2013 budget preliminaries

murphaph

Lars1916 wrote: »

I'm sure, there are people thinking like that. But I'm also sure, there are people, who put high hopes into the new government and are disappointed, because there are no real signs of recovery. The new government is nothing more but implementing the old government's policies, imo.

The government have limited play room to be honest. They should make some more courageous decisions wrt. public sector pay reductions and targetted redundancies there but apart from that, they will still have to cut welfare somewhere and will still have to implement new taxes too.

No matter what they do, it will p!ss someone off. They don't have the luxury that Ahern had to run the ship onto the rocks with his one for everyone in the audience style.

mollymosfet

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Yes you are right you can add
increased property tax
Increased college fees
water rates
Generally anything that effects workers of your above there will harly be any increase in Vat as it got hammered last year, little or no extra tax on alachol oe cigs effects the unemployed the most no reduvtion on welfare and no reduction on PS wage rates even though they are one of the highest in Europe.

Tax the private sector out of existance.

High welfare rates are a myth:

http://www.eapn.ie/documents/1_Social%20Welfare%20How%20Ireland%20Compares%20in%20Europe.pdf

murphaph

mollymosfet wrote: »

High welfare rates are a myth:

http://www.eapn.ie/documents/1_Social%20Welfare%20How%20Ireland%20Compares%20in%20Europe.pdf

In table /: Table 7: General non-contributory maximum income per month (Situation on 1st January 2009) it says that in Germany the maximum non-contributory rate per month is €681. The only payment you're entitled to here if you haven't contributed a bean to the system is Hartz IV which is €374 a month in cash. In addition they will pay your health insurance (in Ireland covered by medical card) rent in a flat up to 50m² (in Ireland substantially covered either by social housing, RS or RAS) and your water (likely to be exempt in Ireland should charges be brought in), refuse (also free or subsidised in Ireland IIRC) and your heating costs (these would generally be a much bigger problem with Germany's colder winters, but even in Ireland there's some contribution towards it).

The figure given for Ireland (2009 figure) seems to be flat dole (€885 a month), with none of the side benefits included, so they shouldn't be included in the German figure either, but something extra is being included in the German figure as you only get €374 a month here and this was actually increased last year by a fiver, so it was lower in 2009. Something doesn't add up with the way they are comparing Ireland and Germany at least, so not sure if you can trust the rest of the figures and the publishers are involved in the poverty industry themselves, so have a vested interest in pushing this line.

Count Dooku

mollymosfet wrote: »

High welfare rates are a myth:

http://www.eapn.ie/documents/1_Social%20Welfare%20How%20Ireland%20Compares%20in%20Europe.pdf

no
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx

mollymosfet

murphaph wrote: »

In table /: Table 7: General non-contributory maximum income per month (Situation on 1st January 2009) it says that in Germany the maximum non-contributory rate per month is €681. The only payment you're entitled to here if you haven't contributed a bean to the system is Hartz IV which is €374 a month in cash. In addition they will pay your health insurance (in Ireland covered by medical card) rent in a flat up to 50m² (in Ireland substantially covered either by social housing, RS or RAS) and your water (likely to be exempt in Ireland should charges be brought in), refuse (also free or subsidised in Ireland IIRC) and your heating costs (these would generally be a much bigger problem with Germany's colder winters, but even in Ireland there's some contribution towards it).

The figure given for Ireland (2009 figure) seems to be flat dole (€885 a month), with none of the side benefits included, so they shouldn't be included in the German figure either, but something extra is being included in the German figure as you only get €374 a month here and this was actually increased last year by a fiver, so it was lower in 2009. Something doesn't add up with the way they are comparing Ireland and Germany at least, so not sure if you can trust the rest of the figures and the publishers are involved in the poverty industry themselves, so have a vested interest in pushing this line.

But if our Dole has been dropped by then, and theirs hasn't(to my knowledge) wouldn't it roughly even out?

There's also the issue of how likely people are to get those side benefits. Keep in mind with things like RAS you still have to pay a minimum contribution. €24(is it more again now? Not sure) sounds like nothing but it's a lot on €188 a week. You can get a heating allowance, but with recent cutbacks and rising gas prices it's no longer fully payed for in most cases. And no - bins are not paid for. You also can't ignore the cold hard numbers when it comes to spending on social protection. We are talking about overall spending here. Obviously this should be researched more accurately, but it still strongly suggests Ireland's welfare payments are not as high as people think they are. Right wingers who just basically want to sacrifice the disabled and elderly will always find some way of ignoring this though, so I guess it's a futile effort.

Either way, if our dole was so wonderfully high, people wouldn't be emigrating in droves.

mollymosfet

Count Dooku wrote: »

no
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx

What am I meant to be looking at here? I also get the feeling it doesn't take into account any of the points raised in the above article.

Again, the most damning figure is our overall spending on social protection.

Count Dooku

mollymosfet wrote: »

Either way, if our dole was so wonderfully high, people wouldn't be emigrating in droves.

if wouldn't be jobs here, Ireland wouldn't have such big immigration
Personal Public Service Numbers -Allocation By Nationality-All Countries 2011

Count Dooku

mollymosfet wrote: »

What am I meant to be looking at here? I also get the feeling it doesn't take into account any of the points raised in the above article.

whole article just rubbish based on incorrect figures

mollymosfet wrote: »

Again, the most damning figure is our overall spending on social protection.

only because in Ireland Jobseeker benefit doesn't depend from previous income

murphaph

mollymosfet wrote: »

But if our Dole has been dropped by then, and theirs hasn't(to my knowledge) wouldn't it roughly even out?

My point is that the data appears flawed. The changes made since the report was compiled are irrelevant to the accuracy of the reoport itself.

If the German figure was incorrectly derived, and I can't see how they derived it, then who knows how reliable the other figures are...

The organisation that put the report together are dependent on poverty in Ireland for their own incomes. These QUANGOs get government funding and often have very well paid directors. My mother used to work for one and they also used to produce fairly biased reports to support their continued funding (and with it their own jobs).

mollymosfet wrote: »

There's also the issue of how likely people are to get those side benefits. Keep in mind with things like RAS you still have to pay a minimum contribution. €24(is it more again now? Not sure) sounds like nothing but it's a lot on €188 a week. You can get a heating allowance, but with recent cutbacks and rising gas prices it's no longer fully payed for in most cases. And no - bins are not paid for. You also can't ignore the cold hard numbers when it comes to spending on social protection. We are talking about overall spending here. Obviously this should be researched more accurately, but it still strongly suggests Ireland's welfare payments are not as high as people think they are.

Well, this report (which IMO contains flaws) suggests it, but this report is from an organisation whose employees literally depend on the existence of poverty in Ireland for their own take home pay, so to be treated with a large pinch of salt

mollymosfet wrote: »

Either way, if our dole was so wonderfully high, people wouldn't be emigrating in droves.

I don't actually think people are, certainly not to the extent they were in the 80's

skafish

As Murphaph has mentioned them, didn't FG promise to at least halve the number of quangos before the election? Another broken promise (just like reducing the number of TDs by 20 and the pensions bill and getting rid of the seanad)?

BOHtox

skafish wrote: »

As Murphaph has mentioned them, didn't FG promise to at least halve the number of quangos before the election? Another broken promise (just like reducing the number of TDs by 20 and the pensions bill and getting rid of the seanad)?

I'm pretty sure doing each of them things requires strenuous legislation, discussion and planning. Don't count the chickens just yet

murphaph

skafish wrote: »

As Murphaph has mentioned them, didn't FG promise to at least halve the number of quangos before the election? Another broken promise (just like reducing the number of TDs by 20 and the pensions bill and getting rid of the seanad)?

Whilst no big fan of this government, it is unrealistic to expect the second 2 in short order as both will require not simply legislation but referenda.

The QUANGOs I'm not sure about tbh. If they haven't axed any of them then I'd be disappointed alright. I know some myself that are a pure waste of our money and only serve to keep some people in some very well paid jobs.

Godge

mollymosfet wrote: »

High welfare rates are a myth:

http://www.eapn.ie/documents/1_Social%20Welfare%20How%20Ireland%20Compares%20in%20Europe.pdf

Count Dooku wrote: »

no
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx

What is most shocking is to read the two reports together, accepting both at face value.

According to mollymosfet, the replacement rate in 2007 for a single person at the average wage was 34.5%, among the lowest in europe. By 2010, with Count Dooku's more recent figures, it had risen to 58%, easily the highest in Europe. Some of the other figures were truly astounding but that is the only figure that can be compared between the two. What is shows is that as wages went down between 2007 and 2010 (including wages in the public sector), social welfare continued to rise, and on a relative basis had made it much more attractive not to work.

Mr. teddywinkles

Godge wrote: »

What is most shocking is to read the two reports together, accepting both at face value.

According to mollymosfet, the replacement rate in 2007 for a single person at the average wage was 34.5%, among the lowest in europe. By 2010, with Count Dooku's more recent figures, it had risen to 58%, easily the highest in Europe. Some of the other figures were truly astounding but that is the only figure that can be compared between the two. What is shows is that as wages went down between 2007 and 2010 (including wages in the public sector), social welfare continued to rise, and on a relative basis had made it much more attractive not to work.

http://www.welfare.ie/ga/press/pressreleases/2012/pages/pr200712.aspx

Theres me thinking by reading these boards that the job seekers benefit was the full 21bn of the welfare bill.:rolleyes:

Did the job seekers benefit not go down twice

[Jackass]

The problem we have is that there is a trade off between the Economic benefit of tough decisions and the political tole it will take.

IF Enda Kenny made all the correct Economic decisions, he would be remembered with such disdain across all sectors of society in a comparable way to how Margaret Thatcher is remembered amongst the working class of the U.K.

What needs to be done? About 40% of the public sector need to be culled, the sector needs to be streamlined, factually, it is one of the most expensive and inefficient civil services in the world. It is more beneficial to the country to be paying people who are not needed 188 per week than 40 - 65,000 per year. There also needs to be a massive wage adjustment to those that remain, following Berties voodoo policies of buy votes now, let someone else sort it out later, by inflating the welfare and civil service pay rates to incredibly unsustainable levels.

This mainly relates to the administration side of the service and the culture that has spread amongst it. Short term reform may involve mass privatisation, which may not be beneficial in the long term.

Social welfare of the people you put out of jobs would need to be cut massively, perhaps to more in the region of 100 per week.

Complete and utter structural reform is long overdue and required for the entirety of our national services and funding needs to be drastically adjusted to required skillsets in order to get functioning health system, with much more nurses and much better paid to encourage enrollment and massive cuts to pencil pushers to make it affordable.

It's politically impossible to fix this Economy, however, it was politically massively advantageous to put in the framework for bankrupting the country as Bertie Ahern did.

The biggest missed opportunity as restoration of this country would have been the call Brian Cowen had to make, by committing political suicide and allowing the IMF to come into this country when it was required, at the very beginning, I think history would have reflected on him being a national hero who fell on his sword to save his country, but he didn't have either the foresight or perhaps the bravery to do this, or maybe even both, as the IMF is the only instrument with no political ramifications who could have made the tough calls and not have the fear of electorial backlash to hinder their judgement and ruthlessness in doing what is needed to be done.

Sica

[Jackass] wrote: »

factually, it is one of the most expensive and inefficient civil services in the world.

Just because you preface your assertion with the word "factually" doesn't make it factually correct. An OECD review of the Irish Public Sector in 2008 noted that "in comparison with other OECD countries Ireland thus has been able to deliver public services with a public sector that is relatively small given the size of the economy and labour force" (p22 http://www.oecd.org/gov/oecdpublicmanagementreviews-irelandtowardsanintegratedpublicservice.htm)

tails_naf

Sica wrote: »

Just because you preface your assertion with the word "factually" doesn't make it factually correct. An OECD review of the Irish Public Sector in 2008 noted that "in comparison with other OECD countries Ireland thus has been able to deliver public services with a public sector that is relatively small given the size of the economy and labour force" (p22 http://www.oecd.org/gov/oecdpublicmanagementreviews-irelandtowardsanintegratedpublicservice.htm)

In fairness - the numbers employed in the PS are mostly in line with other countries - but the cost of employing that number is high, and the efficiency/quality of the services delivered can leave a lot to be desired (depending on the service).
So I think [Jackass] was at least partially right that it is inefficient.

ardmacha

So I think [Jackass] was at least partially right that it is inefficient.

Well you could certainly say that he is completely right that it is partially inefficient!

The only question is whether the government has an handle on which bits are inefficient and which bits not and whether they are actually cutting the inefficient bits. You sometimes get the impression that it is easier to cut the efficient bits as they have some semblance of management.

Red Actor

[Jackass] wrote: »

What needs to be done? About 40% of the public sector need to be culled, the sector needs to be streamlined,

This mainly relates to the administration side of the service and the culture that has spread amongst it.

Social welfare of the people you put out of jobs would need to be cut massively, perhaps to more in the region of 100 per week.

Complete and utter structural reform is long overdue and required for the entirety of our national services and funding needs to be drastically adjusted to required skillsets in order to get functioning health system, with much more nurses and much better paid to encourage enrollment and massive cuts to pencil pushers to make it affordable.

.

40% cull blah blah blah get rid of admin blah blah blah
40% of teachers, gardai, army?

Are there figures to show how many pen pushers there are - how many people should be in the HSE and what should the split be between frontline doctors, nurses, care assitants, receptionist (ops a sneeky pen pusher got into my list of people who are needed).

I knowledge of the HSE is limited to what is in the media but I'm assuming that the now acknowledged mess in merging the health boards into the HSE and keeping ten HR, IT, accounts functions is being addressed. Again I'd assume that these surplus people are not being replaced when they leave and that 4 years on there is less fat than previously - public service employemnt is down about 10% from peak.

femur61

Red Actor wrote: »

40% cull blah blah blah get rid of admin blah blah blah
40% of teachers, gardai, army?

Are there figures to show how many pen pushers there are - how many people should be in the HSE and what should the split be between frontline doctors, nurses, care assitants, receptionist (ops a sneeky pen pusher got into my list of people who are needed).

I knowledge of the HSE is limited to what is in the media but I'm assuming that the now acknowledged mess in merging the health boards into the HSE and keeping ten HR, IT, accounts functions is being addressed. Again I'd assume that these surplus people are not being replaced when they leave and that 4 years on there is less fat than previously - public service employemnt is down about 10% from peak.

The peak was 2007-2008? In the local hospital for instance 20 years ago(sister in law - nurse) she said there was one sister now there are 8! If that is just one area then it goes without saying it is right across the sector in the HSE and all areas of the PS. So at the peak it was over inflated with staff so maybe it igetting back to levels of other countries.

bbam

femur61 wrote: »

The peak was 2007-2008? In the local hospital for instance 20 years ago(sister in law - nurse) she said there was one sister now there are 8! If that is just one area then it goes without saying it is right across the sector in the HSE and all areas of the PS. So at the peak it was over inflated with staff so maybe it igetting back to levels of other countries.

In the interest of fairness you hardly think that the hospitals should have the same structure as 20 years ago. The numbers of patients wouldnt be compatible, the level of diagnosis and treatment, patient care would be vastly better.
Honestly a 20 year old reference is useless. Who would want to go back 20 years in healthcare terms.

Sica

tails_naf wrote: »

In fairness - the numbers employed in the PS are mostly in line with other countries - but the cost of employing that number is high, and the efficiency/quality of the services delivered can leave a lot to be desired (depending on the service).
So I think [Jackass] was at least partially right that it is inefficient.

While a lot of people throw around figures about how our public service is way better paid than <insert name of country> people seem to forget that Ireland also has one of the highest costs of living in the EU and so the salaries for everyone, public and private sector, are mostly higher than in <insert name of country>.

Far too many people seem to think that there are entire office blocks full of pen pushers on the government payroll who effectively do nothing and who could be sacked with no impact on services were it not for the CPA. This is simply a fantasy.

femur61

bbam wrote: »

In the interest of fairness you hardly think that the hospitals should have the same structure as 20 years ago. The numbers of patients wouldnt be compatible, the level of diagnosis and treatment, patient care would be vastly better.
Honestly a 20 year old reference is useless. Who would want to go back 20 years in healthcare terms.

I appreciate that and thats very true but amount of sisters have increased, higher wages, but not the number of nurses. too many chiefs not enough indians. It has the same number of staff but just more people in a higher position. too many cheifs and not enogh indians.

brencog

I have read with alarm; incredulity; fear; et al, various threads on the economy of this small sod of earth we call Ireland. Most of the posts seem to revolve around arguments, for, or, against this or that. There seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of the current gov. to tackle the root cause of the seemingly insurmountable problems that face the Irish people ie, the greed of big business, greedy developers and "banksters". I personally do not know of anyone living beyond their means, although I'm sure there are plenty who threw caution to the wind whilst attempting to keep up with the people next door or down the road. There are several options open to this government, none of which I would expect them to exercise within the lifetime of anyone reading this, or anything else on the current state of affairs. As a very small country, I personally fail to see the necessity of maintaining the size of "defence forces" that Ireland currently does. Who or what for example, are we going to defend the country against...The only service we are most in need of is the naval service, and that for obvious reasons. Since we joined the EEC (European Enrichment Club) Irelands sees have been almost raped by fellow member states, to the detriment of native fishermen; and greed exists in that sector as well. A small air service to back up fishery patrols would seem to be just about it. If it is deemed absolutely essential to maintain an armed force, then National Service should be seriously considered. Almost all countries have a national service regime which, generally speaking, would appear to have a positive affect all round. As to local services, our cousins in the USA have had for some considerable time, "chain gangs" which save local gov. untold amounts of money in taxes. The gangs of workers from local prisons are renowned for the quality of their work, based on a simple premise; do good work, and get out every day (under guard of course) do bad work, don't get out. Like the meerkat said; "simples"...The wherewithal to get this country going to a position where ALL the citizens have a fair crack of the whip, lies with those entrusted with the stewardship of our welfare, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the guts needed to "give it a go", will be found to be very much seriously lacking.

Head The Wall

Sica wrote: »

While a lot of people throw around figures about how our public service is way better paid than <insert name of country> people seem to forget that Ireland also has one of the highest costs of living in the EU and so the salaries for everyone, public and private sector, are mostly higher than in <insert name of country>.

UK Public Sector workers get paid 7% more than Private sector workers but in Ireland it's 40% (average weekly wage). Considering the cost of living is the same for private sector or public in the same country can you explain the difference here in Ireland other than the PS is worth it.

Sica wrote: »

Far too many people seem to think that there are entire office blocks full of pen pushers on the government payroll who effectively do nothing and who could be sacked with no impact on services were it not for the CPA. This is simply a fantasy.

According to the McCarthy Report there are 6,000 excess unneeded admin positions in the HSE alone and the head of HR in the HSE has said there are 1,000 unneeded staff in the HR department.

That's roughly 2.5% straight away so yes it is true there are a lot of people sitting around either doing nothing (Bin men/planners etc) or else doing jobs that are not entirely necessary or that could be removed via efficiency processes.

Sica

Sica wrote: »

While a lot of people throw around figures about how our public service is way better paid than <insert name of country> people seem to forget that Ireland also has one of the highest costs of living in the EU and so the salaries for everyone, public and private sector, are mostly higher than in <insert name of country>.

Far too many people seem to think that there are entire office blocks full of pen pushers on the government payroll who effectively do nothing and who could be sacked with no impact on services were it not for the CPA. This is simply a fantasy.

Thats the chicken and egg scenario, we have a high cost center because there are so many indirect taxes, administration charges and vat on everything. If less money was spent on Social welfare and pubic sectors these charges could be reduced.

This would benefit the poor the most as most of these items are essentials. But it would reduce it for everybody. So the Government need to bite that public sector/social welfare bullet the way it should of been done 3 years ago.
Then set about reducing the cost of living in this country.

brencog

brencog wrote: »

I have read with alarm; incredulity; fear; et al, various threads on the economy of this small sod of earth we call Ireland. Most of the posts seem to revolve around arguments, for, or, against this or that. There seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of the current gov. to tackle the root cause of the seemingly insurmountable problems that face the Irish people ie, the greed of big business, greedy developers and "banksters". I personally do not know of anyone living beyond their means, although I'm sure there are plenty who threw caution to the wind whilst attempting to keep up with the people next door or down the road. There are several options open to this government, none of which I would expect them to exercise within the lifetime of anyone reading this, or anything else on the current state of affairs. As a very small country, I personally fail to see the necessity of maintaining the size of "defence forces" that Ireland currently does. Who or what for example, are we going to defend the country against...The only service we are most in need of is the naval service, and that for obvious reasons. Since we joined the EEC (European Enrichment Club) Irelands sees have been almost raped by fellow member states, to the detriment of native fishermen; and greed exists in that sector as well. A small air service to back up fishery patrols would seem to be just about it. If it is deemed absolutely essential to maintain an armed force, then National Service should be seriously considered. Almost all countries have a national service regime which, generally speaking, would appear to have a positive affect all round. As to local services, our cousins in the USA have had for some considerable time, "chain gangs" which save local gov. untold amounts of money in taxes. The gangs of workers from local prisons are renowned for the quality of their work, based on a simple premise; do good work, and get out every day (under guard of course) do bad work, don't get out. Like the meerkat said; "simples"...The wherewithal to get this country going to a position where ALL the citizens have a fair crack of the whip, lies with those entrusted with the stewardship of our welfare, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the guts needed to "give it a go", will be found to be very much seriously lacking.

All prisoners in jail for non payment of fees/charges etc should be released. Introduce legislation to have this removed from their social welfare or wages. If they are wealthy enough increase the fines to have the same financial impact.

It would serve multiple purposes, shorten court time, its a real dis incentive for all, we actually collect the fines, the jails are emptier, less prison officers needed etc...

antoobrien

Deleted User wrote: »

All prisoners in jail for non payment of fees/charges etc should be released. Introduce legislation to have this removed from their social welfare or wages. If they are wealthy enough increase the fines to have the same financial impact.

Finland & Switzerland already have something like that for speeding fines. They use formulae based on the income & severity of the offence to calculate the amount of the fine.

antoobrien

antoobrien wrote: »

Finland & Switzerland already have something like that for speeding fines. They use formulae based on the income & severity of the offence to calculate the amount of the fine.

It would be easy to introduce and effective, thats probably why they wouldn't do it here.:rolleyes:

jjmcclure

I think this country is in real trouble if the government continue to hike taxes/charges.

Highly mobile, high earner, high taxpayers will leave. I know I will. Even though the thought of having to leave family and friends behind is terrible I can no longer pay so much tax and see it wasted.

I have two kids, mortgage etc. I have a great job that pays well, but I loose so much in tax, PRSI, USC etc it is sickening! And then you hear about the allowances in the public sector!

People say "this will never happen in any great numbers". Just watch.
People who have educated themselves and worked hard to be successful expect a certain payback/lifestyle. Ireland can no longer provide that.

I have thought long and hard about what benefits my tax gets for my family and I. All I can think of is the school and child benefit. Thats it!! I pay private health, huge road tax etc.

Depressing the whole thing!!!

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats the chicken and egg scenario, we have a high cost center because there are so many indirect taxes, administration charges and vat on everything. If less money was spent on Social welfare and pubic sectors these charges could be reduced.

This would benefit the poor the most as most of these items are essentials. But it would reduce it for everybody. So the Government need to bite that public sector/social welfare bullet the way it should of been done 3 years ago.
Then set about reducing the cost of living in this country.

I suppose the high cost of land/property (especially prior to 2008), rents, insurance, legal/professional fees, raw materials, distribution costs (being a little island doesn't help!, although I don't think it fully explains why an Irish produced good can be bought more cheaply elsewhere), etc in no way contribute to difference in the cost of living between countries?

Sica

Head The Wall wrote: »

UK Public Sector workers get paid 7% more than Private sector workers but in Ireland it's 40% (average weekly wage). Considering the cost of living is the same for private sector or public in the same country can you explain the difference here in Ireland other than the PS is worth it.




According to the McCarthy Report there are 6,000 excess unneeded admin positions in the HSE alone and the head of HR in the HSE has said there are 1,000 unneeded staff in the HR department.

That's roughly 2.5% straight away so yes it is true there are a lot of people sitting around either doing nothing (Bin men/planners etc) or else doing jobs that are not entirely necessary or that could be removed via efficiency processes.

Since the McCarthy Report was published the public sector has contracted by about 6%, with the bulk of these coming from the health sector, over twice the 2.5% "straight away" reductions you identified.

Re UK Public Sector, got a link? (read that as a genuine request for info and not an out of hand dismissal of you point)

beeno67

Sica wrote: »

While a lot of people throw around figures about how our public service is way better paid than <insert name of country> people seem to forget that Ireland also has one of the highest costs of living in the EU and so the salaries for everyone, public and private sector, are mostly higher than in <insert name of country>.

.

http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm
Dublin now ranks 72 in cost of living rankings. Hardly "one of the highest in EU".

Or this one which looks at EU cities only.
http://www.xpatulator.com/cost-of-living-article/Cost-of-Living-Europe-July-2012_353.cfm
Dublin ranked 57 in Europe below most UK cities

Sica

Actually if you strip out the non-EU cities on the second list (which features a lot of Russian cities inter alia) Dublin is 36th.

Given the survey was of 780 locations, Dublin featuring as high as it did suggests that it still is a reasonably expensive city, despite a fall in the rankings in recent years. Also, by looking at Dublin exclusively fails to take on board that the rest of the country is pretty dear too:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/food-prices-make-us-fifth-dearest-eu-nation-3147115.html

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Comparative_price_levels,_2000-2010_%281%29_%28final_consumption_by_private_households_including_indirect_taxes,_EU-27%3D100%29.png&filetimestamp=20120328105151

Ireland's score on this table of 118 puts it way above the EU27 average of 100 (which is the same as the UK) and puts us on a par for prices with Luxembourg.

murphaph

beeno67 wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm
Dublin now ranks 72 in cost of living rankings. Hardly "one of the highest in EU".

Or this one which looks at EU cities only.
http://www.xpatulator.com/cost-of-living-article/Cost-of-Living-Europe-July-2012_353.cfm
Dublin ranked 57 in Europe below most UK cities

Been saying this to irish friends and family for quite some time. If people think the cost of living in Dublin is bad, take a look at Munich etc. Even Berlin is getting "expensive" and the wages wouldn't touch Ireland.

Ireland isn't as expensive as people make out, especially when you take booze and fags out of the equation. Someone renting a 3 bed semi in the Dublin suburbs might be paying 100 or 200 a month more than the equivalent in Berlin. Some things are more expensive here (electricity, gas, petrol to name some).

It's simply a BS excuse not to bring the standard of living into line with our Western European neighbours. The PS in Ireland have at least a 30% pay premium over the private sector (some say it's more like 50%). In the UK it's 7%.

I provided a study to show that the biggest gaps in pay between public and private sectors occur in the PIIGS countries with Ireland right up there when hourly pay rates are compared. There's no good reason for this: taxpayers are just being fleeced in Ireland.

beeno67

Sica wrote: »

Actually if you strip out the non-EU cities on the second list (which features a lot of Russian cities inter alia) Dublin is 36th.

Given the survey was of 780 locations, Dublin featuring as high as it did suggests that it still is a reasonably expensive city, despite a fall in the rankings in recent years. Also, by looking at Dublin exclusively fails to take on board that the rest of the country is pretty dear too:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/food-prices-make-us-fifth-dearest-eu-nation-3147115.html

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Comparative_price_levels,_2000-2010_%281%29_%28final_consumption_by_private_households_including_indirect_taxes,_EU-27%3D100%29.png&filetimestamp=20120328105151

Ireland's score on this table of 118 puts it way above the EU27 average of 100 (which is the same as the UK) and puts us on a par for prices with Luxembourg.

Your figures are 2 years old. A hell of a lot has happened in the last 2 years. You may have noticed. Even with the figures as quoted look at the massive change between 2009 and 2010. That trend continued into 2011 & 2012.

Sica

The Indo article is just 3 months old!

While costs may have continued to drop over the last two years, the economy has been tanking across the EU, not just in Ireland. While Ireland may be cheaper than it once was relative to other EU member states, I reckon we're still well within the top half. Purely anecdotally I know, but things seem cheaper to me than in Ireland when I travel.

beeno67

Sica wrote: »

The Indo article is just 3 months old!

While costs may have continued to drop over the last two years, the economy has been tanking across the EU, not just in Ireland. While Ireland may be cheaper than it once was relative to other EU member states, I reckon we're still well within the top half. Purely anecdotally I know, but things seem cheaper to me than in Ireland when I travel.

Ireland last year had the lowest inflation in EU. Nothing has really changed in 2012
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-11-011/EN/KS-QA-11-011-EN.PDF
Add to that the weakness of the Euro over the last 2 years we have plummeted down that table.
The argument during the boom was that PS wages should be higher in Ireland because cost of living was higher than in the rest if Europe. Which it was.
Now that Irish prices are nowhere near the highest in Europe shouldn't wage come down to match?

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Been saying this to irish friends and family for quite some time. If people think the cost of living in Dublin is bad, take a look at Munich etc. Even Berlin is getting "expensive" and the wages wouldn't touch Ireland.

Ireland isn't as expensive as people make out, especially when you take booze and fags out of the equation. Someone renting a 3 bed semi in the Dublin suburbs might be paying 100 or 200 a month more than the equivalent in Berlin. Some things are more expensive here (electricity, gas, petrol to name some).

It's simply a BS excuse not to bring the standard of living into line with our Western European neighbours. The PS in Ireland have at least a 30% pay premium over the private sector (some say it's more like 50%). In the UK it's 7%.

I provided a study to show that the biggest gaps in pay between public and private sectors occur in the PIIGS countries with Ireland right up there when hourly pay rates are compared. There's no good reason for this: taxpayers are just being fleeced in Ireland.

In a lot of countries in europe the Cost of fuel is 20% higher. While also having higher rental costs. But what ever stats are needed will be brought out to insist the PS do not need a wage cut.

TheRealPONeil

murphaph wrote: »

.... Ireland isn't as expensive as people make out, especially when you take booze and fags out of the equation. Someone renting a 3 bed semi in the Dublin suburbs might be paying 100 or 200 a month more than the equivalent in Berlin. Some things are more expensive here (electricity, gas, petrol to name some).

It's simply a BS excuse not to bring the standard of living into line with our Western European neighbours. The PS in Ireland have at least a 30% pay premium over the private sector (some say it's more like 50%). In the UK it's 7%.....

>>> €48,000 The cost of running a family home

ardmacha

Ireland last year had the lowest inflation in EU. Nothing has really changed in 2012
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cac...-11-011-EN.PDF

So you produce data showing rising prices (and well done for actually linking to data), but then conclude that this is a justification for a pay decrease?

beeno67

ardmacha wrote: »

Ireland last year had the lowest inflation in EU. Nothing has really changed in 2012
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cac...-11-011-EN.PDF

So you produce data showing rising prices (and well done for actually linking to data), but then conclude that this is a justification for a pay decrease?

The argument earlier in the thread was that PS pay was among the highest in Europe but that was because prices in Ireland were among the highest in Europe.
So, if the argument that pay should be proportionate to costs, then, now costs in Ireland are much closer to the European average surely PS pay should be closer to the European average as well.

Incidentally I showed prices rose by the lowest rate in Europe in the year upto August 2011. My previous posts were how prices had reduced in Ireland in the previous years.

Before you say PS workers have had pay cuts already, some have some haven't. Many PS workers are now earning more than they were 4 years ago due to increments.

ardmacha

now costs in Ireland are much closer to the European average surely PS pay should be closer to the European average as well.

Hasn't it? What pay increases did people get in other European countries since 2008?

Many PS workers are now earning more than they were 4 years ago due to increments.

People's progression in their career is not the point.

beeno67

ardmacha wrote: »

What pay increases did people get in other European countries since 2008?

Exactly

ardmacha wrote: »

[People's progression in their career is not the point.

Yes it is, or at least one of the points, if they get automatic pay rises as they progress

murphaph

TheRealPONeil wrote: »

>>> €48,000 The cost of running a family home

For the love of God. Please read the garbage before posting a single link to what I can only describe as an advert for the AA:

* Car €4,878

The average Irish motorist drives 16,000km every year and the average price of petrol is €1.70 a litre. Driving the average family car which does 35mpg – which equals 12.4km per litre – the average Irish driver spends about €2,200 a year on petrol.
-couldn't people reduce their mileage and use a bike or walk for any local trips?

The cost of comprehensive insurance for two adults depends on a multiple of factors, notably location, driving history, no-claims bonus and type of car, but our notional family would have little change out of €800.
-Must people have the most expensive type of insureance, why not TPFT?

The average age of a car in Ireland is now more than seven years, so annual motor tax based on engine-size for a 1.6-litre mid-sized, fairly modern car will be another €478, while at least €400 will have to be put aside to cover servicing and maintenance. If you spend €10,000 on a car, keep it for five years and then sell it for half the price you paid for it, the annual cost is €1,000 which takes the total running costs to €4,878.
Do people really need to have 1.6L engines if they need the car at all? Why not downsize to a 1.2?

I really have to laugh at some of the other "essentials" the AA thinks we need (Digital TV anyone? I don't have that here in Germany, just make do with the terrestrial broadcasters)

It also uses the "boom time" mortgage repayment figures. I didn't buy my house in Dublin in the boom time. I'm not alone, not everybody went mad on credit. Those that did need to learn some life long lessons tbh.

More Garbage:

* Entertainment €3,000

Banks may like to consider this category a luxury, but the reality is people need an outlet and, according to the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, the cost of some class of social life is an essential part of any financial assessment.

But how much is appropriate? We carried out a straw poll on Twitter last week to see what people felt would be the right amount. While one person said they spent close to €700 a month on entertaining themselves, a great deal more said they had less than €100 left each month to spend once all essential bills were taken care of. Given the cost of play centres, swimming pools and cinema tickets, the online consensus which we would tend to agree with was that allowing €250 a month to cover the entertainment costs of our notional family of four would not be unreasonable. This would take the annual spend to €3,000.

Twittering people about how much they actually spend on entertainment is not research into the cost of running a household. It's just asking some people what they spend.

Maybe I'm weird, but I see a lot of that as rather frivolous. My SO cuts my hair with a clippers. I haven't been to the barbers in years. Men's hair can easily be cut at home, especially kids hair.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

So you produce data showing rising prices (and well done for actually linking to data), but then conclude that this is a justification for a pay decrease?

Can you explain the difference in premium between the public and private sectors in the UK/Ireland? Why do public sector workers in the UK get a 7% premium while in Ireland it is at least 30%, possibly as high as 50%??

Joe 90

murphaph wrote: »

Can you explain the difference in premium between the public and private sectors in the UK/Ireland? Why do public sector workers in the UK get a 7% premium while in Ireland it is at least 30%, possibly as high as 50%??

More to the point, why should the public sector anywhere get more than the private sector which pays the wages of the public sector?

Sica

Joe 90 wrote: »

More to the point, why should the public sector anywhere get more than the private sector which pays the wages of the public sector?

A premium can occur based on the occupations covered by the public sector. For example, healthcare is a big portion of the public sector and doctors are highly trained and skilled and have many years of higher education. This means that they can command quite a high salary. In the education sector all teachers need a minimum of one undergraduate degree and one higher diploma. Conversely a call centre worker in the private sector needs to be neither highly trained or skilled, can be easily replaced and therefore commands quite a low salary.

Depending on the composition of a given public sector, there may be a higher percentage of highly skilled workers than in the private sector. Similarly depending on the composition of the private sector there may be a higher percentage of low skilled workers. Anecdotally Ireland for exmaple seems to have a lot of retail workers and call centre workers for multinationals' customer support and the like.

If anyone has it I'd still like to see that link on the 7% premium in UK public sector...

murphaph

Sica wrote: »

A premium can occur based on the occupations covered by the public sector. For example, healthcare is a big portion of the public sector and doctors are highly trained and skilled and have many years of higher education. This means that they can command quite a high salary. In the education sector all teachers need a minimum of one undergraduate degree and one higher diploma. Conversely a call centre worker in the private sector needs to be neither highly trained or skilled, can be easily replaced and therefore commands quite a low salary.

Depending on the composition of a given public sector, there may be a higher percentage of highly skilled workers than in the private sector. Similarly depending on the composition of the private sector there may be a higher percentage of low skilled workers. Anecdotally Ireland for exmaple seems to have a lot of retail workers and call centre workers for multinationals' customer support and the like.

Ireland also has a "lot" of well paid software engineers and the like.

Sica wrote: »

If anyone has it I'd still like to see that link on the 7% premium in UK public sector...

BBC wrote:

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, public sector workers nationally earn around 8% more than staff in the private sector.

Source

The UK government sees this 8% national average pay premium as even too much and because of collective bargaining, PS workers in the UK (as in Ireland) get the same pay regardless of what region of the UK they live in (London premium excepted) so in some regions the premium compared to an equivalent private sector worker can be double or triple that national average. The UK government is set to introduce local pay bargaining based on postcodes to freeze pay of public servants in poorer regions to allow the premium to be reduced in those regions.

The Irish government meanwhile stands firm behind an agreement that guarantees the much larger public sector premium in Ireland remains! It's like night and day. Anyone with any sense should get out and head to the UK or further afield tbh. The lunatics are running the asylum at home

Head The Wall

ardmacha wrote: »

People's progression in their career is not the point.

It's a bit of a joke to claim getting an increment is career progression, sure they just get paid more for doing the same job regardless whether it is good or bad (I accept that they may be a bit stricter on awarding them now but it's a bit late at this stage)

Sica wrote: »

A premium can occur based on the occupations covered by the public sector. For example, healthcare is a big portion of the public sector and doctors are highly trained and skilled and have many years of higher education. This means that they can command quite a high salary. In the education sector all teachers need a minimum of one undergraduate degree and one higher diploma. Conversely a call centre worker in the private sector needs to be neither highly trained or skilled, can be easily replaced and therefore commands quite a low salary.

Depending on the composition of a given public sector, there may be a higher percentage of highly skilled workers than in the private sector. Similarly depending on the composition of the private sector there may be a higher percentage of low skilled workers. Anecdotally Ireland for exmaple seems to have a lot of retail workers and call centre workers for multinationals' customer support and the like.

This issue is also relevant in the UK, so it's a misnomer to try and bring it into this discussion

Sica wrote: »

If anyone has it I'd still like to see that link on the 7% premium in UK public sector...

The most recent stats are up to July 2012, Private is at £468 and Public is at £485 so it has actually decreased, the difference is 3.6%

Link is here