Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

If they started taxing the lump sum they would save far more (guess work)
I don't actually know how much they would save in pensions in the long run if they did that, in fact I'd like to see anyone try to calculate that with all the variables involved.

Arent these lump sums all calculated on pay, hense if you cut pay you cut down on the lump sum aswell. And I agree you cannot calculate what you would save in the long run but there would be further savings which would off set what we would lose in tax therefore making a paycut to the Public sector pay which will affect their pensions and how much we (the tax payer) have to pay for those pensions a much bigger saving

noodler

kippy wrote: »

If they started taxing the lump sum they would save far more (guess work)
I don't actually know how much they would save in pensions in the long run if they did that, in fact I'd like to see anyone try to calculate that with all the variables involved.

Why do lump sums exist at all tbh?

A DB pension scheme which we can ill-afford in the long run should be more than sufficient.

fliball123 wrote: »

Arent these lump sums all calculated on pay, hense if you cut pay you cut down on the lump sum aswell. And I agree you cannot calculate what you would save in the long run but there would be further savings which would off set what we would lose in tax therefore making a paycut to the Public sector pay which will affect their pensions and how much we (the tax payer) have to pay for those pensions a much bigger saving

They are based on final salaries for the majority of PS workers.

Recent changes to PS pensions mean that pension entitlements will be based on career average earnings rather than simply what your salary was when you retired but this applies to an absolutely tiny amount of people who joined the service late last year (newbies).

http://per.gov.ie/public-service-pension-reform/

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Last cut to pay was 3 years ago now

They had this thing called the Croke Park agreement in place in the interveening time.
You are aware of it? You must be since we are discussing it's replacement.


The net cost has reduced due to tax hikes, prsi changes and possibly USC changes (although I cant recall if anything has changed in that front in the 3 years)

kippy

noodler wrote: »

Uh huh.

Employers PRSI and the pension value are the biggies.

Thats fair.
Pensions arrangements for public private and those who havented worked a day in their lives all need to be looked at.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Arent these lump sums all calculated on pay, hense if you cut pay you cut down on the lump sum aswell. And I agree you cannot calculate what you would save in the long run but there would be further savings which would off set what we would lose in tax therefore making a paycut to the Public sector pay which will affect their pensions and how much we (the tax payer) have to pay for those pensions a much bigger saving

That's also a fair point.
I would add, you would need to know the age profile of the staff to calculate the potential savings there.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

They had this thing called the Croke Park agreement in place in the interveening time.
You are aware of it? You must be since we are discussing it's replacement.


The net cost has reduced due to tax hikes, prsi changes and possibly USC changes (although I cant recall if anything has changed in that front in the 3 years)

Which we have all undertaken and we will be taxed further. I appreciate that the PS pay tax but the lines are drawn by the fact that the group that is the private sector tax payers are nett contributors to our coffers and the group that is the public sector tax payers are nett receivers from our covers. We need to cut spending which has been pointed out time and again. At least your trying to argue your case without personal attacks which I commend you on. You and your ps brethren are in a bad place as the finger is being pointed at you but with good reason IMO. The country is fecked and the unions are at the table still looking to keep increments going when we borrow 2 million an hour?

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Which we have all undertaken and we will be taxed further. I appreciate that the PS pay tax but the lines are drawn by the fact that the group that is the private sector tax payers are nett contributors to our coffers and the group that is the public sector tax payers are nett receivers from our covers. We need to cut spending which has been pointed out time and again. At least your trying to argue your case without personal attacks which I commend you on. You and your ps brethren are in a bad place as the finger is being pointed at you but with good reason IMO. The country is fecked and the unions are at the table still looking to keep increments going when we borrow 2 million an hour?

You still dont get it.

I'm outta here for good.

noodler

kippy wrote: »

Thats fair.
Pensions arrangements for public private and those who havented worked a day in their lives all need to be looked at.

The haven't worked a day in your life thing I can agree with.

Your other statement though? What do you mean? Private sector workers in the main have been absolutely hammered as DC schemes lose value in the crisis, fees eat up contributions and the Government appropriated 0.5% of the total value of their funds for four years.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

That's also a fair point.
I would add, you would need to know the age profile of the staff to calculate the potential savings there.

Well without knowing that what we do know is people are now living a lot longer which means more mula needs to be spent on giving ex PS these pensions as was originally intended and the pensions are no longer fit for purpose but the politicians like Turkeys dont vote for xmas.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

You still dont get it.

I'm outta here for good.

What dont I get Kippy I have came back to you with valid argument to all your points. what dont I get?

Gumbo

noodler wrote: »

The haven't worked a day in your life thing I can agree with.

Your other statement though? What do you mean? Private sector workers in the main have been absolutely hammered as DC schemes lose value in the crisis, fees eat up contributions and the Government appropriated 0.5% of the total value of their funds for four years.

My private sector pension has gone up in value since 2004. My sisters DC pension scheme is quite attractive too with generous employer contributions.

People ranting about how ravaged private sector pensions are hiding behind headline lies. Unless you were risky with your contributions and didn't care where they were placed then your pension will have risen in recent years.

I let AIB look after my PRSA and they've done quite well for me so far.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

What dont I get Kippy I have came back to you with valid argument to all your points. what dont I get?

I refer you to read over my last 10-15 posts on this thread.
I doubt you'll get it then either tbh.
Gone.

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

You employer ISN'T the State and that is the KEY difference.
I cannot fathom how people CANNOT see this.

The idea that there is a difference between the cost of an employee for the state and for private sector workers is delusional nonsense. The state is an employer, it merely has a different source of income than private enterprise (namely taxes).

kippy wrote: »

Your employer doesn't gain from the tax, USC, PRSI that YOU pay the state.

For a PS worker, all of those items are costs to the taxpayer, how can you not see this? How can you think that this is any different to the fact that my customers have to pay for all those things?

I (metaphorically, because it was done at source) put my hand in my pocket and gave the government about 10k of my earnings last year. Are you saying that because part of it might have been use to pay a PS workers wages that the amount was less?

kippy wrote: »

The state pays 40K to a public sector worker on an annual basis and received 11K BACK
The COST to the state of paying that worker is the 29K
Can you not fathom this?

Fathom what? That the taxpayer (regardless of the source) has to fund the full 40k and the fact that a PS worker doesn't see 11k of it means that you think it's not a cost?:rolleyes:

kippy wrote: »

They can spent it paying other public sector workers, social welfare, interest payments on loans etc.

YOUR employer (private sector) doesn't have the option of spending that 11 K a year on another employee, reinvestment etc etc

What the government do with the tax that they keep is not relevant to the discussion, the total cost of employing somebody is. Cash is fungible, once it's in a pot it ceases to be from a particular source, so the argument that it can be used for other things is irrelevant. Your tax could just as easily being used as part of the CIE subvention as it could be for any of the items above (same as mine).

Just for arguments sake (the figures are illustrative), say CPII decides to lay off 1/3 of the workforce evenly distributed across all levels.

Will that reduce the bill that the taxpayer has to foot by the 5bn gross amount that would be saved or by the 4.82bn net figure? It will be the 5bn gross, becuase this is the amount that the taxpayer has to stump up to pay for these people - regardless of what the goverment choose to do with the 180m that doen't go into the pockets of PS workers.

Can it be made any clearer than that? :rolleyes:

Godge

noodler wrote: »

This is in addition to increments of course. Workers in the PS have recieved incremental salary increases since 2008.


.

Once again, from the report it states:

"in 2012 the pay bill will amount to €14,402m, a decrease of 12.6% over the 2009 figure of €16,471m, a 1.6% decrease over the 2011 figure of €14,638m (Table V)."

That includes the effects of increments pushing up the bill, pension levy reducing the bill, new entrants reducing the bill, people leaving reducing the bill etc. etc. Why people seem to think differently I don't know.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

What the government do with the tax that they keep is not relevant to the discussion, the total cost of employing somebody is. Cash is fungible, once it's in a pot it ceases to be from a particular source, so the argument that it can be used for other things is irrelevant. Your tax could just as easily being used as part of the CIE subvention as it could be for any of the items above (same as mine).

Just for arguments sake (the figures are illustrative), say CPII decides to lay off 1/3 of the workforce evenly distributed across all levels.

Will that reduce the bill that the taxpayer has to foot by the 5bn gross amount that would be saved or by the 4.82bn net figure? It will be the 5bn gross, becuase this is the amount that the taxpayer has to stump up to pay for these people - regardless of what the goverment choose to do with the 180m that doen't go into the pockets of PS workers.

Can it be made any clearer than that? :rolleyes:

It is not as simple as you make it out to be when you are considering different policy options.

The taxpayer does not save 5bn or even 4.82bn.

What happens is something like this:

Government expenditure goes down by 5 bn as pay bill is cut and one third are laid off.
Government revenue goes down by 2 bn as the taxes paid by those public servants disappear.
Government expenditure goes up by 2 bn as those laid off go on the dole, collect pensions, medical cards, help with their mortgage etc.

Net effect on the budget deficit is a cut of 1 bn. So a cull of one third of public sector workers which you might think saves 5 bn on the deficit only saves 1 bn.

Compare that to eliminating child benefit. Child benefit costs the state 2 bn and is not taxed. Eliminating child benefit saves 2 bn off the budget deficit as there are no secondary effects.

So what do you choose?

(1) If you are a simple child looking at figures, you will only look at the headline figure and cut the paybill as it appears to be the highests.

(2) If you are a college student, you might get as far as looking at the net figure and choose the child benefit cut.

(3) If you are a mature policymaker not given to bouts of hysterical rants against one group or other in this country, you would consider the material effects of the budget changes, equity and fairness in ensuring everyone shares in the burden equally, the likely responses of different groups, the needs to ensure effective delivery of public services, proportionate effects, etc.

Pick your own category to slot yourself into.

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

Once again, from the report it states:

"in 2012 the pay bill will amount to €14,402m, a decrease of 12.6% over the 2009 figure of €16,471m, a 1.6% decrease over the 2011 figure of €14,638m (Table V)."

That includes the effects of increments pushing up the bill, pension levy reducing the bill, new entrants reducing the bill, people leaving reducing the bill etc. etc. Why people seem to think differently I don't know.

God knows what the PS pay and pension bill would be now if there had been no paycut, no pension levy, continued increments, each retire replaced with a new worker etc etc.

repsol

Always number 1 wrote: »

As a public servant, I think others in the public service and their unions need to look at these ridiculous "allowances" and be willing to make other sacrifices in order to prevent our pay from being cut again.

I speak for myself when I say that I would have no problem working a few hours extra per week as long as my core pay isn't touched. Shift allowances need to be got rid of, your rostered hours are your rostered hours and if that means working after 6:00 p.m every now and again so be it. Eating on site allowance needs to be scrapped, why should some people get paid towards their lunches and others don't? There are so many more that are even more ridiculous.
I personally don't get any of these allowances but I think people that do get them need to realise that these "extras" have to go, if they want to preserve their pay and ultimately their jobs.

People who work shifts don't work after 6.00pm "now and again" they do it all the time.You are against allowances because you don't get them but want YOUR core pay left untouched.We all have to do our bit except you is it?Allowances are part of pay.This has been proven in a previous case won by army representatives protecting their members border allowance.You are falling into the trap of using the term "core pay" which is a bull**** phrase being bandied around.My pay is the figure at the bottom of my payslip.The word core appears nowhere on my payslip or on my tax certificates so it is irrelevant.

tenton

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It is not the first time somebody has been accused of being a previously banned poster I was accused of being Giginio as well. It seems to be an acceptable put down by some contributors of anyone that sees that we have serious issues with PS pay'

+1.
I am neither Farmer Pudsey or Giginio, whoever he / she is. Funny how some public sector workers think, or seem to think that there are so few people in the country who question public service pay that they must be the same person.

Gumbo

tenton wrote: »

+1.
I am neither Farmer Pudsey or Giginio, whoever he / she is. Funny how some public sector workers think, or seem to think that there are so few people in the country who question public service pay that they must be the same person.

You should stop copy/paste his posts then

Joe 90

fliball123 wrote: »

How much would this reduction save in pension costs going into the future aswell?

A very important point. People go on about nett PS pay Vs gross while ignoring the fact that the PS pension entitlement, above any basic state pension that may be due, is in fact deferred nett pay. Total PS nett pay is the sum of nett pay to current employees plus any PS pension currently paid above the basic state pension.

Gumbo

Joe 90 wrote: »

A very important point. People go on about nett PS pay Vs gross while ignoring the fact that the PS pension entitlement, above any basic state pension that may be due, is in fact deferred nett pay. Total PS nett pay is the sum of nett pay to current employees plus any PS pension currently paid above the basic state pension.

which is in part funded by the contributions and the levy that PS staff pay on top of PRSI for the state pension.

kippy

Joe 90 wrote: »

A very important point. People go on about nett PS pay Vs gross while ignoring the fact that the PS pension entitlement, above any basic state pension that may be due, is in fact deferred nett pay. Total PS nett pay is the sum of nett pay to current employees plus any PS pension currently paid above the basic state pension.

If we keep talking about the public sector pay AND pensions bill (as I have been throughout this thread) that point, is somewhat irrelevant, is it not?

(Yes a cut in Gross pay will impact on the current pensioners but the current pensioners (as far as I am aware) managed to get away with taking the paycut into account)

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Government revenue goes down by 2 bn as the taxes paid by those public servants disappear.

The direct tax take from the entire PS is 900m (it says so in the estimates!) - where are you going with 2bn?

Even allowing for all of the income to be spent it's impossible for it to be vat to make up the differnce as food certain clothes & other items are vat exempt, so as usual the utilitiy of the PS is overblown.

But while were on the subject of figures - I was discussing solely the tax requirements to cover the payroll costs of the PS pay bill - with hypotehtical figures to boot. Not the revenue impact (which is not anywhere near as much as you claim) or the effect on the dole (wouldn't be as high as most of the redundancy payments would disqualify them from the dole & if the PS workers are a good as people are claiming they wont be short of work).

The simple fact of the matter is the true cost to the taxpayer of employing the PS is the gross wage because if the PS worker was not employed by the state then we would not have to stump up the gross amount in taxes.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

The direct tax take from the entire PS is 900m (it says so in the estimates!) - where are you going with 2bn?

Even allowing for all of the income to be spent it's impossible for it to be vat to make up the differnce as food certain clothes & other items are vat exempt, so as usual the utilitiy of the PS is overblown.

But while were on the subject of figures - I was discussing solely the tax requirements to cover the payroll costs of the PS pay bill - with hypotehtical figures to boot. Not the revenue impact (which is not anywhere near as much as you claim) or the effect on the dole (wouldn't be as high as most of the redundancy payments would disqualify them from the dole & if the PS workers are a good as people are claiming they wont be short of work).

The simple fact of the matter is the true cost to the taxpayer of employing the PS is the gross wage because if the PS worker was not employed by the state then we would not have to stump up the gross amount in taxes.

The are a number of inaccuracies in your post.

No, the 900m is the pension levy receipts.

Nowhere in the Estimates is there a provision for the direct tax take from the public sector. If I am wrong, prove it.

Redundancy payments do not disqualify you from the dole.

ardmacha

The direct tax take from the entire PS is 900m (it says so in the estimates!)

Did you think at all before posting that?

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Redundancy payments do not disqualify you from the dole.

No, but after one year you will be placed on a means test.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

The are a number of inaccuracies in your post.

No, the 900m is the pension levy receipts.

Nope, it's the difference between the gross and net pay bills.

Godge wrote: »

Nowhere in the Estimates is there a provision for the direct tax take from the public sector. If I am wrong, prove it.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Expenditure-Report-Final-Version-for-Print-04-Dec-2012-pdf-Adobe-Acrobat-Pro.pdf

Gross pay on page 130, Net pay on page 139.

Godge wrote: »

Redundancy payments do not disqualify you from the dole.

Yes they do - if they're high enough. Two of my colleagues got redundancy last year and their payments were high enough to cut them off from the dole for a while.

noodler

antoobrien wrote: »

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Expenditure-Report-Final-Version-for-Print-04-Dec-2012-pdf-Adobe-Acrobat-Pro.pdf

Gross pay on page 130, Net pay on page 139.

I am pretty sure the estimates in the document conform to the same standard definitions of Gross and Net in the PS pay 2007-2012 document.

i.e. net means net of the pension levy and pension-related contributions - not net of income tax, PRSI or USC payments.

antoobrien

noodler wrote: »

I am pretty sure the estimates in the document conform to the same standard definitions of Gross and Net in the PS pay 2007-2012 document.

i.e. net means net of the pension levy and pension-related contributions - not net of income tax, PRSI or USC payments.

So they're allowed use a different version of net to the rest of us?:(

Of course anything to suit their own arguments.:rolleyes:

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

So they're allowed use a different version of net to the rest of us?:(

Of course anything to suit their own arguments.:rolleyes:

And the pot calls the kettle black :rolleyes:

IMHO, Nett figure is what the government takes back from your wages, doesnt matter what a document calls it.

antoobrien

kceire wrote: »

And the pot calls the kettle black :rolleyes:

That would only be the case if the PS weren't fiddling numbers to suit itself - net pay suggest all deductions to me. Somebody stating that it isn't the case makes the use of the "net" figure well lying to support an agenda.

kceire wrote: »

IMHO, Nett figure is what the government takes back from your wages, doesnt matter what a document calls it.

Sure - so what's the figure then? The one I think is stated in that doc or some other figure that nobody has ever provided any proof of?

noodler

kceire wrote: »

My private sector pension has gone up in value since 2004. My sisters DC pension scheme is quite attractive too with generous employer contributions.

People ranting about how ravaged private sector pensions are hiding behind headline lies. Unless you were risky with your contributions and didn't care where they were placed then your pension will have risen in recent years.

I let AIB look after my PRSA and they've done quite well for me so far.

Wow.

Next time you complain about people generalising or stereotyping the PS - I want you to remember that post.

1) Most Pension Funds are only recovering from the crisis.

2) Most Pension Funds are eaten away by fees.

3) Employer contributons are a nice notion but do not apply to a vast swath of people.

4) You take no responsibility for PS pensions - the Government does.

That is certainly the worst post you have typed in this thread.

Gumbo

noodler wrote: »

Wow.

Next time you complain about people generalising or stereotyping the PS - I want you to remember that post.

1) Most Pension Funds are only recovering from the crisis. So you admit, not ravaged like most rant on here.

2) Most Pension Funds are eaten away by fees. Not eaten away, fees are to be expected. if you dont want fees, invest yourself.

3) Employer contributons are a nice notion but do not apply to a vast swath of people. Just like the gold plated PS pensions, not everybody gets them

4) You take no responsibility for PS pensions - the Government does. You pay the contributions and prey that the government doesnt eat into your final pension figure. Least my private pension can be moved around if i dont like the T&C's or fees etc PS staff have no option to opt out as im sure many would

That is certainly the worst post you have typed in this thread. Thanks, i'll take that as a compliment.

Works both ways there

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

That would only be the case if the PS weren't fiddling numbers to suit itself - net pay suggest all deductions to me. Somebody stating that it isn't the case makes the use of the "net" figure well lying to support an agenda.



Sure - so what's the figure then? The one I think is stated in that doc or some other figure that nobody has ever provided any proof of?

Read the doc and read the definition of net that those documents use for their calculations.

Those figures (in the document you linked to) uses a net figure that does NOT take account of PAYE, PRSI and USC payments.

As I said I suspect they dont as the figures are rather difficult to work out because of the current payroles in place.

(BTW, I have said this before but there could be massive savings made on centralistation of Civil/Public HR and Payroll as well as possibly IT).

antoobrien

noodler wrote: »

1) Most Pension Funds are only recovering from the crisis.

I wouldn't be too harsh on that comment - my pension was down by over 1/3 on the cost at one point in 2008. It recovered that value in 2009, it has now risen to be about 15% above cost.

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

I wouldn't be too harsh on that comment - my pension was down by over 1/3 on the cost at one point in 2008. It recovered that value in 2009, it has now risen to be about 15% above cost.

+1

Most private pension funds dipped for 1 year, maybe 2, but have recovered ten fold since!
As i said, mine is up nearly 25% from my contributions which started in 2004.

noodler

kceire wrote: »

So you admit, not ravaged like most rant on here.

Ravaged. As in value of contributions not equalling in anyway shape or form the present value.

kceire wrote: »

Not eaten away, fees are to be expected. if you dont want fees, invest yourself.

No, eaten away is right. Massive, massive cost.

Invest yourself? Another suitably silly comment. Every non-PS worker in the State should be told to suck it up regarding fees? Should be told to invest yourself as if pension investment was something which required no expertise?

kceire wrote: »

Just like the gold plated PS pensions, not everybody gets them

Employer contributions tend to stop when the company is in dire financial straights - the majority of pension schemes in the country also do not have a backer to take the risk off the shoulders of the individual (Just unlike the gold plated PS pensions).

kceire wrote: »

You pay the contributions and prey that the government doesnt eat into your final pension figure. Least my private pension can be moved around if i dont like the T&C's or fees etc PS staff have no option to opt out as im sure many would

No, I sincerely doubt they would. Having to spend considerable time, considerable fees on something which isn't guaranteed to give you a final figure and a possible lump sum?


You have a seriously blinkered view on the pensions issue.

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

Read the doc and read the definition of net that those documents use for their calculations.

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

kippy wrote: »

Those figures (in the document you linked to) uses a net figure that does NOT take account of PAYE, PRSI and USC payments.

I've been asked to back up my assertions, the meaning of net pay quite clear - all deductions, including all of the above - so prove you're right and that the government are not including this in their net figure (which I find to be an extremely disturbing accounting method).

btw the figure definitely does not tally with the pension levy.

kippy wrote: »

As I said I suspect they dont as the figures are rather difficult to work out because of the current payroles in place.

Oh it's not that hard. I can tell you that the figure should be in the region of 2bn-4bn based on the averages calculated from the figures supplied in that document (I know averages tend to be misleading but...).

I don't think the whole nett thing is at all relevant because, regardless of who gets what the gross figure still has to be funded from taxes.

However if we want to try to calculate a figure, there was a breakdown of the numbers of people in each pay band (e.g. 20k-30k) put up in a previous thread (can't remember where). That would be the best place to start.

kippy wrote: »

(BTW, I have said this before but there could be massive savings made on centralistation of Civil/Public HR and Payroll as well as possibly IT).

That is something I am in total agreement with. Unfortunately the mess that was PPARS shows just how hard this will be without either first creating uniform nationwide pay structures (good luck) or getting some serious enterprise level software (which imo the government should be looking at regardless) - which is extremely expensive and may not be worth the expense or hassle of cutting over.

kippy

I'm gonna try and move on this discussion as I, probably more than anyone else, have assisted to derail it.

What CP2 should look to achieve:

1. Centralised Payroll and possibly HR for any Civil or Public service body.
This, in my opinion is critical. There are people within the same departments even who are on different pay frequencies and pay methods (some still get cheques) and there are different payrolls software used across the various units with different staff operating them all, some local, some national.
There is NO reason in my mind that the vast majority of payroll based work cannot be centralised and indeed payment frequencies and methods be standardised.
This would lead to cost savings in a number of ways:
a. Software licensing, hardware costs maintenance costs.
b. Staff time. In theory less staff SHOULD be required to actually run the payroll. This will only be of benefit if redeployment or redundancy is used for those that are not required.
c. Much easier for reports to be run against payroll in relation to sick leave, net pay reports, headcount reports, salary reports etc, easier to implement standard salary payment dates.
d. Much easier to update changes to deductions, changes to increases etc etc
e. HR policy and procedure is uniform across the sector.

How feasible this is I do not know.

2. A move towards a centralised IT group for CERTAIN functions.

3. A move from the 34.75 hour working week to a 36.75 working week.

4. A stipulation that PROPER and MEANINGFUL performance appraisal linked DIRECTLY to salary be implemented. Basicilly the scrapping of time based increments.

That would be for starters, there's lots more that could be implemented however I do not see a straight salary cut as happening.

noodler

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

These figures are shown in Table I
of this booklet but all other figures in the booklet are net figures, i.e. after deduction of
appropriation-in-aid (mainly pension contributions, ESF funding and pension related
deduction).

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Point 5, Page 21

Seems reasonably conclusive.

If the Net figure was net of taxes (USC and PRSI as well) then it'd have to be around a third lower at least.

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.



I've been asked to back up my assertions, the meaning of net pay quite clear - all deductions, including all of the above - so prove you're right and that the government are not including this in their net figure (which I find to be an extremely disturbing accounting method).

btw the figure definitely does not tally with the pension levy.



Oh it's not that hard. I can tell you that the figure should be in the region of 2bn-4bn based on the averages calculated from the figures supplied in that document (I know averages tend to be misleading but...).

I don't think the whole nett thing is at all relevant because, regardless of who gets what the gross figure still has to be funded from taxes.

However if we want to try to calculate a figure, there was a breakdown of the numbers of people in each pay band (e.g. 20k-30k) put up in a previous thread (can't remember where). That would be the best place to start.



That is something I am in total agreement with. Unfortunately the mess that was PPARS shows just how hard this will be without either first creating uniform nationwide pay structures (good luck) or getting some serious enterprise level software (which imo the government should be looking at regardless) - which is extremely expensive and may not be worth the expense or hassle of cutting over.

But you are in agreement that the NET figure in that document cannot possibly be the Net figure as understood in general to be after all deductions?

I obviously dont think it's at all irrelevant as it is the true cost to the state of paying the wages. If I were a business owner I would like to know the true cost of paying the public sector pay and pensions. It would have a major impact on my overheads and I would be safe in the knowledge that I can have a direct impact on by payroll costs by increasing taxes/prsi and paye without cutting headline pay.
The calculations would also have to include PRSI and USC but I assume they could be worked out.

Yeah, the PPARS was a joke, but any project that is mis specced, mis managed and subject to a tendering process that is devoid of any proper requirements will always have those issues.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

Compare that to eliminating child benefit. Child benefit costs the state 2 bn and is not taxed. Eliminating child benefit saves 2 bn off the budget deficit as there are no secondary effects.

Using your own logic this is incorrect. Government gets VAT and Excise Duty (I dare say a decent bit of that) back from Children's allowance.

Personally I'd abolish children's allowance as a cash payment completely but to suggest that a cut of 2bn saves 2bn is clearly flawed.

The whole lot needs cutting to suit our measure. We can't afford it, welfare, PS pay and pensions and we need to pay a wee bit more tax as well (though I would say there is very limited scope there for increases. We are not lightly taxed when ALL taxes are considered)

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

So they're allowed use a different version of net to the rest of us?:(

Of course anything to suit their own arguments.:rolleyes:

Wait a minute, the simplest understanding of numbers and taxation rates would have told you that 900m does not represent the income tax take on 14 plus billion.

Even if you hadn't copped to that using common sense, the footnotes and detailed explanations in the documents make it clear what gross and net for the purposes of the figures in the tables.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

Using your own logic this is incorrect. Government gets VAT and Excise Duty (I dare say a decent bit of that) back from Children's allowance.

Personally I'd abolish children's allowance as a cash payment completely but to suggest that a cut of 2bn saves 2bn is clearly flawed.

The whole lot needs cutting to suit our measure. We can't afford it, welfare, PS pay and pensions and we need to pay a wee bit more tax as well (though I would say there is very limited scope there for increases. We are not lightly taxed when ALL taxes are considered)

Eh no, because the effects of VAT and excise duty were excluded from both calculations.

I suggested that with the loss of income tax, pension contributions, PRSI deductions, pension levy as well as the need to pay social welfare plus associated costs meant that the saving from a one third headline cut (lets get away from gross:)) in public service pay (c 5 bn) concentrated on cutting numbers to the taxpayer would only be in the region of 1 bn.

Abolishing child benefit saves 2 bn on a like-for-like comparison. Both the 1 bn and the 2bn would be subject to losses of VAT and excise duty.

I then never said which option (if any) I would choose.

As for this idea that we are heavily-taxed, as this analysis points out, that is only true for income tax on higher earners, it is not true at all for average earners or for total deductions on higher earners.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Now you cannot say our property tax or water charges make up the difference between us and the rest of Europe?

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

I obviously dont think it's at all irrelevant as it is the true cost to the state of paying the wages. If I were a business owner I would like to know the true cost of paying the public sector pay and pensions.

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Table XIII sets out the difference between gross and net paybill and what is consists of.

(1). 2012 A in A breakdown €m
Pay - mainly Education ( ESF receipts and fees) 43
Pensions - Civil Service, Health, Education, Guards and Army 536
Pension Related Deduction 930

Total 1,509

RobbieTheRobber

antoobrien wrote: »

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

This is exactly why simple analogies don't work.

Your comparing what you view to be the same and ignoring the obvious differences between your "antoobrien inc" and the state.

antoobrien

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This is exactly why simple analogies don't work.

Your comparing what you view to be the same and ignoring the obvious differences between your "antoobrien inc" and the state.

antoobrien inc in this case represents the taxpayer.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Now you cannot say our property tax or water charges make up the difference between us and the rest of Europe?

The thrust of that article is that we have our tax system in such a way that people on the minimum wage pay little or no income tax, and that the main difference between us and European average is that they would.

Now, I read the article on Friday so I'd have to double check what they define as "tax" but you'd have to be certain that thye USC is included in that analysis.

Coffey's point seems to be that destroying income tax relief for lower earners is what people are inadvertadntly asking for when they argue we should have the same tax priorities as some EU countries.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

your analogy is wrong.


Let me say the CEO of antoobrien inc decides to buy 100 widgets off kippy inc. Normally the widegets cost 1,000 euro each. However, the CEO of kippy inc recognises that antoobrien inc is a valued customer so while he will not give a discount up front, he promises to refund 50% of the cost of the widgets to antoobrien inc.

So antoobrien inc hands a cheque for 100,000 euro to kippy inc. At the same time kippy inc hands a cheque for 50,000 eueo to antoobrien inc. What is the cost of the widgets to antoobrien inc. Anyone with half a brain would say 50,000 euro.

The Government hands antoobrien a payslip with a gross wage of 100,000. Antoobrien hands over 50,000 worth of income tax, prsi, pension contribution, USC, and pension levy to the government. What is the cost of antoobrien tot he government. Anyone with the same half a brain would say 50,000 euro.

Do you get it yet?