Is it possible to cut €1 Bn from County Council costs

murphaph

kceire wrote: »

Show me how to save 1bn euro from the LA's and then ill provide it.
It's your call. You went all in on a bluff, now your being called on it......

How would you imagine LA reform could save money?

I would amalgamate ALL back office functions like HR and IT into regional or national offices. I would amalgamate many councils themselves into larger regional authorities, getting rid of many county managers and their staff in the process.

I would contract out any and all services that can be reliably contracted out and I would MAKE THE REDUNDANT STAFF REDUNDANT. What is the problem with making redundant staff redundant as they would be anywhere else?

I believe the savings Ireland needs can come largely from serious local government and HSE reform. I believe the money is there to save, without impacting services one iota.

murphaph

Lumbo wrote: »

Extravagances. LOL.

I'm 35 this year. Have never had a job with a subsidised canteen. It is an extravagance from the taxpayers' perspective. LA staff should pay for their own lunches like most everyone else.

Paulzx

Mr.Micro wrote: »

and contracts given to certain people even though not often the cheapest. .

The cheapest tender is not necessarily the best tender. Anyone can throw in a tender with an inferior product. It might just about make the minimum quality standard for the product required but does not represent good value if a slightly more expensive tender can provide a better product with much more usable life.


If you know of "certain" people getting a tender illegaly, as a concerned citizen I would hope you would report it.

Paulzx

murphaph wrote: »

How would you imagine LA reform could save money?

I would amalgamate ALL back office functions like HR and IT into regional or national offices. I would amalgamate many councils themselves into larger regional authorities, getting rid of many county managers and their staff in the process.

I would contract out any and all services that can be reliably contracted out and I would MAKE THE REDUNDANT STAFF REDUNDANT. What is the problem with making redundant staff redundant as they would be anywhere else?

I believe the savings Ireland needs can come largely from serious local government and HSE reform. I believe the money is there to save, without impacting services one iota.

I don't disagree with you on regional councils. Shared services between councils is supposed to be government policy.

An example of a long standing shared service is Dublin Fire Brigade. Dublin City Council provides the statuatory fire service on behalf of the 4 Dublin Co. Co. Unfortunatley the county manager of Dun Laoire has decided to employ outside consultants(using taxpayers money) in order to "review" the fire cover provided in his area and to see can he do it some other way. This is despite the fact that this is exactly the type of "shared services" provision that the government wish to encourage.

Some Fingal Co. Councillers have also been making noises about the same issue looking to find "alternative " provision.

This is despite the fact that an organisation that spans 4 local authorities but operates off 1 management system, 1 payroll system, 1 Hr system, 1 training system and is and has been an example of precisely the type of regionalisation you speak of.

Lumbo

murphaph wrote: »

I'm 35 this year. Have never had a job with a subsidised canteen. It is an extravagance from the taxpayers' perspective. LA staff should pay for their own lunches like most everyone else.

I worked in the Private Sector for 3 separate companies which had subsidised canteens. It's not my problem that you worked for bad employers.

You're of the opinion that people in the Public Sector shouldn't have any benefits in their jobs. The cost of a subsidised canteen is minimal and significant saving can be/have been made elsewhere.

BKtje

Just on the Swiss system, each canton sets it's own income tax rates to balance the books. You also start paying income tax at a very low earning point. Where I live it starts from about 1100 chf (0.5% or so) and increases quickly after that. While 1100 seems like a lot to earn before being taxed, I on around the unofficial minimum wage and working at about 50% easily exceed that per month. The poverty line for a single person is about 2100 chf per month so even those earning below the poverty line pay, which I guess is why all these services can exist.

Guess I'm going a bit off topic here but thought some might find it interesting how it works here.

Victor

The Corinthian wrote: »

As it is many, if not most county councils run at a loss and constantly need extra money from Dublin.

In fairness, the problem there is central government insisting that certain services are delivered at low cost or free to certain users. The property tax will redress that situation somewhat.

Councils are obliged to keep their budgets balanced.

Paulzx

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, the problem there is central government insisting that certain services are delivered at low cost or free to certain users. The property tax will redress that situation somewhat.

Will all the property tax go back to Local authorities or will it be like motor tax and go into central coffers?

Gumbo

Victor wrote: »

In fairness, the problem there is central government insisting that certain services are delivered at low cost or free to certain users. The property tax will redress that situation somewhat.

Councils are obliged to keep their budgets balanced.

+1

Dublin city council for example will only get €67M from government this year (Local Government Fund). It has to maintain services and the balance of its €800M budget will be self generated through rates, home loans, rents and mortgages and also from services provided.

Planning applications for example, cost the public €34 which is heavily subsidised by the LA. the true cost of an average planning application to the LA is approx €550. Can you pass this cost onto the public?

Paulzx wrote: »

Will all the property tax go back to Local authorities or will it be like motor tax and go into central coffers?

The government keep banging on about it being a local property tax so my guess is it will go entirely to the LA in question. But I would not be surprised if it is ran in the same way as the LGF, and stored centrally and divided out to each LA on a ratio basis.

Victor

Paulzx wrote: »

Will all the property tax go back to Local authorities or will it be like motor tax and go into central coffers?

I don't think we know how it will be allocated between councils yet. Note that motor tax goes to the Local Government Fund and distributed to councils. It doesn't go to the state.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

contracts given to certain people even though not often the cheapest.

Cheapest isn't always best. "Most economically advantageous" is the criteria often used. There are also other criteria, e.g. if a manufacturer comes up with more compact pump or generator that is just as powerful, it might mean use can use a smaller vehicle to move it, reducing the need for larger vehicles.

If you want bulbs for street lights (many councils actually contract street lighting to electricity companies), you want them to be long lasting and energy efficient - little use in them constantly blowing or costing a disproportionate amount in electricity. The trick to replacing them is to replace them all the bulbs on a street at the same time (on a rotating schedule) - that way the labour cost is kept to a minimum, while you keep a high percentage of the lights working. Replacement of bulbs that blow prematurely can then be done by a very small team that can focus on black spots (:pac:).

Head The Wall

creedp wrote: »

Some imminently sensible ideas there which could/should be considered by the powers that be. However, I think the one above is taking the p1ss a bit. You are going to charge people to put water in their cisterns and then charge them again for flushing it? If a charge is to come in for sewage I think it would be better to have some kind of a flat charge - otherwise there would be juys on here boasting about the volume of their discharge!!

This is what happens in London at the moment and I don't see a problem with it. Bar the water you drink most of what comes in via the mains goes back out via the sewerage system and needs to be treated, you have the option to modify this obviously if can prove that you are taking care of your own waste water.

Mr.Micro

Head The Wall wrote: »

This is what happens in London at the moment and I don't see a problem with it. Bar the water you drink most of what comes in via the mains goes back out via the sewerage system and needs to be treated, you have the option to modify this obviously if can prove that you are taking care of your own waste water.

So if I have got it right, people will be paying for water, paying for sewage treatment, and of course refuse collection, road tax etc........ please can I be reminded why we need County Councils and another charge aka household charge to fund them to do what?

Mr.Micro

kceire wrote: »

+1


Planning applications for example, cost the public €34 which is heavily subsidised by the LA. the true cost of an average planning application to the LA is approx €550. Can you pass this cost onto the public?

The LA are funded by the Government via business rates and taxes. Just because a planning application costs €550 means what exactly, since it is paid for from the budget the LA gets. Since the public is funding the LA one way or another, should they be expected to pay again for a planning application to people who are paid to do the job. Its like paying twice for the commodity.

The planning applicant has to provide maps and plans and the rest, at some cost in addition to the €34. Lets face it, planning in Ireland over the last number of years the least said the better, as in rules, what rules.

Victor

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The planning applicant has to provide maps and plans and the rest, at some cost in addition to the €34. Lets face it, planning in Ireland over the last number of years the least said the better, as in rules, what rules.

Sorry, the principle of 'developer pays' needs to stay. Why should the public subsidise development?

Gumbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The LA are funded by the Government via business rates and taxes. Just because a planning application costs €550 means what exactly, since it is paid for from the budget the LA gets. Since the public is funding the LA one way or another, should they be expected to pay again for a planning application to people who are paid to do the job. Its like paying twice for the commodity.

The planning applicant has to provide maps and plans and the rest, at some cost in addition to the €34. Lets face it, planning in Ireland over the last number of years the least said the better, as in rules, what rules.

It means that the cost of an application is subsidised by government. Would you like there'll cost of the service passed onto the public?

I know too well what's required for a planning application, I'm in the game 13 years.

Similar to drivers licences being €20, now they have been outsourced and the cost is €55. If we were to do the same the end user pays more.

Effectively, as victor says, the developer pays. Why should I as a tax payer subsidise a planning application for a guy building 10 houses and thus making a nice profit from it?

Mr.Micro

kceire wrote: »

It means that the cost of an application is subsidised by government. Would you like there'll cost of the service passed onto the public?

I know too well what's required for a planning application, I'm in the game 13 years.

Similar to drivers licences being €20, now they have been outsourced and the cost is €55. If we were to do the same the end user pays more.

Effectively, as victor says, the developer pays. Why should I as a tax payer subsidise a planning application for a guy building 10 houses and thus making a nice profit from it?

How is the cost of the €550 broken down that you claim its costs for a planning application? The applicant provides the plans and copies, plus site plans, location plans the lot. The person in the planning has to do what look at said plans and information and are paid to do so, the €550 is for what ?

Mr.Micro

Victor wrote: »

Sorry, the principle of 'developer pays' needs to stay. Why should the public subsidise development?

Sorry Victor, the public is now subsidizing development big time in the form of the bailouts. The developers are all nice and snug with NAMA and 200K pocket money.

murphaph

Lumbo wrote: »

I worked in the Private Sector for 3 separate companies which had subsidised canteens. It's not my problem that you worked for bad employers.

You're of the opinion that people in the Public Sector shouldn't have any benefits in their jobs. The cost of a subsidised canteen is minimal and significant saving can be/have been made elsewhere.

I worked for IBM for 8 of those years and a GE subsidiary for 3 before those 8. They wouldn't be considered bad employers...but our canteens certainly weren't subsidised. It isn't the norm and is most definitely a perk to have your food subsidised.

Anyway, your private sector employers obviously could afford to subsidise your meals. The state cannot afford to subsidise the meals of its staff as it is flat_broke. So it's still an extravagance.

Gumbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The LA are funded by the Government via business rates and taxes. Just because a planning application costs €550 means what exactly, since it is paid for from the budget the LA gets. Since the public is funding the LA one way or another, should they be expected to pay again for a planning application to people who are paid to do the job. Its like paying twice for the commodity.

The planning applicant has to provide maps and plans and the rest, at some cost in addition to the €34. Lets face it, planning in Ireland over the last number of years the least said the better, as in rules, what rules.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

How is the cost of the €550 broken down that you claim its costs for a planning application? The applicant provides the plans and copies, plus site plans, location plans the lot. The person in the planning has to do what look at said plans and information and are paid to do so, the €550 is for what ?

The actual administration cost of looking at the planning application. It needs to be validated and then granted/refused. The process involves various professions overseeing the proposed development from drainage, roads and planning point of view.

Do you want the end user to pay the full cost?
Lets put it this way, if the planning system was privatised, you would not be charged €34 for your application, it would be a hell of a lot more.

As per previous posts, DCC for example only receives €67M from the government, they are self sufficient. If they could charge the full rate of an application then they would probably not need any government funding.

I don't want this btw, as it adds cost to the applicant but if you fail to see what it means then I'm bewildered.

Edit: it actually costs more for the planning system to administer an application. The DOE reason it's €1500. http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,17072,en.pdf

creedp

Head The Wall wrote: »

This is what happens in London at the moment and I don't see a problem with it. Bar the water you drink most of what comes in via the mains goes back out via the sewerage system and needs to be treated, you have the option to modify this obviously if can prove that you are taking care of your own waste water.

How do they handle multi-unit housing (e.g. apartment blocks) Were these meters installed in all units when built?

murphaph

kceire wrote: »

Planning applications for example, cost the public €34 which is heavily subsidised by the LA. the true cost of an average planning application to the LA is approx €550. Can you pass this cost onto the public?

Nothing is being subsidised by the LA or the govt. If any subsidising is being done it's being done by the tax and ratepayers.

Anyway, where does this €550 come from? What is "an average planning application"?

If applicants are going to be asked to pay the full cost, they should at least get an itemised bill showing exactly who costs what, fair enough?

Mr.Micro

kceire wrote: »

The actual administration cost of looking at the planning application. It needs to be validated and then granted/refused. The process involves various professions overseeing the proposed development from drainage, roads and planning point of view.

Do you want the end user to pay the full cost?
Lets put it this way, if the planning system was privatised, you would not be charged €34 for your application, it would be a hell of a lot more.

As per previous posts, DCC for example only receives €67M from the government, they are self sufficient. If they could charge the full rate of an application then they would probably not need any government funding.

I don't want this btw, as it adds cost to the applicant but if you fail to see what it means then I'm bewildered.

We are talking about the LA which is fully funded to run the planning departments and process planning applications, in effect administration, and this €550 thing is still unclear to me. Simply put, if Joe public paid €550 per application then the planning would not need funding from the LA budget?

If it was put out to private companies we might get some standards and not run like the LA s did in the fiasco of the celtic tiger years. There were no standards and its a bit rich suggesting that the average applicant is getting a deal when he/she funds the LA in the first place. Its like taking PRSI payments and paying as well as you enter the hospital. Its the public who have paid and are paying for the non standards of the LA, the developers and the bankers.

Gumbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its like taking PRSI payments and paying as well as you enter the hospital.

Isint that exactly what happens now?

Lumbo

murphaph wrote: »

I worked for IBM for 8 of those years and a GE subsidiary for 3 before those 8. They wouldn't be considered bad employers...but our canteens certainly weren't subsidised. It isn't the norm and is most definitely a perk to have your food subsidised.

Anyway, your private sector employers obviously could afford to subsidise your meals. The state cannot afford to subsidise the meals of its staff as it is flat_broke. So it's still an extravagance.

I haven't said it wasn't a perk, I said it wasn't extravagant, it's basic and it's a low cost. You're putting your personal experience as the norm. I would say that in my personal experience, it is the norm. I asked a friend today who has only worked in the private sector, in their experience it's also the norm.

Also, my employer is not flat broke. Quit it with the dramatics :rolleyes:

Gumbo

murphaph wrote: »

Nothing is being subsidised by the LA or the govt. If any subsidising is being done it's being done by the tax and ratepayers.

Anyway, where does this €550 come from? What is "an average planning application"?

If applicants are going to be asked to pay the full cost, they should at least get an itemised bill showing exactly who costs what, fair enough?

Read the link provided. If you don't like facts then I can't argue with you.

Mr.Micro

kceire wrote: »

Isint that exactly what happens now?

Private or public? Either way does it make it right?

Gumbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Private or public? Either way does it make it right?

I pay PRSI. But I still have to pay the hospital for treatment.

Mr.Micro

kceire wrote: »

I pay PRSI. But I still have to pay the hospital for treatment.

I do believe under current legislation that a person can only be charged for 10 days hospitalization in one year. So the full cost in many cases falls with the state funding. Those on medical cards of course do not have to pay for treatment or hospital stays. Such buffers are important IMO for the general public, just like the planning cost that we were discussing, which you may or may not agree with.

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

I worked for IBM for 8 of those years and a GE subsidiary for 3 before those 8. They wouldn't be considered bad employers...but our canteens certainly weren't subsidised. It isn't the norm and is most definitely a perk to have your food subsidised.

Anyway, your private sector employers obviously could afford to subsidise your meals. The state cannot afford to subsidise the meals of its staff as it is flat_broke. So it's still an extravagance.

IBM mightn't have a subsidised canteen but the perks are certainly better than anything I got in the public sector.

http://www-05.ibm.com/employment/ie/professionals/what_we_offer.html


http://www-01.ibm.com/employment/us/benefits/index.html

The health and dental benefits aren't too bad at all.

Larbre34

Silentcorner wrote: »

Its only €30 million per local authority...

Equal to 15% of the average revenue (current) budget of a mid range County Council. Closer to 30% of the budget of smaller badly capitalised Counties. The answer to the original question is therefore, yes it is possible to cut €1bn from Council costs. Can that be done without severely affecting or ending altogether services that people who live in those Counties rely on. No way.

Mr.Micro

Larbre34 wrote: »

Equal to 15% of the average revenue (current) budget of a mid range County Council. Closer to 30% of the budget of smaller badly capitalised Counties. The answer to the original question is therefore, yes it is possible to cut €1bn from Council costs. Can that be done without severely affecting or ending altogether services that people who live in those Counties rely on. No way.

Since the County Council in its area is a monopoly, in effect, so who is to say that any services it provides are value for money and not over inflated to justify its existence. What actual services do the County Councils provide that could not be put out to competition? There is probably an awful lot of dead wood in every County Council in Ireland.

donalg1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Since the County Council in its area is a monopoly, in effect, so who is to say that any services it provides are value for money and not over inflated to justify its existence. What actual services do the County Councils provide that could not be put out to competition? There is probably an awful lot of dead wood in every County Council in Ireland.

And an awful lot of dead wood in every other business in Ireland too, I mean just look at the talk to forums here for examples of poor services being provided by wonderful private sector companies.

Do you mean they could do something with all their services similiar to what they did with the bin services?

My County Council dont collect bins anymore as the private companies entered the market and undercut them meaning there was no point in the Council staying in the business making a loss. Now the quote I got this year for my bins was €417, which is far more than I ever had to pay to the Council. Clearly the private companies ran at a loss for the first few years forced the Council out and are now raising prices. If this is what would happen with the other services I dont think I would want that to happen in fairness.

€417 is an extortionate price to pay, but that is what I am faced with now with the profit driven private companies gaining a monopoly in the market.

Geuze

kceire wrote: »

I pay PRSI. But I still have to pay the hospital for treatment.

Just to clarify - PRSI insurance is not health insurance, and doesn't cover healthcare, or give you any entitlement to healthcare.

(Except for a dental check-up, and maybe some optical)

PRSI never covered healthcare.

Healthcare in Irl is mainly tax-financed, plus some user fees.

Private Joker

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Since the County Council in its area is a monopoly, in effect, so who is to say that any services it provides are value for money and not over inflated to justify its existence. What actual services do the County Councils provide that could not be put out to competition? There is probably an awful lot of dead wood in every County Council in Ireland.

Town parks, general amenity areas, village and town landscaping sewerage works. its the councils responsibility to maintain the environment. what would stop a private company from doing the bare minimum and maybe charge for use of its parks and justify the charge by saying it costs x amount to maintain.

Geuze

Paulzx wrote: »

Will all the property tax go back to Local authorities or will it be like motor tax and go into central coffers?

Motor tax and the new LPT go into the Local Govt Fund, to be distributed to local councils.

I strongly agree that local people should pay local taxes to fund local Govt.

But it should be transparent and accountable.

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,30964,en.pdf

Mr.Micro

Private Joker wrote: »

Town parks, general amenity areas, village and town landscaping sewerage works. its the councils responsibility to maintain the environment. what would stop a private company from doing the bare minimum and maybe charge for use of its parks and justify the charge by saying it costs x amount to maintain.

Any of the above can be tendered out to private companies. Walk though any town in Ireland and the parks and streets leave a lot to be desired as regards maintenance. It seems we will all be paying a big household charge to receive very little and still have to pay others for refuse collection, water, water treatment and other services. We are getting less but paying more.

Mr.Micro

donalg1 wrote: »

And an awful lot of dead wood in every other business in Ireland too, I mean just look at the talk to forums here for examples of poor services being provided by wonderful private sector companies.

Do you mean they could do something with all their services similiar to what they did with the bin services?

My County Council dont collect bins anymore as the private companies entered the market and undercut them meaning there was no point in the Council staying in the business making a loss. Now the quote I got this year for my bins was €417, which is far more than I ever had to pay to the Council. Clearly the private companies ran at a loss for the first few years forced the Council out and are now raising prices. If this is what would happen with the other services I dont think I would want that to happen in fairness.

€417 is an extortionate price to pay, but that is what I am faced with now with the profit driven private companies gaining a monopoly in the market.

County Councils are hardly a business when they are bailed out if they blow their budgets. If business practices were employed to the way Councils operate then many would have gone under a long time ago. As I posted being a monopoly in the County they have no competition for what they do and if money is wasted or lost, it is replenished. A real business goes under and people get sacked or lose their jobs.

The Councils gave up the refuse collection and put it out to tender but the man in the street now has to pay household charge and a refuse charge on top...... so the blame lies with the County Councils.

Gumbo

Geuze wrote: »

Just to clarify - PRSI insurance is not health insurance, and doesn't cover healthcare, or give you any entitlement to healthcare.

(Except for a dental check-up, and maybe some optical)

PRSI never covered healthcare.

Healthcare in Irl is mainly tax-financed, plus some user fees.

I know that, it was in responce to another poster asking.

PS. you dont get a dental check up on PRSI contributions anymore

donalg1

Mr.Micro wrote: »

County Councils are hardly a business when they are bailed out if they blow their budgets. If business practices were employed to the way Councils operate then many would have gone under a long time ago. As I posted being a monopoly in the County they have no competition for what they do and if money is wasted or lost, it is replenished. A real business goes under and people get sacked or lose their jobs.

The Councils gave up the refuse collection and put it out to tender but the man in the street now has to pay household charge and a refuse charge on top...... so the blame lies with the County Councils.

Would you consider the banks to be a business seeing as they have had the biggest bailout ever seen? The Councils still have to work to a budget and the likes of the property tax and water charges will help them budget better as they will have some steady and predictable revenue streams which they dont have now. Which means they will become more accountable for their budgets, now if you want to talk about budgets being blown just have a look at the HSE, they asked for an additional €700m iirc to cover thier inability to manage their finances efficiently.

How does the blame lie with the County Councils, would you prefer they kept their bin services but ran them at a loss, the first paragraph of your post would suggest this isnt something you would agree to?

You cant substitute Local Government for private companies how in the name of god would that work.

Geuze

kceire wrote: »

I know that, it was in responce to another poster asking.

PS. you dont get a dental check up on PRSI contributions anymore

Thanks.

Dental Benefit


Under this scheme, the Department pays the full cost of an oral examination once per calender year. The examination is provided by private dentists who are on a Department of Social Protection's panel. Lists of dentists on the panel are available in the Department's offices. Most dentists are on the panel so you should not have any difficulty finding one. The dentist or the Department will have the application forms. These forms require details such as your Personal Public Service Number (PPSN). If you are a dependent spouse or civil partner, you should give the PPSN of the insured person.

Gumbo

Geuze wrote: »

Thanks.

Dental Benefit


Under this scheme, the Department pays the full cost of an oral examination once per calender year. The examination is provided by private dentists who are on a Department of Social Protection's panel. Lists of dentists on the panel are available in the Department's offices. Most dentists are on the panel so you should not have any difficulty finding one. The dentist or the Department will have the application forms. These forms require details such as your Personal Public Service Number (PPSN). If you are a dependent spouse or civil partner, you should give the PPSN of the insured person.

My apolagies, i was under the impression this was cancelled in one of the recent budgets. Must book myself in

Mr.Micro

donalg1 wrote: »

Would you consider the banks to be a business seeing as they have had the biggest bailout ever seen? The Councils still have to work to a budget and the likes of the property tax and water charges will help them budget better as they will have some steady and predictable revenue streams which they dont have now. Which means they will become more accountable for their budgets, now if you want to talk about budgets being blown just have a look at the HSE, they asked for an additional €700m iirc to cover thier inability to manage their finances efficiently.

How does the blame lie with the County Councils, would you prefer they kept their bin services but ran them at a loss, the first paragraph of your post would suggest this isnt something you would agree to?

You cant substitute Local Government for private companies how in the name of god would that work.

As I have posted, CC s are a monopoly in the County and if they are providing a service, it does not mean that its the best value or even adequate.

Local Government is there to administer services for the community, and using private companies to do that for a good price and good service might probably be better than a shoddy run unaccountable and non-competitive CC service.

Banks were a business and under normal circumstances they should have gone to the wall but the Governments decided to bail them out to keep the world going. The Role of CC s has diminished IMO as we pay separately for most every service we need and there are too many CCs doing even less than before, with top heavy administration from the County manager down.

antoobrien

Mr.Micro wrote: »

As I have posted, CC s are a monopoly in the County and if they are providing a service, it does not mean that its the best value or even adequate.

How many private companies will provide social services at a loss?

None and we're seeing that in the driving license system. It was being subsidized to the tune of about 65% by the state, but the companies that are doing it will not be willing to take a loss on it.

And at the end of the day the taxpayer will still pay one way or the other.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

None and we're seeing that in the driving license system. It was being subsidized to the tune of about 65% by the state, but the companies that are doing it will not be willing to take a loss on it.

And at the end of the day the taxpayer will still pay one way or the other.

The last sentence is important here. When the services were publicly provided they were not provided at a loss as the taxpayer always funded the service 100%. Yes the user charge was less than the full cost but this is often the case with publicly provided services. You could argue that publicly provided services should charge the full economic rate for the service but if that was the case in all instances then they wouldn't be tax funded. In theory, you could also argue that if the public sector charged full price and was was efficient it could compete with private sector companies to provide the same service as there is no profit margin to cover.

From the taxpayer's perspective, there should be no real difficulty with privatising publicly provided services if the overall cost of delivery reduces/stays the same and the quality of the service is maintained or improved. In this context, the taxpayer doesn't pay any more for the service and the quality of the service is maintained. Overall its not that the private sector is more efficient per se that's important to the end user/taxpaer but that the cost of delivery plus the profit margin required by the private supplier is less that the previous cost of public provision.

I was listening to the news over the weekend and there as a story about the prohibitive cost of electricity in Romania since the generating stations were privatised. Seems the av monthly salary is about €400 while the av monthly electricity bill is around €160 - not sustainable obviously. Opposition parties are suggesting the renationalisation of the companies to control prices. Now presumably its not that the private companies can't produce electricity efficiently that is the problem here but that they are making supernatural profits as monopolistic private providers. You can argue that a public sector monoply is ineficient but there is nothing worse that an out of control private sector monolopy that is not properly regulated.

Bottom line privatise yes where appropriate so long as taxpayer's/customers interests are protected.

Outkast_IRE

Geuze wrote: »

Thanks.

Dental Benefit


Under this scheme, the Department pays the full cost of an oral examination once per calender year. The examination is provided by private dentists who are on a Department of Social Protection's panel. Lists of dentists on the panel are available in the Department's offices. Most dentists are on the panel so you should not have any difficulty finding one. The dentist or the Department will have the application forms. These forms require details such as your Personal Public Service Number (PPSN). If you are a dependent spouse or civil partner, you should give the PPSN of the insured person.

The GF rang about this last week to her usual dentist and the receptionist was telling here you now must be working 5 years full time before you are entitled to the check up ?

She finished college 3 years ago and is working full time pretty much since its ridiculous carry-on.

The brother in germany pays a hell of a lot of health insurance via tax but at least he gets great treatment as part of it. He only has to pay any dentist work if he misses the yearly checkup, as long as you go to the checkups yearly your covered for any work needed.

murphaph

Lumbo wrote: »

I haven't said it wasn't a perk, I said it wasn't extravagant, it's basic and it's a low cost. You're putting your personal experience as the norm. I would say that in my personal experience, it is the norm. I asked a friend today who has only worked in the private sector, in their experience it's also the norm.

Also, my employer is not flat broke. Quit it with the dramatics :rolleyes:

I don't know who your employer is, but the state is flat broke, agreed?

You have (I presume) no idea what the canteen subsidies across the public service costs the state every year, or do you? Even if it's a few hundred thousand and I would suggest it is likely at least in the millions altogether, it is too much for a broke state.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

IBM mightn't have a subsidised canteen but the perks are certainly better than anything I got in the public sector.

http://www-05.ibm.com/employment/ie/professionals/what_we_offer.html


http://www-01.ibm.com/employment/us/benefits/index.html

The health and dental benefits aren't too bad at all.

The second link refers to IBM US employment

Anyway, IBM are not bankrupt in 2013. When IBM was almost bankrupt (it was hours away from filing for Chapter 12 bankruptcy about 25 years ago), it sacked tens of thousands of staff to make itself competitive again and totally changed the way it did business.

The Irish state needs radical change as well as it is in even more trouble than IBM was back then, but the change won't happen.

murphaph

antoobrien wrote: »

How many private companies will provide social services at a loss?

None and we're seeing that in the driving license system. It was being subsidized to the tune of about 65% by the state, but the companies that are doing it will not be willing to take a loss on it.

And at the end of the day the taxpayer will still pay one way or the other.

Wrong.

The state simply tenders the provision of the driving licence service with set quality levels and private companies make their best price bids and the best company is chosen. The state then only employs people to ensure the private company provides the level of service agreed, but does not provide the service itself.

People claiming that councils can't contract out services are obviously oblivious to the fact that councils already do contract out bits and pieces. The goal should be to contract out the maximum and make the council staff redundant.

Private Joker

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Any of the above can be tendered out to private companies. Walk though any town in Ireland and the parks and streets leave a lot to be desired as regards maintenance. It seems we will all be paying a big household charge to receive very little and still have to pay others for refuse collection, water, water treatment and other services. We are getting less but paying more.

When did we start paying for water ( i know its on the way ) and water treatment separately . councils will never be run for profit, there may be efficiencies to obtained but at this stage i think the low hanging fruit has been picked.

Council budgets have been slashed in the last few years take galway for example
2008 - Adopted Budget €160 M
2009 - Adjusted Budget €146 M
2010 - Adopted Budget(note: €3m of this sum is due to an adjustment in
accounting treatment)
€149 M
2011 - Adopted Budget €144 M
2012 – Budget €136 M
2013 is 127 million euro

Staff have also been reduced by on average 18%( i havent got a link to a report but i can get one if you want.

As for refuse collection , you see what has been done as per a previous poster said. private companys will come in and undercut the local authority, then in a couple of years, when the local authority is out of the picture, they will increase their prices.

To see how privisation works , take a look at the uk and tell me if you want that model.

In conclusion i think you are getting more for your money now than you were previously.

Mr.Micro

Private Joker wrote: »

When did we start paying for water ( i know its on the way ) and water treatment separately . councils will never be run for profit, there may be efficiencies to obtained but at this stage i think the low hanging fruit has been picked.

Council budgets have been slashed in the last few years take galway for example
2008 - Adopted Budget €160 M
2009 - Adjusted Budget €146 M
2010 - Adopted Budget(note: €3m of this sum is due to an adjustment in
accounting treatment)
€149 M
2011 - Adopted Budget €144 M
2012 – Budget €136 M
2013 is 127 million euro

Staff have also been reduced by on average 18%( i havent got a link to a report but i can get one if you want.

As for refuse collection , you see what has been done as per a previous poster said. private companys will come in and undercut the local authority, then in a couple of years, when the local authority is out of the picture, they will increase their prices.

To see how privisation works , take a look at the uk and tell me if you want that model.

In conclusion i think you are getting more for your money now than you were previously.

I am looking forward to the plans with regards to water. I pay for my own, upkeep etc.

With regards to refuse collection, it has increased in cost because the LA s charge the contractor more and more per tonne, to dispose of the refuse in the landfill, owned by the LA. So of course the contractor has to pass on
the extra costs. So who is really responsible for the escalating cost of refuse collection... the LA have sure helped.

Reform of the LA s is well overdue. The public needs to see how many people are employed to do what exactly, and the costs, plus, are these people doing the job to a professional level. If we take planning departments over the last number of years, and it was meltdown, and only for An Bord Pleanala there would be double the disasters that were given the go ahead by the LA s.