CSO report on public-private pay gap

frankosw

OMD wrote: »

How do you make it 15%?
Are you talking those earning over €100k or everyone?

7.5% contribution plus the same again in Pension Levy.

15% give or take.


Why,how much do you think it is?

OMD

frankosw wrote: »

7.5% contribution plus the same again in Pension Levy.

15% give or take.


Why,how much do you think it is?

I like your Give or take. Only those earning 50K or so pay 7.5% pension levy. Standard contribution is 6.5% not the 7.5% you say. So average pension contribution is about 13%

frankosw

OMD wrote: »

When you may be eligible to another round of increments.

Nope. There's a moratorium on PS promotions and recruitment.

OMD wrote: »

Increments not subject to performance review?

They're subject to you passing your probationary period..the PS rewards people(badly) who decide to stick the job out.

OMD

frankosw wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

When you may be eligible to another round of increments.

Nope. There's a moratorium on PS promotions and recruitment.




They're subject to you passing y9our probationary period..the PS rewards people(badly) who decide to stick teh job out.

People can be promoted still and are being promoted. Far less than before but it still happens. Increments are subject to performance review. You may be unaware of this but it is true

frankosw

OMD wrote: »

I like your Give or take. Only those earning 50K or so pay 7.5% pension levy. Standard contribution is 6.5% not the 7.5% you say. So average pension contribution is about 13%

Average?

There's that word again..I pay 15%.

OMD

frankosw wrote: »

Average?

There's that word again..I pay 15%.

Well you earn must earn €85,000 a year which is hardly representative of public sector in general

frankosw

OMD wrote: »

People can be promoted still and are being promoted. Far less than before but it still happens.

Can you back this up please?

OMD wrote: »

Increments are subject to performance review. You may be unaware of this but it is true

No they are not.

No they are not.

You are talking nonsenese.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

Within the worker's initial salary scale increments are awarded automatically every year and are NOT subject to performance reveiw.

Over and above the maximum point of the salary an increment is not awarded and any further rise must be part of a promotion.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You sure about that now?

OMD

frankosw wrote: »

Can you back this up please?



No they are not.

No they are not.

You are talking nonsenese.

Yes they are.
Yes they are.
Yes they are.
You are talking nonsense. So many public servants come on here totally clueless like yourself yet they spout on and on about how everybody is wrong. You do not understand increments or pensions. Increments are subject to performance review. The problem is despite this just about everyone gets their increments. People like yourself are even unaware that it is supposed to be subject to performance review. Just google it and you will find loads of links confirming it.

This is from "A Review of the Civil Service Grading and Pay System"
In theory salary increments are linked to satisfactory performance but in practice only in very rare cases are increases withheld.

Itchianus

frankosw wrote: »

Can you back this up please?



No they are not.

No they are not.

You are talking nonsenese.

I'm afraid you're the one talking waffle Frank; as I write this I'm sitting here looking at the empty desk of a colleague who got promoted a few months ago. There's also limited recruitment in some areas, this is also a fact, see the recent AO competitions in several Depts for example.

And in any areas that have PMDS in place, and isn't that supposed to be everywhere, increments are subject to performance. This had been a rating of at least 2 out of 5, but there has been talk that in the future a 3 will be required.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

Yes i'm sure i've worked 19 years in my job and had two promotions..i know how the system works.


Tell me how YOU know better?

All the posts on here that say contrary, the official documentation that says different, the media reports and interviews with the minister in charge that say different.

Stop the bickering and personal insults or infractions and bans to follow. Last mod warning.

In addition please remember which forum this is and back up any major claims where possible.

Farmer Pudsey

frankosw wrote: »

But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.

Yes the state may provide a state funded pebsion however due to the ne rules may self employed many not qualify for a full state pension. The state will not provide 50% of my retiring pay even if I have 40 years contribution. Also due to new rules any worker have to average 48 contributions for each working year to qualify for a full pension. For some of my generation who started work at 15 and 16 with a later retiring age this may mean a 52 year working life. If I wist to retire at 60 like the PS allows I have to fund from 60 years of age myself. If I do not contribute I will recieve very little unless I am pennyless.

And the last remark is a bit condecending I lnow a few farmers that are not well off and that struggle to make a living. It is often a choice between bread on the table spending money on the farm.

And yes I am investing over 15% of my income way over still have a good few years of repayments

creedp wrote: »

Ah c'mon didn't the farmers get a priviledged position in the 'Partnership' process and could have derailed any deals done if they felt so emotive about it. Truth was the farmers did fairly well out of the process themselves, hence the tacit agreement with all things Partnership. Eaten bread ........

What costs? Bottom line is that without government supports, farming would not be competitive in Ireland. I'm not advocating the removal of supports as I think its right to support farming (especially small full time farmers who make a living from the land as against the factory farmers like O'Leary and many others who treat it like a hobby which the taxpayer very hansomely supports) which is an indigenous industry and supports many jobs in the country. However, I always find it a little hard to swallow when I hear farmers complaining about their lot and blaming other sectors for their plight. I know plenty of farmers who are doing very nicely thank you very much and visiting a mart will give you a quick insight into the vibrancy of the farming spending power. On a bright sunny day you would need shades for protection from the sun reflecting off those lovely shiny trailers and 4wds.

First of all most supports come from europe not from the state. Farming is the basis of a 22 billion industry. And yes visiting a mart is an intresting experience however if you wish to make a fortune that you consider the farmers are making you can invest like I did. It is not a closed industry.

frankosw wrote: »

Another "industry" where there's plenty of scope for creative book keeping..

Like most sole trader I get my accounts done every year by an accountant. The rules are made by revenue all I or any sole trader do is follow them.

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If I wist to retire at 60 like the PS allows
.

Normal retirement age is 65 years of age not 60.

Farmer Pudsey

frankosw wrote: »

Normal retirement age is 65 years of age not 60.

Loads of PS my age will be able to retire at 60. And a lot of one younger have that option as well. So it is quite all right for these people to have this option but not for me. I will not be retired completely but I am hoping to scale down my workload. I have worked on average 60-80 hour weeks since the early noughties. I had to make a choice on how to fund my old age and choose this method as I do not have faith in pension fund's and did not wish to be a landlord

RobbieTheRobber

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Loads of PS my age will be able to retire at 60. And a lot of one younger have that option as well. So it is quite all right for these people to have this option but not for me. I will not be retired completely but I am hoping to scale down my workload. I have worked on average 60-80 hour weeks since the early noughties. I had to make a choice on how to fund my old age and choose this method as I do not have faith in pension fund's and did not get wist to be a landlord

Who can retire at 60 on a full pension?

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Who can retire at 60 on a full pension?

Nurses, prison officers, gardai, firefighters & teachers

Farmer Pudsey

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Who can retire at 60 on a full pension?

OMD wrote: »

Nurses, prison officers, gardai, firefighters & teachers

Most council staff also and did the judges not fight to have that right extended to them latly

OMD

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Most council staff also and did the judges not fight to have that right extended to them latly

Yes you are right. I forgot that.

frankosw

OMD wrote: »

Nurses, prison officers, gardai, firefighters & teachers

They're tough jobs..i wouldnt begrudge them early retirement.

gerryo777

frankosw wrote: »

They're tough jobs..i wouldnt begrudge them early retirement.

Yea, here lads, because you have a pretty much unsackable position, guaranteed pay,conditions, perks and allowances, and a chunky pension to look forward to we'll allow you retire 6 or 8 years earlier than normal people in the private sector.
And people wonder why this country is fcuked, the sense of entitlement in our precious PS is breathtaking.

frankosw

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, here lads, because you have a pretty much unsackable position, guaranteed pay,conditions, perks and allowances, and a chunky pension to look forward to we'll allow you retire 6 or 8 years earlier than normal people in the private sector.
And people wonder why this country is fcuked, the sense of entitlement in our precious PS is breathtaking.

So you would like to work as a nurse wiping pus off tracheotomy tubes and telling people thier children will probably die?

Or a prison Officer getting slashed across the face by a razor blade melted into a toothbrush handle?

Maybe you have the moral fibre to ascend a 100 ft ladder into a burning building to try and rescue people trapped in a smoke filled room?


Where are the private sector equiviants to these jobs???

gerryo777

frankosw wrote: »

So you would like to work as a nurse wiping pus off tracheotomy tubes and telling people thier children will probably die?

Or a prison Officer getting slashed across the face by a razor blade melted into a toothbrush handle?

Maybe you have the moral fibre to ascend a 100 ft ladder into a burning building to try and rescue peopel trapped in a smoke filled room?


Where are the private sector equiviants to these jobs???

If people like this don't want their jobs, move aside and someone who appreciates a challenge will do them.
It's not conscription you know, they're not forced to do these things.
Vacuous argument!

frankosw

gerryo777 wrote: »

Yea, here lads, because you have a pretty much unsackable position.

Guards get sacked all the time..firemen too...and nurses..27 people on contracts in my job were also let go...i suppose thatt doesnt count though?

gerryo777 wrote: »

, guaranteed pay.

Who would take a job where you're not guaranteed pay? A voluntary worker maybe?

gerryo777 wrote: »

, conditions.

Yep..great conditions in hospitals,schools and prisons.

gerryo777 wrote: »

chunky pension to look forward to we'll allow you retire 6 or 8 years earlier than normal people in the private sector..

So the normal retirement age is 65 in the PS..who has to work til they are 73 in teh private sector??

gerryo777 wrote: »

And peope wonder why this couuntry is fcuked.

No they dont..they know who caused it to be fcuked..the private sector crooks who are now trying to deflect blame away from themselves.

gerryo777 wrote: »

the sense of entitlement in our precious PS is breathtaking.

Do you think?

Tell you what,see how long the country would last without the public services you take for granted...you wouldnt last two days.

frankosw

gerryo777 wrote: »

If people like this don't want their jobs, move aside and someone who appreciates a challenge will do them.

No they wouldnt..anybody leaving the PS now will not be replaced..its part of a cost saving measure apparantly.

And i love this stuff..for years we couldnt get people to take jobs in the PS coz the pay want good enough for the entitled lil graduate boys and girls who thought they wernt getting paid enough.

Now suddenly the country is full of go-getters who are up to change the world through hard work and a solid background in economics.

Too late..due to pressure form the Govt the PS is no longer recruiting you'll have to make do with declining service until the moratorium is lifted!

See if theres any further cuts to pay too...that wont improve services either..peopel are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Jaysoose

frankosw wrote: »

No they wouldnt..anybody leaving the PS now will not be replaced..its part of a cost saving measure apparantly.

And i love this stuff..for years we couldnt get people to take jobs in the PS coz the pay want good enough for the entitled lil graduate boys and girls who thought they wernt getting paid enough.

Now suddenly the country is full of go-getters who are up to change the world through hard work and a solid background in economics.

Too late..due to pressure form the Govt the PS is no longer recruiting you'll have to make do with declining service until the moratorium is lifted!

See if theres any further cuts to pay too...that wont improve services either..peopel are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The bit in bold is the biggest and most consistent lie told in regards to the public service and recruitment during the boom, public service jobs were oversubscribed with applicants during this time.

Your take on whats happening is so far from reality its scary and some of the posts you have made today are at best complete lies and at worst something you believe to be the truth.

southsiderosie

Jaysoose wrote: »

The bit in bold is the biggest and most consistent lie told in regards to the public service and recruitment during the boom, public service jobs were oversubscribed with applicants during this time.

Your take on whats happening is so far from reality its scary and some of the posts you have made today are at best complete lies and at worst something you believe to be the truth.

MOD NOTE:

First, per the previous mod warning, cut it out. This is unnecessarily personal.

Second, if you think that another poster is wrong, you need to come up with some actual proof that a) they are wrong and/or b) they are being deliberately misleading.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

And the last remark is a bit condecending I lnow a few farmers that are not well off and that struggle to make a living. It is often a choice between bread on the table spending money on the farm.

Agree it can be quite condecending to claim that another person is overpaid or under taxed when you don't know their circumstances. And just like every sector there are farmers who are in difficulty - many because they over invested maybe on a house or a farm or shares etc. No different to any other sector then.

And yes I am investing over 15% of my income way over still have a good few years of repayments

You are probably lucky you invested in a more sure thing than the stock market or a residential house, particularly buy-to-let. Many people are paying a lot more for these investments and will have absolutely no return - farm land is pretty stable in contrast.

First of all most supports come from europe not from the state. Farming is the basis of a 22 billion industry. And yes visiting a mart is an intresting experience however if you wish to make a fortune that you consider the farmers are making you can invest like I did. It is not a closed industry.

I think you'll find that the Irish taxpayer also contributes to the EU funds so yes the Irish taxpayer is contributing to farm supports. The idea that farm supports magically appear from the EU doesn't really stack up anymore.

Like most sole trader I get my accounts done every year by an accountant. The rules are made by revenue all I or any sole trader do is follow them.

Just like everybody else .. as a sole trader and a PAYE taxpayer can you tell me which one is easier to play?

woodoo

OMD wrote: »

Increments are subject to performance review. The problem is despite this just about everyone gets their increments. People like yourself are even unaware that it is supposed to be subject to performance review. Just google it and you will find loads of links confirming it.

This is from "A Review of the Civil Service Grading and Pay System"
In theory salary increments are linked to satisfactory performance but in practice only in very rare cases are increases withheld.

In some areas of the Public Service it is not subject to any review.

robp

frankosw wrote: »

No they wouldnt..anybody leaving the PS now will not be replaced..its part of a cost saving measure apparantly.

And i love this stuff..for years we couldnt get people to take jobs in the PS coz the pay want good enough for the entitled lil graduate boys and girls who thought they wernt getting paid enough.

Now suddenly the country is full of go-getters who are up to change the world through hard work and a solid background in economics.

Too late..due to pressure form the Govt the PS is no longer recruiting you'll have to make do with declining service until the moratorium is lifted!

See if theres any further cuts to pay too...that wont improve services either..peopel are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Is there really a true moratorium still in place? I am seeing regular replacement of retiring staff in third level.

Itchianus

robp wrote: »

Is there really a true moratorium still in place? I am seeing regular replacement of retiring staff in third level.

A "true moratorium", by which I presume you mean an absolute and total moratorium, would hardly make much sense really, would it? It's not like you can redeploy a surplus person from another Department to replace a highly specialised person whose role can't be left vacant.

sock puppet

There isn't a total ban on recruitment/promotion. There has been recruitment and promotion as needed throughout the past few years.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/07/19/00150.asp

frankosw wrote: »

Now suddenly the country is full of go-getters who are up to change the world through hard work and a solid background in economics.

Too late..due to pressure form the Govt the PS is no longer recruiting you'll have to make do with declining service until the moratorium is lifted!

Economics grads were actually some of the people the government sought in the latest round of recruitment a few months ago...

frankosw

Itchianus wrote: »

A "true moratorium", by which I presume you mean an absolute and total moratorium, would hardly make much sense really, would it? It's not like you can redeploy a surplus person from another Department to replace a highly specialised person whose role can't be left vacant.

Of course it doesnt make sense...it was a knee jerk reaction to accusations of overspending.

What they should have done is promoted an early exit scheme for members with "x" amount of service and then hired young blood to fill the gaps..now they have a highly demoralised workforce with a lot of younger members with no hope of promotion anytime soon who have already taken cuts to pretty meagre pay.

Remember this...anything the govt does it tends to make a mess of.

Farmer Pudsey

frankosw wrote: »

Guards get sacked all the time..firemen too...and nurses..27 people on contracts in my job were also let go...i suppose thatt doesnt count though?

Who would take a job where you're not guaranteed pay? A voluntary worker maybe?

Yep..great conditions in hospitals,schools and prisons.

So the normal retirement age is 65 in the PS..who has to work til they are 73 in teh private sector??

No they dont..they know who caused it to be fcuked..the private sector crooks who are now trying to deflect blame away from themselves.

Do you think?

Tell you what,see how long the country would last without the public services you take for granted...you wouldnt last two days.

You have to retire at 65 however you may retire at 60 in the public service even if you have not got full service. The numbers sacked out of the PS is minimal and is only in cases of gross misconduct.

I do not think I am a crook and am not trying to deflect anything away from myself. If I made statements about the public servics as you make about the private sector I think the mods would be on to me.

frankosw wrote: »

No they wouldnt..anybody leaving the PS now will not be replaced..its part of a cost saving measure apparantly.

And i love this stuff..for years we couldnt get people to take jobs in the PS coz the pay want good enough for the entitled lil graduate boys and girls who thought they wernt getting paid enough.

Now suddenly the country is full of go-getters who are up to change the world through hard work and a solid background in economics.

Too late..due to pressure form the Govt the PS is no longer recruiting you'll have to make do with declining service until the moratorium is lifted!

See if theres any further cuts to pay too...that wont improve services either..peopel are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Between 2000-2008 I think about 60K people were added to the public service, the numbers stood at about 260K in 2000. Assuming a 2.5% natural turnover that means that about 120K people were recruited into the public service in that time .

For an area that thinks it has issues recruiting that was not too bad to replace all that left and to rise numbers by 60K

[QUOTE=creedp;81785600
You are probably lucky you invested in a more sure thing than the stock market or a residential house, particularly buy-to-let. Many people are paying a lot more for these investments and will have absolutely no return - farm land is pretty stable in contrast.

Just like everybody else .. as a sole trader and a PAYE taxpayer can you tell me which one is easier to play?[/QUOTE]

First thing luck had nothing to do with the choice I had no intrest in being a landlord, and I as Martin Luther King said ''I had a dream.''

Both has it advantages and disadvantages in reality bar dairying very few farmers can make a living from farming, however being self employed has it challanges while the security of collecting your money from an ATM on a friday is not to be sneered at.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Both has it advantages and disadvantages in reality bar dairying very few farmers can make a living from farming, however being self employed has it challanges while the security of collecting your money from an ATM on a friday is not to be sneered at.

I wouldn't sneer at any sector of the economy and I accept that each sector has its challenges and rewards. However, its a bit simplisitc to state that except for dairying very few farmers can make a living these days. Just as its a gross simplification of the truth to say that an average income of €18k or so represents the earning power of most farmers. Because of the proliferation of part-time/hobby type farming in Ireland the average income means very little.

Unfortunately averages are used to support all kinds of arguments when mostly they provide a very poor basis to make a judgement call in any area. However, that doesn't stop them being used and abused to continually support the latest sensational headline to hit the media.

Farmer Pudsey

creedp wrote: »

I wouldn't sneer at any sector of the economy and I accept that each sector has its challenges and rewards. However, its a bit simplisitc to state that except for dairying very few farmers can make a living these days. Just as its a gross simplification of the truth to say that an average income of €18k or so represents the earning power of most farmers. Because of the proliferation of part-time/hobby type farming in Ireland the average income means very little.

Unfortunately averages are used to support all kinds of arguments when mostly they provide a very poor basis to make a judgement call in any area. However, that doesn't stop them being used and abused to continually support the latest sensational headline to hit the media.

Farmers use the same accounting rules as all other private buisness's. Loads of PAYE workers have buisness's such as shop's, B&B's, pubs, resturants etc. Farming is the only one which is a no cash buisness. What I mean by that is that no matter what branch of farming you partake in you are nearly always paid by cheque nowadays.

I finish cattle which are slaughtered in a meat factory. I am paid by cheque which I lodge in the bank and in turn purchasse cattle mostly in a mart and pay by cheque even if buying off the land I pay by cheque. Any inputs I buy I pay by cheque. The only decision I can make about the profit (if any) is wheather to reinvest some in the buisness which I have to writedown in general over eight years. Like I said in aprevious post this is part of my pension plan.

Any buisness where in general most of the final sales is in cashless tranactions leaves very little opportunity to evade tax, unless you are an idiot.

Yes alot of farmers are part time not by choice but by necessity. Other than dairying I know very few fulltime farmers. Most so called fulltime cattle farmers also are cattle dealer's, or hauliers and a lot of tillage men are farm contractors. Hobby farmers are few and far between maybe Micheal O'Leary or Tony O'Reilly however I bet both of there farms show a modest profit.

Part time farming was always a tradition in Ireland except it has moved from just being along the west of Ireland to being common accross the whole country. Average farm incom's are quite low there is a proliferation now of single farmers in there fifties-seventies that make up a good part of that. So if you believe that there is money in it now is the time to invest like I did some yeras ago

PFI

The first step for private-public income harmonization are the remuneration caps across public sector/quangos/state-controlled banks/other organizations. In my view their remuneration packages for administrative staff and low-level management positions should not exceed 35-40K a year, for specialist and middle management positions not exceed 80-100K a year, and for the top management positions not exceed 120-150K a year. Similar caps should be used for all public sector pensions (not higher than 25K a year).

sarumite

frankosw wrote: »

And i love this stuff..for years we couldnt get people to take jobs in the PS coz the pay want good enough for the entitled lil graduate boys and girls who thought they wernt getting paid enough.

Now suddenly the country is full of go-getters who are up to change the world through hard work and a solid background in economics.

I hear this argument being thrown around a lot, though usually with very little proof to back up the claim and even then its typically isolated cases. Regardless we had benchmarking which makes the whole argument moot anyway.

Too late..due to pressure form the Govt the PS is no longer recruiting you'll have to make do with declining service until the moratorium is lifted!

If there is a reduced service, then clearly the current approach isn't working. Productivity is only productivity if you are doing more with less. If you you are reducing services in line with a reduction in staff numbers then it would seem to me that something isn't working in terms of cost reduction.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

If there is a reduced service, then clearly the current approach isn't working. Productivity is only productivity if you are doing more with less. If you you are reducing services in line with a reduction in staff numbers then it would seem to me that something isn't working in terms of cost reduction.

Everything is relative. Productivity is also productivity if you are doing more with the same. Even a reduction in services could deliver increased productivity if this reduction is less that the reduction in resources delivering the service. Its not all black and white.

frankosw

sarumite wrote: »

I hear this argument being thrown around a lot, though usually with very little proof to back up the claim and even then its typically isolated cases. Regardless we had benchmarking which makes the whole argument moot anyway.
.

I dont know what you mean by proof..i personally saw it happening for around a decade.

Graduates were by far the worst offenders closesly followed by older people "going back to work"..they just didnt feel it worth their while to get up in the morning for the sort of wages that they were being paid.

One friend of mine who was working in Oracle in Dublin told me i was on "Shiite money" and sneered at me before telling me how much money she was on.

Fast forward a few years and the exact same girl is telling me how she wishes she had a public sector job as all she can get is contract work....really? Well she had her chance and dint take it.

People just doent want to be responsible for thier own choices,they just have a need to point the finger and say "Cut them because i dont work there".

fliball123

itzme wrote: »

In another thread I addressed this misconception that you keep propagating, please stop telling this mistruth about the pension levy. For clarity I am quoting the act and linking to it again.
The truth is that the contributions from the pension levy do not go to the pension for public servants and do not give any additional benefit to the payees pension themselves. The money goes to the exchequer. To prove this, I bring your attention to page 9 of the act

untrue as it comes out before taxes so its not a pay cut it is a contribution to a defined benefit one which the private sector tax has to pay the difference when the majority cannot afford their own...As for your other point..Does your car tax go to pay for fixing our roads ..No it doesnt. Does our PRSI go to paying your OAP ..No it doesnt...all monies garnered by the gov goes into one big melting pot nothing is set aside for anything as is expenditure all monies come out of this pot with the exception of what has to be borrowed...So one one side you have the pension levy coming in and on the other side we have existing pensions being paid out of this pot..

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

Presumably if people in the PS earning over €30k can "afford" to "take a hit" then everyone earning over €30k can afford to pay more tax?

Yeah the probably can..Not a lot do as I have pointed out I would start with the guys on the higher wage in the PS when I say 30k I would maybe ask for 1/2% on money earned over 30k and under 40k and ramp the % up the higher they are paid..there is room for another tax rate at about 80/90k at maybe 50% ...

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

I look forward to the tax payer paying my mortgage again then.
After the last round of cuts, i then qualified for FIS. Might get more now in January

Well providing your prepared to give your house back and let it be sold and then you take what the difference is and pay it back over a certain period..No one should be looking for the tax payer to pay a mortgage...You made the decision to buy no one else

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

untrue as it comes out before taxes so its not a pay cut it is a contribution to a defined benefit one which the private sector tax has to pay the difference when the majority cannot afford their own...As for your other point..Does your car tax go to pay for fixing our roads ..No it doesnt. Does our PRSI go to paying your OAP ..No it doesnt...all monies garnered by the gov goes into one big melting pot nothing is set aside for anything as is expenditure all monies come out of this pot with the exception of what has to be borrowed...So one one side you have the pension levy coming in and on the other side we have existing pensions being paid out of this pot..

Can i just ask how you know so much about the administration of Govt expenditure?

You obviously have insider information on the way the revenue system works..

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

Yeah the probably can..Not a lot do as I have pointed out I would start with the guys on the higher wage in the PS when I say 30k I would maybe ask for 1/2% on money earned over 30k and under 40k and ramp the % up the higher they are paid..there is room for another tax rate at about 80/90k at maybe 50% ...

Would you indeed?

This is the Irish Economy forum not "what I would do if i was in charge of the country".

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

I dont know what you mean by proof..i personally saw it happening for around a decade.

Graduates were by far the worst offenders closesly followed by older people "going back to work"..they just didnt feel it worth their while to get up in the morning for the sort of wages that they were being paid.

One friend of mine who was working in Oracle in Dublin told me i was on "Shiite money" and sneered at me before telling me how much money she was on.

Fast forward a few years and the exact same girl is telling me how she wishes she had a public sector job as all she can get is contract work....really? Well she had her chance and dint take it.

People just doent want to be responsible for thier own choices,they just have a need to point the finger and say "Cut them because i dont work there".

No its cut them because we cant and I will bold and underline this afford them

srsly78

frankosw wrote: »

Fast forward a few years and the exact same girl is telling me how she wishes she had a public sector job as all she can get is contract work....really? Well she had her chance and dint take it.

Contract work in IT pays better than salaried work, dunno what she is complaining about.

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Can i just ask how you know so much about the administration of Govt expenditure?

You obviously have insider information on the way the revenue system works..

Its just basic book keeping any organisation that is ran they have an over all booking keeping tab. There may be departmental ones and I would hazard a guess that the troika who are giving us 2 million an hour would not only like dept broken down but would like an overall income vs expenditure to see how we are doing

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Would you indeed?

This is the Irish Economy forum not "what I would do if i was in charge of the country".

Well let me put that back at you Frank, you know the situation we are in. How would you go about fixing the deficit. I know I am seen as a PS basher, but I also think we need more taxes , we also need to cut the dole. These 2 areas along with PS pay and pensions are the ones that the goverment are supposedly taking off the tables...but taxes will be raised either by USC or by stealth and disability and other forms of social welfare will be cut regardless of labour..So why should the other leg in the tripod being ps pay and pensions remain untouched in the budget this year?

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Well providing your prepared to give your house back and let it be sold and then you take what the difference is and pay it back over a certain period..No one should be looking for the tax payer to pay a mortgage...You made the decision to buy no one else

No need to hand it back, i like my house
What i do mean is that when my wages are cut again, my FIS will go up and thus continue to pay my mortgage.