that you could get two full pensions from the state in the same way as you could say get a full pension from say AIB as well as the contrib OAP.
The difference here is of course that if you qualified for a 40 yr pension from AIB you would have had to have paid 40 years "stamp" as well to get the OAP. In say the HSE or ESB you did not have to pay this contribution.

Agree that this situation will not arise in the future as the qualifying requirements for contrib pension have changed a lot.

I just pointed out that this is an area that could be looked at before we look at those whose only income is the OAP or those who have OAP plus very modest private pension.

The new superannuation system brought in in 1995 has nullified that system. All post 1995 PS employees are now on the coordinated pension scheme and cannot claim a social welfare pension in addition to their public service pension. The two pensions are combined.

Any pre 1995 employess that are now retiring will find it very difficult to make up enough stamps for entitlemnt to the social welfare pension with the changes that have been made.

BrianD3

Paulzx wrote: »

I'm sorry but which part of my post can you not understand.

If you are on a 4 year increment scale you get an increment at 1 years service, 2 years service, 3 years service and 4 years service.

You now have no more increments and have less than 12 years services. According to you everyone with less than 12 years services continues getting increments.

Proof of a 25 year increment scale as requested.

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/

+1. And here's proof of a 3 year scale and other scales with well under 12 increments. And for the uninformed, no that doesn't mean 3 increments per year but rather 1 increment per year for 3 years then promotion needed.
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,22976,en.doc

Graduate Engineer (range)

Rate 01/01/2010
€32,194
€35,437
€38,666

daltonmd

Paulzx wrote: »

I'm sorry but which part of my post can you not understand.

If you are on a 4 year increment scale you get an increment at 1 years service, 2 years service, 3 years service and 4 years service.

You now have no more increments and have less than 12 years services. According to you everyone with less than 12 years services continues getting increments.

Proof of a 25 year increment scale as requested.

http://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scale/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/

Listen, let me say it again. If you are on LESS than 12 years service then you ARE getting increments. 4 is LESS than 12 is it not.


In regards to the 25 year pay scale, I'm not a teacher so I was not aware of it and my post was in response to another poster who said that all PS workers are not in receipt of increments.
My point was that anyone with LESS than 12 years is definitely in receipt of increments.
The 25 year incremental scale is yet another nail in the coffin for teachers I'm afraid.

Edit. Lads these arguments are pointless in this debate because as has been said again and again. We don't have the money. We cannot afford the PS wages. It is that simple.

daltonmd

ardmacha wrote: »

Fair cop. Can I nuance what I said. Pricing of PS services is not the same as private ones, it determined for political reasons. The fact that water supply is a "drain" on public funds is because the government has decided to give it away free.

But again, it's not the services, because they are being slashed, that is the main problem, it's the ever rising pay and pensions bill that has to be dealt with.

Pharaoh1

Paulzx wrote: »

The new superannuation system brought in in 1995 has nullified that system. All post 1995 PS employees are now on the coordinated pension scheme and cannot claim a social welfare pension in addition to their public service pension. The two pensions are combined.

Any pre 1995 employess that are now retiring will find it very difficult to make up enough stamps for entitlemnt to the social welfare pension with the changes that have been made.

Yes of course but there is a group of pensioners out there that worked the system and as a result are in receipt of large pensions from the state which the state cannot afford. Also if you had say full ESB and contrib OAP combination you have suffered no cut whereas your neighbour who has only PS pension has been cut - is this fair?
I just look at the people in my area and I see lots of scope for reductions which I feel would be fair and reasonable.
Another couple of examples.
If you apply for means tested Jobseekers Allowance there are no income disregards so if you have some income your JA will be reduced. If you are a farmer looking for Farm Assist there are income disregards which means that the Dept just ignores amounts of income from certain sources. This could be stopped.
This would be a genuine spending reduction.

I know individuals with substantial household income (maybe wife working) and some with large farms who actively seek to get places on CE schemes (ie know the local CE supvr well). They were able to stay on the scheme for a period (in many case do feck all work as the 200 acre farm had to be looked after), clock up prsi contributions and then once off the scheme sign for JB for a year then maybe get back on a scheme again.
These people would quite rightly not get any JA due to their income and these places could either go to someone genuinely unemployed or be scrapped - again a real reduction in spending.

daltonmd

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

Yes of course but there is a group of pensioners out there that worked the system and as a result are in receipt of large pensions from the state which the state cannot afford. Also if you had say full ESB and contrib OAP combination you have suffered no cut whereas your neighbour who has only PS pension has been cut - is this fair?
I just look at the people in my area and I see lots of scope for reductions which I feel would be fair and reasonable.
Another couple of examples.
If you apply for means tested Jobseekers Allowance there are no income disregards so if you have some income your JA will be reduced. If you are a farmer looking for Farm Assist there are income disregards which means that the Dept just ignores amounts of income from certain sources. This could be stopped.
This would be a genuine spending reduction.

I know individuals with substantial household income (maybe wife working) and some with large farms who actively seek to get places on CE schemes (ie know the local CE supvr well). They were able to stay on the scheme for a period (in many case do feck all work as the 200 acre farm had to be looked after), clock up prsi contributions and then once off the scheme sign for JB for a year then maybe get back on a scheme again.
These people would quite rightly not get any JA due to their income and these places could either go to someone genuinely unemployed or be scrapped - again a real reduction in spending.

And remember that pensions are paid out of current expenditure. Not a pension fund.

Paulzx

daltonmd wrote: »

Listen, let me say it again. If you are on LESS than 12 years service then you ARE getting increments. 4 is LESS than 12 is it not.


In regards to the 25 year pay scale, I'm not a teacher so I was not aware of it and my post was in response to another poster who said that all PS workers are not in receipt of increments.
My point was that anyone with LESS than 12 years is definitely in receipt of increments.
The 25 year incremental scale is yet another nail in the coffin for teachers I'm afraid.

Edit. Lads these arguments are pointless in this debate because as has been said again and again. We don't have the money. We cannot afford the PS wages. It is that simple.

Are you reading in a different language?

You're saying that someone who's increments stop after 4 years service is still getting increments after 6 years service just because they have less than 12 years service What are you talking about?

You're correct........this arguement is pointless:(

daltonmd

Paulzx wrote: »

Are you reading in a different language?

You're saying that someone who's increments stop after 4 years service is still getting increments after 6 years service just because they have less than 12 years service What are you talking about?

You're correct........this arguement is pointless:(

My goodness. I am saying that those with less than 12 years service are definitely receiving increments of some description, in my department our scales are 11 years and on the 12th we receive the LSI.

Also, there is absolutely no need to be rude and condescending. I have made my point very clear, that you choose to focus only on a specific group, yours, ignoring the fact that there is a huge variation in scales within the PS is up to yourself.

If you can't engage in polite discussion then don't bother. It;s not a personal attack on any PS worker.

ardmacha

My goodness. I am saying that those with less than 12 years service are definitely receiving increments of some description, in my department our scales are 11 years and on the 12th we receive the LSI.

All that you are saying is that those with less than 12 years service in your department are receiving increments.

You accuse another poster of ignoring the fact that there is a huge variation in scales within the PS when you are doing this.

Even if everyone with less than 12 years experience got an increment,with 40 years total service, this would only be about one third of people, so it does not support the contention that everyone receives increments.

Paulzx

daltonmd wrote: »

My goodness. I am saying that those with less than 12 years service are definitely receiving increments of some description, in my department our scales are 11 years and on the 12th we receive the LSI.

Also, there is absolutely no need to be rude and condescending. I have made my point very clear, that you choose to focus only on a specific group, yours, ignoring the fact that there is a huge variation in scales within the PS is up to yourself.

If you can't engage in polite discussion then don't bother. It;s not a personal attack on any PS worker.

Jesus. How simple does this have to made.


"I am saying that those with less than 12 years service are definitely receiving increments of some description, "

You are still saying this having been repeatedly told by not only me that it is factually wrong.

How can someone who's salary scale stops after 4 years still be receiving an increment at 7 years service. They are not despite your assertion that everyone in the ps receives an increment every year up until their 12th year.

I am not talking about my own salary scale either so i am not focusing on one group.

I have not been rude to you at any stage. If you are that easily offended its not my problem. My tone is sheer exasperation at this stage.

The bottom line is that your assertion that everyone in the ps receives constant increments up unitl their 12th year of service is wrong.

Godge

This is a thread about the December budget.

Discussing public service pay in the context of the December budget is pointless because of the Croke Park Agreement. Similarly, discussing income tax increases in the context of the December budget is pointless because of the statements made by Enda Kenny and Michael Noonan that income tax will not increase (I note that they did not say that reliefs wouldn't go down).

Now the CPA and income tax may come back on the table at some point in the future if the euro collapses but that is for another thread so can you take your discussion about incremental scales somewhere else?

Things that may happen in the December budget:

- Increase in third level student charge
- Cut in teacher numbers
- Increase in monthly prescription charge
- Increase in motor tax
- Increase in capital taxes
- Cut in child benefit
- Cut in rent allowance
- Cut in income tax relief (especially on pensions)
- New property tax
- Increase in second home tax
- Further cut in mortgage relief for property investors

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

This is a thread about the December budget.

Discussing public service pay in the context of the December budget is pointless because of the Croke Park Agreement. Similarly, discussing income tax increases in the context of the December budget is pointless because of the statements made by Enda Kenny and Michael Noonan that income tax will not increase (I note that they did not say that reliefs wouldn't go down).

Now the CPA and income tax may come back on the table at some point in the future if the euro collapses but that is for another thread so can you take your discussion about incremental scales somewhere else?

Things that may happen in the December budget:


- Increase in third level student charge
- Cut in teacher numbers
- Increase in monthly prescription charge
- Increase in motor tax
- Increase in capital taxes
- Cut in child benefit
- Cut in rent allowance
- Cut in income tax relief (especially on pensions)
- New property tax
- Increase in second home tax
- Further cut in mortgage relief for property investors

Good man godge get them back on track...

Paulzx

fliball123 wrote: »

Good man godge get them back on track...

Godge is not a Mod and neither are you.

ardmacha

I imagine they'll do a bit here and there. E.g. increase motor tax for post 2008 a bit, but not necessarily for pre-2008. Maybe reduce inheritance tax thresholds to reflect the decline in property prices.

daltonmd

Paulzx wrote: »

Jesus. How simple does this have to made.


"I am saying that those with less than 12 years service are definitely receiving increments of some description, "

You are still saying this having been repeatedly told by not only me that it is factually wrong.

How can someone who's salary scale stops after 4 years still be receiving an increment at 7 years service. They are not despite your assertion that everyone in the ps receives an increment every year up until their 12th year.

I am not talking about my own salary scale either so i am not focusing on one group.

I have not been rude to you at any stage. If you are that easily offended its not my problem. My tone is sheer exasperation at this stage.

The bottom line is that your assertion that everyone in the ps receives constant increments up unitl their 12th year of service is wrong.

I never said that everyone in the PS receives CONSTANT increments UP UNTIL their 12th year.

I first said (in response to another poster who said that not all ps workers received increments):

"Of course they don't but everyone with less than 12 years service does and those with more service already received them and are now on LSI."

I then went on to clarify myself more than once.

Despite these clarifications you are insistent that I said they receive CONSTANT increments. I did not.

There is nothing more that I can do or say because you simply see the argument that you want to make.

Godge

ardmacha wrote: »

I imagine they'll do a bit here and there. E.g. increase motor tax for post 2008 a bit, but not necessarily for pre-2008. Maybe reduce inheritance tax thresholds to reflect the decline in property prices.

Agreed, that is why I had 11 suggestions off the top of my head. A little on each and you are a long way towards the 3.6 bn. Come up with 25 or so suggestions and very little on each gets you most of the way there.

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

Things that may happen in the December budget:

- Increase in third level student charge
- Cut in teacher numbers
- Increase in monthly prescription charge
- Increase in motor tax
- Increase in capital taxes
- Cut in child benefit
- Cut in rent allowance
- Cut in income tax relief (especially on pensions)
- New property tax
- Increase in second home tax
- Further cut in mortgage relief for property investors

I would have no problem with most of those. Bar the motor tax and property tax. I don't know how they can put up motor tax for the pre 08 cars. Its already astronomical for an avg diesel family car.

Vizzy

fliball123 wrote: »

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

Lieing about what.
I posted on another thread about an extension I had built in 2006 at the rate of €2.60 per block.
But lets be conservative and assume a rate of €2 per block.
Average bricky would lay up to 500 blocks a day,but again be conservative and say 350 blocks per day.
Allow 180 days work in the year(again conservative)
Thats €126k .......in 2006.
How far am I off from 3 times the PS salary at the time?

I have already said,I have no difficulty in lads getting paid this but I don't/can't have sympathy on them now if they made no provision for being made unemployed.

ILikeBananas

Godge wrote: »

- Increase in third level student charge
- Cut in teacher numbers
- Increase in monthly prescription charge
- Increase in motor tax
- Increase in capital taxes
- Cut in child benefit
- Cut in rent allowance
- Cut in income tax relief (especially on pensions)
- New property tax
- Increase in second home tax
- Further cut in mortgage relief for property investors

What are the chances of JA and JB (dole) being cut? State Pensions? Children's Allowance?

murphaph

Vizzy wrote: »

Lieing about what.
I posted on another thread about an extension I had built in 2006 at the rate of €2.60 per block.
But lets be conservative and assume a rate of €2 per block.
Average bricky would lay up to 500 blocks a day,but again be conservative and say 350 blocks per day.
Allow 180 days work in the year(again conservative)
Thats €126k .......in 2006.
How far am I off from 3 times the PS salary at the time?

I have already said,I have no difficulty in lads getting paid this but I don't/can't have sympathy on them now if they made no provision for being made unemployed.

Bricklayers are not representative of the private sector at large.

The vast majority of private sector workers were and are PAYE types, not tradesmen or bankers etc.

Vizzy

Yes and Public Servants are also PAYE types,not bankers and most are certainly are not earning the masive sums that are constantly bandied about here.

murphaph

ILikeBananas wrote: »

What are the chances of JA and JB (dole) being cut? State Pensions? Children's Allowance?

Well, dole has already been cut a bit (not enough to get us into realistic territory yet) and cut a lot for younger people so I'd say the likelihood is that they'll leave the headline rate alone this year and start reducing the side payments like rent supplement and so on.

There's no getting away from it however: Our dole, state pension and children's allowance will have to head towards UK rates.

Gumbo

murphaph wrote: »

Bricklayers are not representative of the private sector at large.

The vast majority of private sector workers were and are PAYE types, not tradesmen or bankers etc.

just like the vast majoroty of PS workers that earn normal salaries and dont have the gold plated pension that some would have you believe.

I remember 3 of my mates, yeah, 3 mates laughing at me when i told them i started a job on 12k in 2002. they were apprentice brickies in their 2nd year and alreadly pulling in over 500e per week! thats jumped and i remember them saying that if they dont make 1k a week, its not worth it!!!!

really bad turn of things, but out of the 3 of them, they were all let go, spent 2-3 years on the dole, and now 2 of them are back working in basic office jobs which is great for them.

murphaph

Vizzy wrote: »

Yes and Public Servants are also PAYE types,not bankers and most are certainly are not earning the masive sums that are constantly bandied about here.

It's not really relevant what they earn. The state has a gigantic deficit that cannot be closed by increasing taxes 40%. Cuts in spending have to come and the 2 largest blocks of spending are PS wages and social welfare. It's not practical to reduce spending in any meaningful manner without looking at these things.

doc_17

ardmacha wrote: »

I imagine they'll do a bit here and there. E.g. increase motor tax for post 2008 a bit, but not necessarily for pre-2008. Maybe reduce inheritance tax thresholds to reflect the decline in property prices.

Pre 08 car tax is horrendous and almost criminal!

woodoo wrote: »

I would have no problem with most of those. Bar the motor tax and property tax. I don't know how they can put up motor tax for the pre 08 cars. Its already astronomical for an avg diesel family car.

I suppose that would be nice in theory but it will come down to how many post 08 cars threre are compared to pre 08 and if they need to do both they will.

Vizzy

Agreed.
But the fallacy that the ordinary PS worker caused the problem or is earning massive money needs to be debunked.
True the CPA exists for the PS worker but I don't think( and I'm open to correction on this) that the high earners like the guys on 150K+ are covered by the agreement.
Also,as kceire has already said,the PS worker was laughed at for many years for accepting the low wage.This was the very reason that benchmarking came about in about 2001.
When I started in 1983,having come from a private sector job,I took a 50% cut for the security of a job.It wasn't until about 1997 that I got back to parity with people in my former job.
Tell me again why I should apologise to anyone that I currently have a job ?.

irishh_bob

Vizzy wrote: »

Agreed.
But the fallacy that the ordinary PS worker caused the problem or is earning massive money needs to be debunked.
True the CPA exists for the PS worker but I don't think( and I'm open to correction on this) that the high earners like the guys on 150K+ are covered by the agreement.
Also,as kceire has already said,the PS worker was laughed at for many years for accepting the low wage.This was the very reason that benchmarking came about in about 2001.
When I started in 1983,having come from a private sector job,I took a 50% cut for the security of a job.It wasn't until about 1997 that I got back to parity with people in my former job.
Tell me again why I should apologise to anyone that I currently have a job ?.

public sector pay has been ahead of private sector pay for well over a decade , the average guard was earning every bit as much as the average construction worker during the boom , around 1200 euro per week , only difference being the guy who mixes concrete is now on the scrap heap , has no pension and has nothing but a sore back to remind him off the good old days , this union concocted myth that the public sector was the poor relation during the celtic tiger is completley without foundation and in truth , is not even used very often now on internet forums or current affairs shows , people have long copped on to the smell of this crap

ardmacha

The artificial boom distorted the labour market in Ireland and it affected both the public and private sector. Saying that claims that some in the public sector were disadvantaged are "without foundation" is nonsense. Can people not manage to put their case without resorting to gross and untrue generalisations? Is it any wonder the country is in a mess when you see what passes for argument here?

irishh_bob

ardmacha wrote: »

The artificial boom distorted the labour market in Ireland and it affected both the public and private sector. Saying that claims that some in the public sector were disadvantaged are "without foundation" is nonsense. Can people not manage to put their case without resorting to gross and untrue generalisations? Is it any wonder the country is in a mess when you see what passes for argument here?

all comparisons are based on generalitys and averages when it comes to comparing such large numbers of the workforce , of course mary from mulligar who works as a clerical officer in the dept of agri in portlaoise was earning less than sean dunne or larry goodman but mary was most likely earning more than ann who works as a legal secratary in the local town

Sudsy86

So am i getting this right?

Private Sector Tax pays in part for Public Sector employment!
Private Sectors tax is being increased!
Public Sector Tax is not!

More and more ppl are being forced into unemployment from the private sector...
More and more ppl are being forced to leave the country...

Less tax being paid, more expenditure for the Doll but yet no cuts to the Public Sector?

You can argue all day long that their has been cuts to the PS but there have been more cust to the Private Sector...If Private Sector workers continue to loose their employment and are forced out of the country the less tax will be there for Wages in PS and the more the country will borrow...

PS workers need to be hit, Less we pay them, less we get taxed...Greed will not save you forever and neither will the CPA, better to take the hit now and get used to it as this country will not see growth for a LONG LONG TIME...

If said before "why eat bread when you can have cake"

Come down here and have some crumbs with us guys, we will welcome ye to poverty with open arms...

Gumbo

Sudsy86 wrote: »

So am i getting this right?

Private Sector Tax pays in part for Public Sector employment!
Private Sectors tax is being increased!
Public Sector Tax is not!

More and more ppl are being forced into unemployment from the private sector...
More and more ppl are being forced to leave the country...

Less tax being paid, more expenditure for the Doll but yet no cuts to the Public Sector?

You can argue all day long that their has been cuts to the PS but there have been more cust to the Private Sector...If Private Sector workers continue to loose their employment and are forced out of the country the less tax will be there for Wages in PS and the more the country will borrow...

PS workers need to be hit, Less we pay them, less we get taxed...Greed will not save you forever and neither will the CPA, better to take the hit now and get used to it as this country will not see growth for a LONG LONG TIME...

If said before "why eat bread when you can have cake"

Come down here and have some crumbs with us guys, we will welcome ye to poverty with open arms...

Ohh sweet jesus, where to start..............

Sudsy86 wrote: »

So am i getting this right?

short answer, no your not getting it right.

Vizzy

kceire wrote: »

Ohh sweet jesus, where to start............../QUOTE]

Or indeed,why would you even bother .

woodoo

Sudsy86 wrote: »

So am i getting this right?

Private Sector Tax pays in part for Public Sector employment!
Private Sectors tax is being increased!
Public Sector Tax is not!

Any tax increase you experience in the private sector i experience in the public sector.

waitingforBB

Which is why the CPA will be (eventually) discarded and the PS pay levels will be reduced.
Its a fact that the public services are being reduced in order to sustain the PS pay levels.
Its again true that as a country we spend less then comparable countries on our education bill, but read into the detail and see that the proportion of the expenditure paid in salaries is way off trend.

We wouldnt have to reduce services so drastically (at all) if we reduced the pay rates (not the pay bill). Reducing the salary levels of the PS by 15% in total would allow an increase in service / staffing levels. Not saying that everyone in the PS should have their salaries reduced by 15%, it needs to be weighted top down, but that is a conervative figure in my view.

Legislation in DB pensions is something that will be considered I think down the line when the reality bites with the sitting government. We simply cant afford to fund pensions to that scale (and these are funded from current expenditure).

Not rounding on teachers, but I recall a point in a previous post along the lines of would teachers agree to a 10% cut in salary in order to enable an increase in headcount thus reducing class sizes and benefiting the children?

Probably not (and I use teachers as an analogy for the PS). Benchmarking #3 may become a reality regardless of perceived entitlement and union might. If its not addressed by Enda and Co, it will be addressed by the Troika who dont hold the same fear of unions as the powers that be.

I heard an interview with Ed Walsh on radio this morning, and while not a fan of some of his views, he is a respected educationalist who has achieved much. He asserted that teachers should be assessed, the good ones rewarded and the useless ones gotten rid of. Those valued, retained and the rest exited. But the blockers to this? The unions. He maintained the government need to take them head on and there should be a stand off. He insisted that they are over paid relative to the rest of their counterparts in the EU and work less hours..

Food for thought?
depends on where your bread is buttered I guess.

reality will bite, and it may be sooner rather than later.All the unions have done is prepared the groundwork for massive cuts due to their absolute stance on refusal for change and progression (same in provate sector to be fair where they have caused job losses with their militant stances).

ardmacha

Reducing the salary levels of the PS by 15% in total would allow an increase in service / staffing levels. Not saying that everyone in the PS should have their salaries reduced by 15%, it needs to be weighted top down, but that is a conervative figure in my view.

Another number plucked out of nowhere in particular. Since any data showed that any pay gap with the private sector that might have existed was lowest at higher levels of the PS and since these have already have the biggest cuts, how exactly do you calculate that these should now have the biggest cuts?

Why doesn't everyone agree to a 10% pay cut, private and public, and all of the unemployed could be hired?

WalterMitty

ardmacha wrote: »

Why doesn't everyone agree to a 10% pay cut, private and public, and all of the unemployed could be hired?

Because the private workers pay is determined by international market forces and is already well behind his equivalently qualified public sector peer(source CSO) even before the value per year of the amazing public sector pension and job security is added onto the premium the public worker enjoys.
The private sector will adjust automatically to market forces and companies who dont will fail. People in private sector firms have always done more with less when their firm was struggling but ask this of the public sector and they say "cut my pay 10% and i will do 10% less". Benchmarking on the way up only, a one way bet for the greedy.