Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Chips Lovell

Hijpo wrote: »

I cant find where it says they are cutting minster TD's and taoiseach pensions, making it so they can claim ONLY 1 pension, cutting salaries, cutting expenses and stopping tax exemptions. I also cant find where it says they are stopping all non essential spending on luxury items like the big ministerial cars etc

The government took a pay cut when they took office. The previous government took one too.

phil1nj

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Agreed. We should base government expenditure on the amount of money in your individual pay packet.

No, that would be a silly idea. But if my take home pay has gone down by 10% in the same period while my gross income has actually increased during that time I can only deduce that my level of personal taxation has increased quite substantially yet the governemnt seem to be spending almost the same amount of money despite there supposedly being a policy of austerity in place.

Also funnily enough, it looks like govt spending came to about 48 Billion back in 2006 (I don't seem to recall the country being on the bones of it's arse back then) so I can't understand why 6 years later the bill for running the country is still so high. But that's just me.

Ghandee

The true numbers of non payers will be shown when the charge rises from one hundred euro to (possibly) seven hundred euro.

Crap and fan will really come to mind when this happens.

How many families truly have 60 euro a month to pay a charge where you receive nothing for the money paid?

I'll keep repeating it, if it was seven hundred a year, which included bin charges, water charges, emergency services, education, health care etc. It could be considered nor a waste of money. (like rates in the six counties)
But to be expected to take an extra seven hundred from a families income (never mind future water charges, and an expected rise in prsi and USC) is lunacy by the govt.

Especially with the recent reports of a high percentage of families currently only having a hundred euro spare at the end of each month as it is.

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The government took a pay cut when they took office. The previous government took one too.

Phil Hogan didn't.

http://inagist.com/all/186382568042663936/

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The government took a pay cut when they took office. The previous government took one too.

lmao huge cuts there i can see them having to get rid of there broadband and sky to get the country on its feet.
you like them seem to have little appreciation for money and getting value for it. fair play to you for getting where you are.

How many levies does the government have in operation at the moment?
to make a house a home you need a house, there will be a tax on that. you need house insurance, theres a levie on that. You need life insurance, theres a levie on that.

Ghandee

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Any breakdown of those figures available? I'd like to see:

1. Spend on Local Government
2. Spend on Pay, Renumeration, Pensions, Golden Handshakes, etc for Ministers and Public/Civil Servants
3. Spend on Health
4. Spend on Social Welfare
5. Spend on Justice
6. Spend on Foreign Affairs

I think I read a statistic that govt spend 40% of their budget on Health, 35% on Social Welfare, and 25% on everything else (including pay/remuneration for ministers, and public service, advisors, etc). If this is true, then the anti-HHC argument that the government should stop wasting money on huge pensions doesn't hold any water - even if all the ministers and government workers worked for free, that would still only address less than 25% of total govt expenditure.

Drop in the ocean, indeed.

Just out of curiosity.

Are you employed in the private, or the public sector?

phil1nj

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

I think I read a statistic that govt spend 40% of their budget on Health, 35% on Social Welfare, and 25% on everything else (including pay/remuneration for ministers, civil and public service, advisors, etc). If this is true, then the anti-HHC argument that the government should stop wasting money on huge pensions doesn't hold any water - even if all the ministers and government workers worked for free, that would still only address less than 25% of total govt expenditure.

Drop in the ocean, indeed.

I'd go along with those figures which makes it even more depressing because for years now we have been promised (by successive governments) major reform in our PS system (the 25% mentioned above and some of the 40%), socail welfare (35% of the above) and the HSE (the majority of the 40%). Now if a 10% reduction could be acheived across all of these areas this would lead to significant savings and a major reduction in the deficit.

Instead we are just hit with tax after tax, levy after levy and no reform to speak of (save for hiring embargos and cuts to frontline staff) which isn't the answer. Slightly off topic I know but it's all part of the bigger argument.

Chips Lovell

phil1nj wrote: »

Also funnily enough, it looks like govt spending came to about 48 Billion back in 2006 (I don't seem to recall the country being on the bones of it's arse back then) so I can't understand why 6 years later the bill for running the country is still so high. But that's just me.

Read the expenditure review I linked to:

In 2011, total voted current expenditure was lower by almost 5% compared to 2009. In 2012 it will be almost 7% lower than its peak. This gross trend masks the fact that much deeper reductions were necessary in order to counter a number of very significant increases in certain
areas.
�� The rise of unemployment has exerted heavy pressure on the Social Protection budget. In terms of direct payments, spending on payments to Jobseekers in 2011 was over three times the 2006 level.
�� This has knock-on effects in terms of health expenditure as entitlements to medical cards and other benefits have increased as a direct result.
�� A necessary corollary to the reductions in public service staffing numbers has been some measure of increase in public service pension expenditure.
�� Demographic pressures are manifest in a number of areas. Growth in birth rates has implications for education programme expenditure in particular. Reductions have had to be made elsewhere to counteract these effects.

If you've three times as many unemployed people as you did in 2006, government expenditure is of course going to be higher as it was back then, especially considering that social welfare and health account for 67 per cent of all current government spending combined.

phil1nj

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Read the expenditure review I linked to:


If you've three times as many unemployed people as you did in 2006, government expenditure is of course going to be higher as it was back then, especially considering that social welfare and health account for 67 per cent of all current government spending combined.

This then comes back to the question of reform of both systems and serious investment in job creation schemes neither of which has happened.

There are much publicised inefficienies in both set-ups (HSE and SW) in this country and yet all we get is tinkering around the edges to fix them. Why is this?

Flex

Ghandee wrote: »

The true numbers of non payers will be shown when the charge rises from one hundred euro to (possibly) seven hundred euro.

Crap and fan will really come to mind when this happens.

How many families truly have 60 euro a month to pay a charge where you receive nothing for the money paid?

I'll keep repeating it, if it was seven hundred a year, which included bin charges, water charges, emergency services, education, health care etc. It could be considered nor a waste of money. (like rates in the six counties)
But to be expected to take an extra seven hundred from a families income (never mind future water charges, and an expected rise in prsi and USC) is lunacy by the govt.

Especially with the recent reports of a high percentage of families currently only having a hundred euro spare at the end of each month as it is.

Its frustrating seeing the above point over and over. Its been pointed out to you and others numerous times; we dont pay for the services we presently receive, we're using borrowed money to pay for them because the tax revenue we pay doesnt cover the full cost. Hence the need to raise taxes. We cant keep borrowing forever, eventually we have to cut the services, raise more taxes or do a combination of both. And before people start roaring "DHE BANKS!", the total government spending last year was about €70B and revenue was about €54B. The gap is €16B. Of that €16B euro, the cost of servicing interest for the bank bailout was €800m (5% of the deficit, the other 95% was for funding the gap between tax revenue and cost of services and welfare).

So, once again: we dont pay for the services we presently receive, we're using borrowed money to pay for them because the tax revenue we pay doesnt cover the full cost. Hence the need to raise taxes.

Im all for reducing government pay, pensions, perks and so on, but that would literally be a drop in the ocean; even if you made it so all government officials worked for nothing and received no pension or expenses, etc. it wouldnt even make a dent in the deficit. We need to take more decisive action.

Ghandee

Flex wrote: »

So, once again: we dont pay for the services we presently receive, we're using borrowed money to pay for them because the tax revenue we pay doesnt cover the full cost. Hence the need to raise taxes.

Fine.

What services though?

Hijpo

Flex wrote: »

Its frustrating seeing the above point over and over. Its been pointed out to you and others numerous times; we dont pay for the services we presently receive, we're using borrowed money to pay for them because the tax revenue we pay doesnt cover the full cost. Hence the need to raise taxes. We cant keep borrowing forever, eventually we have to cut the services, raise more taxes or do a combination of both. And before people start roaring "DHE BANKS!", the total government spending last year was about €70B and revenue was about €54B. The gap is €16B. Of that €16B euro, the cost of servicing interest for the bank bailout was €800m (5% of the deficit, the other 95% was for funding the gap between tax revenue and cost of services and welfare).

So, once again: we dont pay for the services we presently receive, we're using borrowed money to pay for them because the tax revenue we pay doesnt cover the full cost. Hence the need to raise taxes.

Im all for reducing government pay, pensions, perks and so on, but that would literally be a drop in the ocean; even if you made it so all government officials worked for nothing and received no pension or expenses, etc. it wouldnt even make a dent in the deficit. We need to take more decisive action.

Valid points but people will still be recieving services that they do not pay for. which will mean the peopl that are not exempt will have to foot the bill for everyone that is.

Id like to see the government give up all there expenses and pensions and salaries etc etc, put all that money back into the coffers, then get loans off the EU to pay there salaries and stuff, see how much the EU thinks they are worth for the job they do with the size of the country.

phil1nj

Flex wrote: »

Im all for reducing government pay, pensions, perks and so on, but that would literally be a drop in the ocean; even if you made it so all government officials worked for nothing and received no pension or expenses, etc. it wouldnt even make a dent in the deficit. We need to take more decisive action.

I understand what you are saying but so far this decisive action seems to involve nothing but taxation of one sort or other. It's been said before but is worth saying again, a govt cannot tax its way out of a recession. There is a a tipping point and most people (middle income earners I suspect) would agree that we are rapidly approaching that position.

Reform across all sectors is needed but when all people hear about is increased USC/PRSI/PAYE levels, property taxes, water charges etc backs will go up especially as nothing appears to be happening on the part of expenditure. How the hell did we end up in a situation where the leader of our country of just over 4 million people, is the 3rd best paid leader in the EU? And that's after he took a pay cut?

Chips Lovell

phil1nj wrote: »

...so far this decisive action seems to involve nothing but taxation of one sort or other....

It's already been pointed out to you that expenditure is being as well as taxes going up.

Hijpo

expenditure in the form of what middle class earners recieve and tax on middle class earnings and services.

phil1nj

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It's already been pointed out to you that expenditure is being as well as taxes going up.

Right so when are all public sector pensions going to be capped at a max of 100K PA. When are government ministers and TDs going to take a 20% cut in their salaries and switch to a vouched expense system? When are those who have been on the dole for the past 10 years or more going to have their payments stopped or severely reduced? When is the CPA going to be thrown out and a new deal renegotiated?

Just a few "austerity" measures that I can think of off the top of my head that might be considered decisive action that would affect expenditure and that don't involve taxation. I'm sure there are others but I don't want to go on a rant.

tbh

phil1nj wrote: »

Right so when are all public sector pensions going to be capped at a max of 100K PA. When are government ministers and TDs going to take a 20% cut in their salaries and switch to a vouched expense system? When are those who have been on the dole for the past 10 years or more going to have their payments stopped or severely reduced? When is the CPA going to be thrown out and a new deal renegotiated?

Just a few "austerity" measures that I can think of off the top of my head that might be considered decisive action that would affect expenditure and that don't involve taxation. I'm sure there are others but I don't want to go on a rant.

those options are easy for you because you don't have to implement them.

The government can't just change the contracts for things like pensions, they'd be brought to court and the public services in the country would grind to a halt. Ditto the CPA - this is a legally binding agreement that can't just be thrown out, and it needs the unions to agree to any terms before a new deal can be struck - otherwise, yeah, strikes.

It's easy sitting on the sidelines,with respect, saying things like "sure why don't we just pay the politicians nothing, cut the pay of nurses and cops, get rid of the dole and throw out the minimum wage". The reality is that the state is made up of many many moving parts and you can't just take a hatchet to any of them, no matter how attractive that might seem to someone on the outside.

Case in point - if your employer came to you and said "profits are down, I have to cut costs, you're now going to have to work for 1/4 of what you used to be paid" - how would you react? quit? strike? I can tell you, what you wouldn't do - you wouldn't just take it and carry on as normal.

Guill

tbh wrote: »

Case in point - if your employer came to you and said "profits are down, I have to cut costs, you're now going to have to work for 1/4 of what you used to be paid" - how would you react? quit? strike? I can tell you, what you wouldn't do - you wouldn't just take it and carry on as normal.

I took a 20% pay cut for that exact reason, of course I carryu on as normal. Who the **** would quit?? Where would you go?

tbh

Guill wrote: »

I took a 20% pay cut for that exact reason, of course I carryu on as normal. Who the **** would quit?? Where would you go?

ha! fair point.

Chips Lovell

phil1nj wrote: »

Right so when are all public sector pensions going to be capped at a max of 100K PA.

You can't unilaterally do this. You have to do it with the agreement of the workers themselves.

phil1nj wrote: »

When are government ministers and TDs going to take a 20% cut in their salaries and switch to a vouched expense system?

Our public representatives are still fairly well paid yes, even after a few pay cuts. But the Oireachtas pay bill is a very small amount of all public spending.

phil1nj wrote: »

When are those who have been on the dole for the past 10 years or more going to have their payments stopped or severely reduced?

What do you propose these people do when they have their dole stopped?

phil1nj wrote: »

When is the CPA going to be thrown out and a new deal renegotiated?

2014.

phil1nj

tbh wrote: »

those options are easy for you because you don't have to implement them.

The government can't just change the contracts for things like pensions, they'd be brought to court and the public services in the country would grind to a halt. Ditto the CPA - this is a legally binding agreement that can't just be thrown out, and it needs the unions to agree to any terms before a new deal can be struck - otherwise, yeah, strikes.

It's easy sitting on the sidelines,with respect, saying things like "sure why don't we just pay the politicians nothing, cut the pay of nurses and cops, get rid of the dole and throw out the minimum wage". The reality is that the state is made up of many many moving parts and you can't just take a hatchet to any of them, no matter how attractive that might seem to someone on the outside.

Case in point - if your employer came to you and said "profits are down, I have to cut costs, you're now going to have to work for 1/4 of what you used to be paid" - how would you react? quit? strike? I can tell you, what you wouldn't do - you wouldn't just take it and carry on as normal.

I don't agree. I work in the private sector and I , like many others, had to take a pay cut several years ago (a temporary one I might add). This was done for the greater good as we avoided having to lay anyone off as a result of this. There was not strike action, no diputes, but I needed to earn so it had to be done. I also know the value of a well maintained and well staffed public sector but there is no denying that there is a layer of fat that needs to be cut to ensure value for money and efficiency and so far no one has seen any significant reform happening since the CPA was put in place

These are extraordinary times and these were some of the ideas that would reflect "true austerity". They could also be seen as being for the greater good considering the state is bankrupt. You say that the CPA and pensions are part of a legally binding contract with the goverment, I'm not disputing that but times have changed and we are no longer in a position to pay these charges (ffs we are borrowing money just to fund the day to day running of the country). I also thought the CPA had a clause whereby a deteriorating economic situation could warrant a renegotiation of the agreement if so required?)

Like I said, the above ideas would reflect decisive action that would significantly reduce expenditure without having to cut services or increase taxes. I never said it would be easy and thats probably why people like me are not in government. But tinkering around the edges and carrying on as if all is well whilst taxing citizens excessively is not the answer either.

Hijpo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You can't unilaterally do this. You have to do it with the agreement of the workers themselves.



Our public representatives are still fairly well paid yes, even after a few pay cuts. But the Oireachtas pay bill is a very small amount of all public spending.



What do you propose these people do when they have their dole stopped?



2014.

So they need to be in agreement with something before it can happen, but we just have to bow down and take it if we dont agree?

The amount of public representatives with there advisors and secretaries and drivers and who ever else they have working with them.
If they have alot of services subsidised and tax exemptions why the need for the huge salaries and pensions?

the money just rolls in for them and they dont have to spent half of it.

Dont stop the dole, but certainly dont make it easy for them to live like someone who has to earn there money with a 39 hour week.

Chips Lovell

Hijpo wrote: »

So they need to be in agreement with something before it can happen, but we just have to bow down and take it if we dont agree?

It's the same if your employer wants to cut your pay. You have to agree to it.

Hijpo

Most are given an ultimatum, take the cut or the company closes. if anyone decided to quit there job before a reduction in wages then thats there business, but 99% would take that cut.

I would take a pay cut to keep my job, but they dont have to because they have no fear of being let go, if they do get let go they get a big pay off. If they make a balls of the whole thing and are forced to resign they get a big pay off.

beggars belief really.

phil1nj

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You can't unilaterally do this. You have to do it with the agreement of the workers themselves.

What if it was voluntary? Something along the lines of - We are broke, sorry about ballsing everything up, but would you mind helping us out by only living off 2K a week until we get ourselves out of this hole? Can't see it happening but then again why would they need to do this when the taxpayer will take the hit because they won't.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Our public representatives are still fairly well paid yes, even after a few pay cuts. But the Oireachtas pay bill is a very small amount of all public spending. .

To quote Tesco's slogan, every little helps. It also shows the electorate that they are serious when they talk about cutting expenditure and austerity.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What do you propose these people do when they have their dole stopped?.

I could be smart here and say they've had ten years or so to consider their options but I won't. How about make them go for training (or retraining as the case may be), engage with community service programmes, make them actively show that they are looking for work, something that involves them giving something back in return for their weekly payment. If they fail to deliver on any of the above then the question needs to be asked, just what exactly are they contributing to their society? And should they receive the same support as someone who actively engages in any of the above?

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

2014.

Fantastic. Only 2 more years to go.

donalg1

phil1nj wrote: »

I don't agree. I work in the private sector and I , like many others, had to take a pay cut several years ago (a temporary one I might add). This was done for the greater good as we avoided having to lay anyone off as a result of this. There was not strike action, no diputes, but I needed to earn so it had to be done. I also know the value of a well maintained and well staffed public sector but there is no denying that there is a layer of fat that needs to be cut to ensure value for money and efficiency and so far no one has seen any significant reform happening since the CPA was put in place

These are extraordinary times and these were some of the ideas that would reflect "true austerity". They could also be seen as being for the greater good considering the state is bankrupt. You say that the CPA and pensions are part of a legally binding contract with the goverment, I'm not disputing that but times have changed and we are no longer in a position to pay these charges (ffs we are borrowing money just to fund the day to day running of the country). I also thought the CPA had a clause whereby a deteriorating economic situation could warrant a renegotiation of the agreement if so required?)

Like I said, the above ideas would reflect decisive action that would significantly reduce expenditure without having to cut services or increase taxes. I never said it would be easy and thats probably why people like me are not in government. But tinkering around the edges and carrying on as if all is well whilst taxing citizens excessively is not the answer either.

Havent the public sector taken a 14% pay cut on average in the last few years also. The excessive salaries need trimming and pensions too, the Govt salaries are a joke, how can the taoiseach be on a salary more than the POTUS. If they tear up the CPA and cut all the wages again of everyone there will be those on the lower end of the pay scale(those under 30k) that will end up in a position where they will be better off on the dole. So this wont really save a whole lot when you take into account the Medical Cards, Rent Allowance, Welfare Payments, lack of spending in the local economy meaning more cuts for the private sector employees and so on and so forth.

The top salaries and the top earners need to be hit more than anyone as the salary to tax to disposable income ratios is unfairly balanced towards the big earners, with the middle and lower income earners being forced to bear the brunt of austerity.

tbh

phil1nj wrote: »

Fantastic. Only 2 more years to go.

When the CPA was signed, were you complaining then? Or is it just now, with hindsight.

phil1nj

tbh wrote: »

When the CPA was signed, were you complaining then? Or is it just now, with hindsight.

I wasn't thrilled about it to be honest. But as the economic situation in this country gets worse the CPA is starting to come under increased scrutiny. I don't want to turn this in to another "private sector vs. public sector" debate but with the CPA in place large scale reform of the PS is just not possible as it stands. As another poster on here has already said, the lower paid PS workers should not be subjected to anymore harsh cuts but the flip side of this is that significantly higher paid PS workers are also protected by this agreement which ensures that the wage bill will not be substantially reduced anytime soon (not until 2014 at least). Just my opinion and I could very well be wrong.

Chips Lovell

What level of reduction in the public sector pay bill would you have liked to have seen under the CPA?

phil1nj

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

What level of reduction in the public sector pay bill would you have liked to have seen under the CPA?

A sliding scale would have been a good start (basically the reverse of benchmarking). Since anecdotal evidence pointed to the private sector taking pay cuts (fairly severe ones as well by the sounds of it) surely the PS should have followed suit to the same degree? The CPA prevented this from happening. I don't beleive in crucifying every PS worker but someone on 90K plus a year can take a 10% pay cut on the chin a lot easier than someone on 30K.