Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

kippy

noodler wrote: »

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



?? If you have a point to make - then make it specifically rather than throw about open-ended questions.

I have already provided you with figures and a report which you seemed to know nothing about.

The report that "I knew nothing about" merely points out that there has been a substantial cut to the pay and pensions bill.


Some workers in the PS have received increments, not all.

The point is, the report outlines a 4% decline in the gross wage bill,
My point is that substantially more has been saved in the net pay bill.

The overall point is that the net cost of paying the wages and pensions of public sector workers has decreased substantially over the past 4-5 years.

(Adding that it should come down some more in targeted areas and not forgetting the points I made earlier in the thread)

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

Is this merely your opinion or can you direct us to actual statistics on this matter?



Expenditure on pay in the public services has come down substantially. If overall expenditure has not reduced then it because other expenditures have increased.



There is no doubt that much public expenditure was poor value, this is improving.

The figures on tax has been done to death when taking in what we will be paying with upcoming taxes we will be near the top of the table. Sorry the overall pay and pensions bill has not come down that significantly since 2008 and regardless of where the expenditure is it cannot be afforded the tax side cannot continue to go up and not see any savings on the other side.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

The figures on tax has been done to death when taking in what we will be paying with upcoming taxes we will be near the top of the table. Sorry the overall pay and pensions bill has not come down that significantly since 2008 and regardless of where the expenditure is it cannot be afforded the tax side cannot continue to go up and not see any savings on the other side.

It's come down 4% since 2008 without taking into account the real cost of paying public sector pay and pensions.
(PAYE, PRSI and USC)

noodler

kippy wrote: »

The report that "I knew nothing about" merely points out that there has been a substantial cut to the pay and pensions bill.


Some workers in the PS have received increments, not all.

The point is, the report outlines a 4% decline in the gross wage bill,
My point is that substantially more has been saved in the net pay bill.

The overall point is that the net cost of paying the wages and pensions of public sector workers has decreased substantially over the past 4-5 years.

(Adding that it should come down some more in targeted areas and not forgetting the points I made earlier in the thread)

Well the report says 4% in NET paybill since 2007.

If we choose 2008 as the starting point (as it is the peak) then the figure is closer to 10%.

Worth noting as usual though that the p&p bill doubled in the 00s from 9bn to 18bn and that a huge portion of the savings in the pay bill are from various redundancy schemes and moratorium (and in a very very minor way to the 10% pay cut for new entrants).

Some areas will have been hit worse than others with regards the redundancies in terms of extra workload, and I am not taking that away from them, but when the original Croke Park Agreement was signed it was my initial understanding that the savings made would be in addition to those made from the salaries associated with redundancies.

I have never completely agreed that some areas of the PS which were overstaffed or had people in positions which were no longer needed could see such people retire and then claim the saving on their wage as a saving attributed to the CPA (1).

Paulzx

fliball123 wrote: »

r got well rewarded for working and .

Eh...Thats the whole point of working.......reward.

Do you work for free?

kippy

noodler wrote: »

Well the report says 4% in NET paybill since 2007.

If we choose 2008 as the starting point (as it is the peak) then the figure is closer to 10%.

Worth noting as usual though that the p&p bill doubled in the 00s from 9bn to 18bn and that a huge portion of the savings in the pay bill are from various redundancy schemes and moratorium (and in a very very minor way to the 10% pay cut for new entrants).

Some areas will have been hit worse than others with regards the redundancies in terms of extra workload, and I am not taking that away from them, but when the original Croke Park Agreement was signed it was my initial understanding that the savings made would be in addition to those made from the salaries associated with redundancies.

I have never completely agreed that some areas of the PS which were overstaffed or had people in positions which were no longer needed could see such people retire and then claim the saving on their wage as a saving attributed to the CPA (1).

You've already stated, using a quote from the report that the NET figure used in that report does not take into account:
1. PAYE
2. PRSI
3. USC

(It's probably a very difficult calculation to make - although if the civil and public service ran of the same payroll it wouldnt be))

Surely you can see that PAYE, PRSI and USC has meant that the state gets back a lot more than it did in 2007/2008?
And that 4% does not tell the full picture (or close to it)

I'd agree with the rest of your post.

noodler

kippy wrote: »

You've already stated, using a quote from the report that the NET figure used in that report does not take into account:
1. PAYE
2. PRSI
3. USC

(It's probably a very difficult calculation to make - although if the civil and public service ran of the same payroll it wouldnt be))

Surely you can see that PAYE, PRSI and USC has meant that the state gets back a lot more than it did in 2007/2008?
And that 4% does not tell the full picture (or close to it)

I'd agree with the rest of your post.

Do you not think it is important as well to keep the gross figures in mind?

For example, in my controversial opinion, I regard the pension levy as an absolutely fair instrument to ensure that PS workers contribute more to a DB pension that is merely a pipedream to much of the population.

In this regard, I still consider you to earn 30,000 gross with the PS levy as a pension contribution (the Government must feel this way as well to some extent given they levied it on gross incomes rather than simply reduce gross incomes).

That might have come across muddled but in essence I think it is important that we keep gross salaries in mind.

kippy

noodler wrote: »

Do you not think it is important as well to keep the gross figures in mind?

For example, in my controversial opinion, I regard the pension levy as an absolutely fair instrument to ensure that PS workers contribute more to a DB pension that is merely a pipedream to much of the population.

In this regard, I still consider you to earn 30,000 gross with the PS levy as a pension contribution (the Government must feel this way as well to some extent given they levied it on gross incomes rather than simply reduce gross incomes).

That might have come across muddled but in essence I think it is important that we keep gross salaries in mind.

I believe the net figures mentioned in the report stating a 4% saving in the pay and pensions bill DOES take into account payments towards pensions (based on what it says in the report)
But DOESNT take into account ANY portion of PAYE, PRSI and USC.


I agree, you should contribute to your pension and yes, the pension levy was needed to up this contribution (along with the other contributions towards pensions and portion of PRSI that goes towards a public sector workers pension as well)

The reason why, for this particular conversation, the net cost to the state of paying the wages of public sector pay and pensioners is the key figure is, I would have thought, obvious.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

remember there are 500k people on the dole who a large % would love to be working over the christmas.

Agh, the bleeding heart response again :rolleyes:

road_high

kceire wrote: »

Agh, the bleeding heart response again :rolleyes:

No...that is actually reality!

itzme

fliball123 wrote: »

Well if someone is goint to try and defend it using this I take issue with it. As I say its not as if they worked the xmas for free, they got at least double time for it.

I can understand why you would take issue if you viewed someone going with the bleeding heart response.
I was "taking issue" with the obvious hypocrisy of giving out to someone for a bleeding heart response and then giving one yourself in the same post.

Gumbo

mfitzy wrote: »

No...that is actually reality!

In your opinion

road_high

kceire wrote: »

In your opinion

As is yours.

itzme

noodler wrote: »

Do you not think it is important as well to keep the gross figures in mind?

For example, in my controversial opinion, I regard the pension levy as an absolutely fair instrument to ensure that PS workers contribute more to a DB pension that is merely a pipedream to much of the population.

In this regard, I still consider you to earn 30,000 gross with the PS levy as a pension contribution (the Government must feel this way as well to some extent given they levied it on gross incomes rather than simply reduce gross incomes).

That might have come across muddled but in essence I think it is important that we keep gross salaries in mind.

There was a post from sarumite not soo long ago mentioning gross and net and how they can and are abused on these forums (not in any way claiming you are).

My own view is that both are needed for any discussion with pay.
I think most people view the gross as the most important figure in relation to PS pay and pensions, personally I think net pay plus pensions reflects the actual government expenditure. Gross pay plus pensions is a headline figure. The gross wage of workers is important for comparison with the private sector but when dealing with savings made from cuts/redundancies the total net figure more accurately reflects the savings.

The pension levy is a perfect case in point, irrespective of anyones view on its usefulness/necessity/fairness it does achieve a saving that is only evident in the net savings.

kippy

itzme wrote: »

There was a post from sarumite not soo long ago mentioning gross and net and how they can and are abused on these forums (not in any way claiming you are).

My own view is that both are needed for any discussion with pay.
I think most people view the gross as the most important figure in relation to PS pay and pensions, personally I think net pay plus pensions reflects the actual government expenditure. Gross pay plus pensions is a headline figure. The gross wage of workers is important for comparison with the private sector but when dealing with savings made from cuts/redundancies the total net figure more accurately reflects the savings.

The pension levy is a perfect case in point, irrespective of anyones view on its usefulness/necessity/fairness it does achieve a saving that is only evident in the net savings.

Indeed, I was part of those conversations.
For the purposes of cost savings to the state the net paybill is the key cost involved. Not the gross. It's very obvious why this should be the case.

For comparisions on a profession by profession basis, gross should be used.

Gumbo

mfitzy wrote: »

As is yours.

I didn't offer an opinion

road_high

kceire wrote: »

Agh, the bleeding heart response again :rolleyes:

You said what a previous poster had said re Xmas working was a "bleeding heart response"....if that's not an opinion, I dunno what is.

fliball123

Paulzx wrote: »

Eh...Thats the whole point of working.......reward.

Do you work for free?

No I dont but I dont go on about it saying how tough it is and how terrible it is that I have to work over the xmas when there are so many out of work and pointing out that the rates for xmas working for the ps is very very generous.

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Agh, the bleeding heart response again :rolleyes:

Its not bleeding heart its fact...

noodler

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, I was part of those conversations.
For the purposes of cost savings to the state the net paybill is the key cost involved. Not the gross. It's very obvious why this should be the case.

For comparisions on a profession by profession basis, gross should be used.

I think we have to keep in mind both figures.

I mean we don't (or didn't) publish health spending net of the Health Levy, and we don't publish spending on social welfare net of PRSI contributions.

For one it is standard international practice for any international comparison.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Its not bleeding heart its fact...

Just as there's many many people on the dole that wouldn't and will not work those hours. That is fact also. Both irrelevant facts in this thread mind you.

Anyway, why do you care? Thought you went to Oz?????

fliball123

itzme wrote: »

I can understand why you would take issue if you viewed someone going with the bleeding heart response.
I was "taking issue" with the obvious hypocrisy of giving out to someone for a bleeding heart response and then giving one yourself in the same post.

That response was meant as time and again the nurses guards etc are wielded out..I tell you the gov if they had any moxy would bring over all the home care workers who had to take cuts due to money being ring fenced for wages..and let them sit at the table and allow the union leaders looking at them whilst defending increments... See there are bleeding heart stories in every sector...including those working and paying tax but yet they will have to pay more in tax..My post was to show how hypercritical it is to start these types of emotional blackmail posts.

Gumbo

noodler wrote: »

I think we have to keep in mind both figures.

I mean we don't (or didn't) publish health spending net of the Health Levy, and we don't publish spending on social welfare net of PRSI contributions.

For one it is standard international practice for any international comparison.

Rubbish comparison.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

That response was meant as time and again the nurses guards etc are wielded out..I tell you the gov if they had any moxy would bring over all the home care workers who had to take cuts due to money being ring fenced for wages..and let them sit at the table and allow the union leaders looking at them whilst defending increments... See there are bleeding heart stories in every sector...including those working and paying tax but yet they will have to pay more in tax..My post was to show how hypercritical it is to start these types of emotional blackmail posts.

You started them. Another poster pulled you up on it and you've gone on one of your infamous tangents......

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Just as there's many many people on the dole that wouldn't and will not work those hours. That is fact also. Both irrelevant facts in this thread mind you.

Anyway, why do you care? Thought you went to Oz?????

I agree with you there that there are some who wouldnt work it on the dole. and as for Oz I stated on here that I came back at the start of last year got a job offer and was home sick.

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

You started them. Another poster pulled you up on it and you've gone on one of your infamous tangents......

Sorry I didnt start them look back again. I responded to them

road_high

fliball123 wrote: »

I agree with you there that there are some who wouldnt work it on the dole. and as for Oz I stated on here that I came back at the start of last year got a job offer and was home sick.

Good for you. But what relevance your own personal circumstances had to do with this debate is beyond me

kippy

noodler wrote: »

I think we have to keep in mind both figures.

I mean we don't (or didn't) publish health spending net of the Health Levy, and we don't publish spending on social welfare net of PRSI contributions.

For one it is standard international practice for any international comparison.

If Enda buys an item for 100 euro and get a cashback voucher for 39 euro how much does the item cost enda once he has gotten his cash back?

(Insert "The State" for Enda, 100Euro as the gross paybill and 39 euro as the deductions that go back to the state and the "item cost after cash back" as the net pay)


The major point is the NET pay and pensions bill for the public sector has gone down substantially in the time period being looked at. (Outside of the changes to salary and pensions arrangements for new staff and other "benefits" that CPA1 has brought)

Sure CPA2 needs to do some more.

noodler

kceire wrote: »

Rubbish comparison.

What?

Outstanding contribution as always.

kippy wrote: »

If Enda buys an item for 100 euro and get a cashback voucher for 39 euro how much does the item cost enda once he has gotten his cash back?

(Insert "The State" for Enda, 100Euro as the gross paybill and 39 euro as the deductions that go back to the state and the "item cost after cash back" as the net pay)


The major point is the NET pay and pensions bill for the public sector has gone down substantially in the time period being looked at. (Outside of the changes to salary and pensions arrangements for new staff and other "benefits" that CPA1 has brought)

Sure CPA2 needs to do some more.

So...we actually don't spend 20bn on social protection every year? Because PRSI contributions amount to approx 7bn, we actually spend 13bn? - we should only focus on the net cost?

That is basically what you are saying.

Disagree.

The gross figures are quite patently useful.

fliball123

mfitzy wrote: »

Good for you. But what relevance your own personal circumstances had to do with this debate is beyond me

a poster said was I not in Oz which I was just stating that I am back. as if I was still in Oz the whole debate would not affect me in any way

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

If Enda buys an item for 100 euro and get a cashback voucher for 39 euro how much does the item cost enda once he has gotten his cash back?

(Insert "The State" for Enda, 100Euro as the gross paybill and 39 euro as the deductions that go back to the state and the "item cost after cash back" as the net pay)


The major point is the NET pay and pensions bill for the public sector has gone down substantially in the time period being looked at. (Outside of the changes to salary and pensions arrangements for new staff and other "benefits" that CPA1 has brought)

Sure CPA2 needs to do some more.

But we all pay those costs?

kippy

noodler wrote: »

What?

Outstanding contribution as always.



So...we actually don't spend 20bn on social protection every year? Because PRSI contributions amount to approx 7bn, we actually spend 13bn? - we should only focus on the net cost?

That is basically what you are saying.

Disagree.

The gross figures are quite patently useful.

Let me break this down further for you.

It costs money to run a country, provide services etc etc? Do you agree?
There is no getting away from this.
So you have to pay wages and pensions associated with those wages yes?
So,
This year the state pays 100 euros in wages but gets back 20.
Next year the state pays 96 euro in wages but gets back 30.
Which position is better to be in? And what has the savings been to the sate over the 12 months?

Social welfare (and it exists in many guises) is a TOTALLY different animal.
That should be fairly obvious.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

But we all pay those costs?

I don't believe this. I really dont.

Of course we all pay them, the difference is - the state is the public sector employer, they are also the collectors of these taxes etc.
Net cost to the state of employing a person is:
Persons gross wage minus all their deductions (outside of pension related ones for arguments sake)

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

I don't believe this. I really dont.

Of course we all pay them, the difference is - the state is the public sector employer, they are also the collectors of these taxes etc.
Net cost to the state of employing a person is:
Persons gross wage minus all their deductions (outside of pension related ones for arguments sake)

In your equation did you add in the tax take that that is lost via the cut , the pension levy and the tax breaks that all pensioners get when we lost the ps workers to their pensions or the dole money being paid out to those who took redundancy or those who were rehired on contract rates??

itzme

noodler wrote: »

What?

Outstanding contribution as always.



So...we actually don't spend 20bn on social protection every year? Because PRSI contributions amount to approx 7bn, we actually spend 13bn? - we should only focus on the net cost?

That is basically what you are saying.

Disagree.

The gross figures are quite patently useful.

As has been said already gross and net are both useful in different circumstances. When talking about PS pay there is no use in bringing in social welfare/protection.

In general, most people when talking about PS pay are reflecting on its impact on the budget deficit. Gross pay has a direct impact on the expenditure. Income tax/PRSI/USC/Pension levy/... all have a direct impact on the income.

When discussing how PS pay can be tackled to reduce the deficit, the impact of any proposed change needs to detail the impact on the deficit which can only be achieved through detailing its impact on both expenditure and income. Which is why I would say net pay is the most important.

antoobrien

kippy wrote: »

This year the state pays 100 euros in wages but gets back 20.
Next year the state pays 96 euro in wages but gets back 30.
Which position is better to be in? And what has the savings been to the sate over the 12 months?

That explanation is disingenuous - the government doesn't "get back" that 20/30, it spends it in other areas. The 100/96 still has to be raised in taxes for the employee to be paid.

It's a bit like claiming that the cost to my employer of my salary is the 29k I got after tax last year, not the gross wage, employers PRSI, pension contributions & other BIK (which is closer to 40k).

noodler

kippy wrote: »

Let me break this down further for you.

It costs money to run a country, provide services etc etc? Do you agree?
There is no getting away from this.
So you have to pay wages and pensions associated with those wages yes?
So,
This year the state pays 100 euros in wages but gets back 20.
Next year the state pays 96 euro in wages but gets back 30.
Which position is better to be in? And what has the savings been to the sate over the 12 months?

Social welfare (and it exists in many guises) is a TOTALLY different animal.
That should be fairly obvious.

How on earth is it different animal in terms of public expenditure?

You are going to have to do a little better than rehash your pre-school "Kenny has 100e..." line for the third time.

You have been provided with a quite obvious reason why gross figures are important but you choose to pretend that net is okay when it suits.

I worry we are both agreeing that both measures are useful and that we are splitting heairs over relative importance but if you are arguing the gross figures are not important then I would say that is a very disingenous thing to say.

itzme wrote: »

As has been said already gross and net are both useful in different circumstances. When talking about PS pay there is no use in bringing in social welfare/protection.

Both useful sure. It is impossible to dicsuss PS pay without mentioning other areas of expenditure - it is important for illustrative purposes.

itzme wrote: »

When discussing how PS pay can be tackled to reduce the deficit, the impact of any proposed change needs to detail the impact on the deficit which can only be achieved through detailing its impact on both expenditure and income. Which is why I would say net pay is the most important.

A reduction in gross pay would reduce the deficit.

itzme

fliball123 wrote: »

In your equation did you add in the tax take that that is lost via the cut , the pension levy and the tax breaks that all pensioners get when we lost the ps workers to their pensions or the dole money being paid out to those who took redundancy or those who were rehired on contract rates??

That's a fair point. I think what I (and I think others) are calling for is when talking about reducing the PS pay and pensions bill that the real impact on the budget deficit be estimated (calculating it 100% accurately is impossible).

So any reductions in pay should take account of the impact on the deficit, which can only be estimated using net pay.
Any redundancy packages should be costed to see how much it will cost in terms of increased pension payments and dole payments.

This would mean that the savings that are reported are more than headline figures. This would be true from both sides, as a 10% cut in the gross PS pay bill does not equate to reducing the deficit by 10% of the gross PS Pay bill. And in your case, getting €1bn reduction in the (for argument sake lets say net) net PS Pay bill does not equate to a €1bn reduction in the deficit because some of the savings will be redistributed to pay pensions and dole.

itzme

noodler wrote: »

A reduction in gross pay would reduce the deficit.

And what is the relationship between the reduction in gross pay and the reduction in the deficit?
(HINT: I've already given you the answer in my previous post)

kippy

antoobrien wrote: »

That explanation is disingenuous - the government doesn't "get back" that 20/30, it spends it in other areas. The 100/96 still has to be raised in taxes for the employee to be paid.

It's a bit like claiming that the cost to my employer of my salary is the 29k I got after tax last year, not the gross wage, employers PRSI, pension contributions & other BIK (which is closer to 40k).

You employer ISN'T the State and that is the KEY difference.
I cannot fathom how people CANNOT see this.
Your employer doesn't gain from the tax, USC, PRSI that YOU pay the state.

The put 40K into your bank account every year and do not see the 11K that the state gets.
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?

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

THAT is the key difference.

Do I need to get more black and white than that?

noodler

itzme wrote: »

That's a fair point. I think what I (and I think others) are calling for is when talking about reducing the PS pay and pensions bill that the real impact on the budget deficit be estimated (calculating it 100% accurately is impossible).

So any reductions in pay should take account of the impact on the deficit, which can only be estimated using net pay.
Any redundancy packages should be costed to see how much it will cost in terms of increased pension payments and dole payments.

It should be obvious to all that a cut in PS pay by 10% would only save around half of that as the majority of PS workers would be on over 32K (the rate at which the 41% income tax rate kicks in for a single person).

Arguments that PS workers would also then spend less and so that would less the positive impact on the deficit are a misnomer as far as I am concerned. Followed to the nth degree of logic would be some sort of implication that it is never good to reduce salary costs in an economy because it would harm the deficit.

Our deficit has improved despite us taking money out of the economy - so far it has not been self-defeating.

kippy

noodler wrote: »

How on earth is it different animal in terms of public expenditure?

You are going to have to do a little better than rehash your pre-school "Kenny has 100e..." line for the third time.

You have been provided with a quite obvious reason why gross figures are important but you choose to pretend that net is okay when it suits.

I worry we are both agreeing that both measures are useful and that we are splitting heairs over relative importance but if you are arguing the gross figures are not important then I would say that is a very disingenous thing to say.

Here is one of the key reasons (in the context of this conversation) why it is a different animal.

A cut in 2 billion in gross social welfare spending results in a cut of almost the same (less PRSI and smaller amounts) in the net cost of spending that 2 billion.

A gross cut of 2 billion in the public sector paybill will result in a net saving of FAR less.
(I'm not trying to argue that you shouldnt cut gross pay, not at all, just that there is a difference in gross and net figures and their relevance between a social welfare bill and a pay and pensions bill)

Further, you HAVE to pay for the provision of services. Do you HAVE to pay childrens allowances to ALL parents?

noodler

kippy wrote: »

You employer ISN'T the State and that is the KEY difference.
I cannot fathom how people CANNOT see this.
Your employer doesn't gain from the tax, USC, PRSI that YOU pay the state.

The put 40K into your bank account every year and do not see the 11K that the state gets.
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?

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

THAT is the key difference.

Do I need to get more black and white than that?

That is not an argument for not cutting PS pay.

Also the cost is significantly more than you let on. Employer PRSI, expenses, overtime and whatever cost you attribute to a DB pension scheme are substantial.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Here is one of the key reasons (in the context of this conversation) why it is a different animal.

A cut in 2 billion in gross social welfare spending results in a cut of almost the same (less PRSI and smaller amounts) in the net cost of spending that 2 billion.

A gross cut of 2 billion in the public sector paybill will result in a net saving of FAR less.
(I'm not trying to argue that you shouldnt cut gross pay, not at all, just that there is a difference in gross and net figures and their relevance between a social welfare bill and a pay and pensions bill)

Further, you HAVE to pay for the provision of services. Do you HAVE to pay childrens allowances to ALL parents?

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

kippy

noodler wrote: »

That is not an argument for not cutting PS pay.

Also the cost is significantly more than you let on. Employer PRSI, expenses, overtime and whatever cost you attribute to a DB pension scheme are substantial.

I'm not making into an argument for not cutting public sector pay.
Just pointing out why there is a difference in the state being an employer versus a private sector employer - fairly straightforward to understand?

My statement earlier on that the public pay and pensions bill has been cut significantly in the past number of years is my argument.
It has and it has not been captured within ANY report that I can see.

I don't get your second paragraph.
Cost to whom? Oh you mean the overall cost to the state of employing a person of 40K a year?

noodler

kippy wrote: »

Here is one of the key reasons (in the context of this conversation) why it is a different animal.

A cut in 2 billion in gross social welfare spending results in a cut of almost the same (less PRSI and smaller amounts) in the net cost of spending that 2 billion.

A gross cut of 2 billion in the public sector paybill will result in a net saving of FAR less.
(I'm not trying to argue that you shouldnt cut gross pay, not at all, just that there is a difference in gross and net figures and their relevance between a social welfare bill and a pay and pensions bill)

Cutting welfare will reduce spending in the economy (even more so than PS pay since people on welfare would spend a higher percentage of their income). Now there are around 450,00 people on the Live Register so there could actually be quite negative feedback loop on VAT and other revenue streams which are (partly) used to finance pay.

kippy wrote: »

Further, you HAVE to pay for the provision of services. Do you HAVE to pay childrens allowances to ALL parents?

Nobody is suggesting not paying PS workers. The suggestion is reducing the public over private premium which the CSO/OECD/ECB have found to exist in Ireland (not explained by education).

I do not think CB should be paid to all parents, no.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

I'm not making into an argument for not cutting public sector pay.
Just pointing out why there is a difference in the state being an employer versus a private sector employer - fairly straightforward to understand?

My statement earlier on that the public pay and pensions bill has been cut significantly in the past number of years is my argument.
It has and it has not been captured within ANY report that I can see.

I don't get your second paragraph.
Cost to whom? Oh you mean the overall cost to the state of employing a person of 40K a year?

Last cut to pay was 3 years ago now

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

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

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.

noodler

kippy wrote: »

I don't get your second paragraph.
Cost to whom? Oh you mean the overall cost to the state of employing a person of 40K a year?

Uh huh.

Employers PRSI and the pension value are the biggies.

Paulzx

fliball123 wrote: »

No I dont but I dont go on about it saying how tough it is and how terrible it is that I have to work over the xmas .

Neither do i. I just say i have an expectation of being paid for it.