Civil Servants want their money back.....

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

No...I pay some tax ergo i'm funding elaborate PS pensions whilst they pay nothing.

I pay tax for ps pay and pensions and in a lot of areas I get a service not fit for purpose..Then they want pay rises while we are borrowing 10 billion this year..you want us to bend over backwards a little more so that you can have some more money in your pocket

Sheldons Brain

pay tax for ps pay and pensions and in a lot of areas I get a service not fit for purpose.

SO are you happy then to have pay rises only in those areas that are fit for purpose?

ryan101

chopper6 wrote: »

No...I pay some tax ergo i'm funding elaborate PS pensions whilst they pay nothing.

You really haven't a clue have you ?

They pay taxes, they pay into their own pension, and they also pay a heavy pension levy.

sarumite

jessiejam wrote: »

I didn't say cover the cost of their pension. I said fund (contribute to) their pension. You and others seem to think that pensions in the PS are covered by YOUR taxes. PS contribute more than their fair share to this economy. As previously stated, I am not going out of my way to find facts that you can find yourself for it to be thrown back in my face .

I assume by this you mean that PAYE workers contribute more than their fair share to the economy and by virtue of being PAYE workers, that includes those working in the Public sector? (personally I would say that considering the extremely progressive nature of our PAYE system, its perhaps not true as a blanket statement)

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

SO are you happy then to have pay rises only in those areas that are fit for purpose?

FFS there are increments going on, there are pay rises going on in the sector..You would think that increments had stopped...No there should be no additional pay rises until we are no longer borrowing at the very least

ryan101

fliball123 wrote: »

FFS there are increments going on, there are pay rises going on in the sector..You would think that increments had stopped...No there should be no additional pay rises until we are no longer borrowing at the very least

We've always been borrowing and always will, now we're borrowing extra to pay the private debts of developers bondholders banksters and for SCAMA

fliball123

ryan101 wrote: »

We've always been borrowing and always will, now we're borrowing to pay money to pay the private debts of developers bondholders banksters and for SCAMA

Are you kidding..I have done those figures to death...the banks were/are 1 third of our problem of our debt and our borrowings..The other 2 thirds were for overpaying public sector wages and pensions and social welfare..both more than doubled in the 10 years leading up to the crash..I dont like what the banks did but this b0ll0x used by those either on the dole or in the ps to point at the big bad banks as an excuse not to cut or in this case not to give a pay rise to the ps is a joke

sarumite

fliball123 wrote: »

Are you kidding..I have done those figures to death...the banks were/are 1 third of our problem of our debt and our borrowings..The other 2 thirds were for overpaying public sector wages and pensions and social welfare..both more than doubled in the 10 years leading up to the crash..I dont like what the banks did but this b0ll0x used by those either on the dole or in the ps to point at the big bad banks as an excuse not to cut or in this case not to give a pay rise to the ps is a joke

We also reduced our taxation on the back stamp duty receipts. You can't blame all of the borrowing/deficit purely on government spending any more than blaming the usual suspects (banktsers, builders and Ze Germans). The problems arose from a combination of excessive spending and a dwindling of the tax base.

fliball123

sarumite wrote: »

We also reduced our taxation on the back stamp duty receipts. You can't blame all of the borrowing/deficit purely on government spending any more than blaming the usual suspects (banktsers, builders and Ze Germans). The problems arose from a combination of excessive spending and a dwindling of the tax base.

I agree the ramping up of the public servants pay and penisons aswell as social welfare was all down to the big increase in stamp duty due to the housing boom madness...The politicians have a lot to do with the problems we have currently but once that stamp duty well dried up , people were forced to shell out a lot more in taxes and continue to do so and the rates for both ps and welfare were unsustainable..Throw in the banks and you have a clusterphuck of epic proportions....So do you think it would be fair to give back the 7% to the ps while the lads are driving around slapping in water meters for yet another stealth tax?

jessiejam

fliball123 wrote: »

I agree the ramping up of the public servants pay and penisons aswell as social welfare was all down to the big increase in stamp duty due to the housing boom madness...The politicians have a lot to do with the problems we have currently but once that stamp duty well dried up , people were forced to shell out a lot more in taxes and continue to do so and the rates for both ps and welfare were unsustainable..Throw in the banks and you have a clusterphuck of epic proportions....So do you think it would be fair to give back the 7% to the ps while the lads are driving around slapping in water meters for yet another stealth tax?

I believe your anger is misdirected. We are all peeved at the austerity measures that this govt are forcing down our throats, turning this country into a dictatorship more than a democracy. Regardless whether you are a private or public sector worker the majority of the new taxes that have been, and are being, imposed on the average worker are unfair.

We are being forced to pay these taxes, water/increase in carbon tax in May/property tax and now revenue sending letters to those who didn't pay the household charge. Your anger should be directed at the govt who are screwing every single worker in the country to pay for something that wasn't their fault. Yet what do we get in return? (im not talking about regular tax to fund the health service etc.) we get fúk all. How much more can they take from us.

As for civil servants looking for the 7% back.. I think it should be considered. Because, there were promises made when this cut was introduced. PS are working longer hours for less pay and there have been improvements in efficiency in MOST areas. Govt said they would consider it. But promises promises as per usual. LIES Fúking LIES.

Rant over.

fliball123

jessiejam wrote: »

I believe your anger is misdirected. We are all peeved at the austerity measures that this govt are forcing down our throats, turning this country into a dictatorship more than a democracy. Regardless whether you are a private or public sector worker the majority of the new taxes that have been, and are being, imposed on the average worker are unfair.

We are being forced to pay these taxes, water/increase in carbon tax in May/property tax and now revenue sending letters to those who didn't pay the household charge. Your anger should be directed at the govt who are screwing every single worker in the country to pay for something that wasn't their fault. Yet what do we get in return? (im not talking about regular tax to fund the health service etc.) we get fúk all. How much more can they take from us.

As for civil servants looking for the 7% back.. I think it should be considered. Because, there were promises made when this cut was introduced. PS are working longer hours for less pay and there have been improvements in efficiency in MOST areas. Govt said they would consider it. But promises promises as per usual. LIES Fúking LIES.

Rant over.

I have no anger over the public sector at all..As I say this forum had gone quiet with regards to the public vs private debate...Its the unions who I have an issue with ..with talk of this nsnsense.....and it should not be considered..If there is any money left over (which wont happen for a long time) or when there is money left over all tax payers should get some money back not just one sector....As for they are working longer hours..so do you think that the private sector are working less hours..??

jessiejam

fliball123 wrote: »

I have no anger over the public sector at all..As I say this forum had gone quiet with regards to the public vs private debate...Its the unions who I have an issue with ..with talk of this nsnsense.....and it should not be considered..If there is any money left over (which wont happen for a long time) or when there is money left over all tax payers should get some money back not just one sector....As for they are working longer hours..so do you think that the private sector are working less hours..??

Skitting

fliball123

jessiejam wrote: »

Skitting

haha ...I dont look I have plenty of friends in the public sector ..and its simple maths in order to give 7% pay rise to the public sector it needs to be found somewhere..and usually that means the government stopping me in my tracks turning me upside down, and shaking me until more money falls out or in layman's terms looking for money from me in the form of a new tax or increasing an existing one..

martingriff

fliball123 wrote: »

haha ...I dont look I have plenty of friends in the public sector ..and its simple maths in order to give 7% pay rise to the public sector it needs to be found somewhere..and usually that means the government stopping me in my tracks turning me upside down, and shaking me until more money falls out or in layman's terms looking for money from me in the form of a new tax or increasing an existing one..

In the PS I agree with your last post about unions. They will shake you everyone public and private for new taxes. *I really weep for those over €50,000 who are hard done by and those who over €65K who had no cuts in pay I am so sorry for. *sarcasm detector on

chopper6

ryan101 wrote: »

You really haven't a clue have you ?

They pay taxes, they pay into their own pension, and they also pay a heavy pension levy.

I know we do...i was being ironic.

sarumite

fliball123 wrote: »

So do you think it would be fair to give back the 7% to the ps while the lads are driving around slapping in water meters for yet another stealth tax?

Personally I think any spare capacity within the finances should be used to promote Job growth. We need to get people off the dole, but we need to do it by providing employment (as opposed to some of juvenile suggestions that have been made in this thread). If we get to the point where there is even greater spare capacity, a general improvement in our economic outlook must take precedence over providing relief to a smaller subsection of the population. Eventually though the government will have to look at the remuneration (salary and t&C's and any additional benefits such as job security) for its employees and ensure that it is appropriate.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

I have no anger over the public sector at all..As I say this forum had gone quiet with regards to the public vs private debate...Its the unions who I have an issue with ..with talk of this nsnsense.....and it should not be considered..If there is any money left over (which wont happen for a long time) or when there is money left over all tax payers should get some money back not just one sector....As for they are working longer hours..so do you think that the private sector are working less hours..??

Private sector can get pay rises when thier bosses make more money and if the workers demand it...there's no evidence that they all took paycuts anyway.

The PS have taken a disproportionate amount of pain to bail out the private sector and this needs to be adressed.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

Private sector can get pay rises when thier bosses make more money and if the workers demand it...there's no evidence that they all took paycuts anyway.

The PS have taken a disproportionate amount of pain to bail out the private sector and this needs to be adressed.

some did some didnt, some took pay cuts, some hours cuts, but you also have to take into account that almost 250k in the private sector lost their job..The PS lost no jobs and were offered a very good deal for anyone who wanted to jump ship and continued to get increments as well. You also have to take into account most private sector companies who gave out any pay rises in the last 6/7 years were profitable

ryan101

fliball123 wrote: »

some did some didnt but you also have to take into account that almost 250k in the private sector lost their job..The PS lost no jobs and continued to get increments as well. You also have to take into account most private sector companies who gave out any pay rises in the last 6/7 years were profitable

Thousands of people who were not on permanent contracts in the PS lost their jobs.

It was a great way of 'creating jobs'

Now the PS are short staffed, and we have one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe, you couldn't make it up.

fliball123

ryan101 wrote: »

Thousands of people who were not on permanent contracts in the PS lost their jobs.

It was a great way of 'creating jobs'

Now the PS are short staffed, and we have one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe, you couldn't make it up.

A temporary job is just that..Temporary the clue is in the name..250k lost full time permanent jobs in the private sector

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

A temporary job is just that..Temporary the clue is in the name..250k lost full time permanent jobs in the private sector

Do you have the stats to back that up?

ryan101

fliball123 wrote: »

A temporary job is just that..Temporary the clue is in the name..250k lost full time permanent jobs in the private sector

So the solution is to increase the dole cues by sacking more people . . . lol

The wonderful private sector and their corruption caused the mess and their private gambling and speculation debts had to be bailed out with taxpayers money.

chopper6

ryan101 wrote: »

So the solution is to increase the dole cues by sacking more people . . . lol

The wonderful private sector and their corruption caused the mess and their private gambling and speculation debts had to be bailed out with taxpayers money.

BUT private sector Gardai and firemen make 48% less than thier public sector equivelent.

ryan101

chopper6 wrote: »

BUT private sector Gardai and firemen make 48% less than thier public sector equivelent.

Yep, "guards bankrupted this country and they are the equivalent to a security guard." lol

bobbysands81

fliball123 wrote: »

The PS lost no jobs and were offered a very good deal for anyone who wanted to jump ship

Stunning ignorance.

chopper6

ryan101 wrote: »

Yep, guards bankrupted this country they are equivalent to a security guards. lol

Public Sector bankers must be on some huge money too

ryan101

chopper6 wrote: »

Public Sector bankers must be on some huge money too

Indeed they are, its good to have friends in high places, but really it's ordinary guards that are the problem isn't it ?

chopper6

ryan101 wrote: »

Indeed they are, its good to have friends in high places, but really it's ordinary guards that are the problem isn't it ?

Well they reckon a guard can retire at 40 years of age with over a billion quid in his pension fund.

ryan101

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they reckon a guard can retire at 40 years of age with over a billion quid in his pension fund.

I thought it was 10 billion at 35

chopper6

ryan101 wrote: »

I thought it was 10 billion at 35

No...that's the teachers.

After 11 months holidays a year and the option to purchase apartment blocks for 20k.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

.As I say this forum had gone quiet with regards to the public vs private debate...?

The reason this forum went quiet with regards to the public vs private debate is that the hard figures show that average pay levels in the private sector are back up to the levels at the boom while average pay levels in the public sector are not.

Similarly, the creation of jobs in the last two years has resulted in the percentage of private jobs lost since the start of the recession to be at a similar level to the still declining public sector.

Posters like yourself have no hard figures left to back up anything you say.

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

The reason this forum went quiet with regards to the public vs private debate is that the hard figures show that average pay levels in the private sector are back up to the levels at the boom while average pay levels in the public sector are not.

Similarly, the creation of jobs in the last two years has resulted in the percentage of private jobs lost since the start of the recession to be at a similar level to the still declining public sector.

Posters like yourself have no hard figures left to back up anything you say.

That may well be the case, I don't have the figures one way or the other. But in reality they are unconnected .

Benchmarking was a farce and corrective action was going to come one way or the other irrespective of conditions in the private sector.

sarumite

marienbad wrote: »

That may well be the case, I don't have the figures one way or the other.

I have learnt to be very skeptical when people talk stats on boards. More often or not the figures tend to be selective or the conclusion drawn based on supposition and assumptions.

fliball123

ryan101 wrote: »

Yep, "guards bankrupted this country and they are the equivalent to a security guard." lol

Yeap and the country isnt b0ll0xed and borrowing 10 billion this year lets give everyone 10 increments in the public sector

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

I have learnt to be very skeptical when people talk stats on boards. More often or not the figures tend to be selective or the conclusion drawn based on supposition and assumptions.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2013/qnhs_q42013.pdf


"Public Sector Employment
Based on the higher response levels and lower levels of subjectivity associated with the Earnings, Hours and Employment Costs Survey (EHECS) the CSO believes it offers a more reliable source for public sector employment estimates over time.
Table A3 in the annex shows these estimates of public sector employment.
The number of employees in the public sector declined by 5,500 (-1.4%) in the year to Q4 2013, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 376,300. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q4 2010 to Q4 2013 was 27,700 (-6.9%). See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector showed an increase of 27,800 (+2.4%) over the year to Q4 2013, compared with an increase of 300 in the year to Q4 2012. The total number of employees in the private sector increased by 46,400 (+4.1%) over the three years from Q4 2010 to Q4 2013. See table A3."

jmayo

chopper6 wrote: »

We should increase corporation tax...these companies will NOT be here forever and it's foolish to base an economy round them.

Better to make them pay their way whilst they're here and use the money to set up indiginous industries.

You are having a laugh now aren't you.
If the mutlinationals go we would lose our best paying jobs and lose export earnings.
And while it should have always been a goal to promote indigenous entreprises trying to do so now when we have no funcitoning banks is lunacy.

chopper6 wrote: »

And those good for nothing Gardai...the private sector Gardai work much longer hours in far more dangerous conditions.

Now which one of the sacred cows have you forgotten.
garda - check.

I know firemen and nurses.

For every fireman, garda or nurse how many workers do a standard 9 to 5 job where the unions make sure any extra work is overtime and god forbid any one would do anyone elses work.

ryan101 wrote: »

We've always been borrowing and always will, now we're borrowing extra to pay the private debts of developers bondholders banksters and for SCAMA

Oh FFS.
Do you know what our current budget deficit is ?
Even if we never gave one penny/cent to banks/NAMA/etc we just were not making enough in tax to cover public expenditure.

What the bank bailout did was force into the arms of the troika, but if we never had a bank bailout we had to face fact, money out >> money in.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Yeap and the country isnt b0ll0xed and borrowing 10 billion this year lets give everyone 10 increments in the public sector

Increments are normal and are being awarded regardless of what you think.

If somebody applies for a job where the top of the scale is say,30k then that inludes increments...you might start on 25k and progress,via increments to the 30k top of thier grade.

It's not that the person starts on 30k and then continues to increment above that scale point.

A pay raise would be anything above the 30k assuming the person has reached the top of the scale and such a raise would have to be part of a national wage agrement or benchmarking deal.

The crux of this thread is that pay has been cut twice(or 3 times if you earn over 65k) to bail out the private sector and now tha the economy is correcting and the PS have done their bit(by not striking and accepting paycuts) that this money be reinstated.

NOBODY in the PS is going to come out of it better than they were 8 years ago(when you sourced your figures:rolleyes:) even if all paycuts were reversed as they too pay USC,higher taxes plus the 5-10% pension levy(again to bail out the private sector).

marienbad

chopper6 wrote: »

Increments are normal and are being awarded regardless of what you think.

If somebody applies for a job where the top of the scale is say,30k then that inludes increments...you might start on 25k and progress,via increments to the 30k top of thier grade.

It's not that the person starts on 30k and then continues to increment above that scale point.

A pay raise would be anything above the 30k assuming the person has reached the top of the scale and such a raise would have to be part of a national wage agrement or benchmarking deal.

The crux of this thread is that pay has been cut twice(or 3 times if you earn over 65k) to bail out the private sector and now tha the economy is correcting and the PS have done their bit(by not striking and accepting paycuts) that this money be reinstated.

NOBODY in the PS is going to come out of it better than they were 8 years ago(when you sourced your figures:rolleyes:) even if all paycuts were reversed as they too pay USC,higher taxes plus the 5-10% pension levy(again to bail out the private sector).

I don't know where you get this notion it was only to bail out the private sector . Irrespective of what happened with the banks we would still have a problem with spending that had to be corrected .

Do you accept that ?

chopper6

marienbad wrote: »

I don't know where you get this notion it was only to bail out the private sector . Irrespective of what happened with the banks we would still have a problem with spending that had to be corrected .

Do you accept that ?

I accept that it was the activities of the banks and the construction sector mutually conspiring to create a housing "boom" which subsequently crashed that caused the problem,yes.

Any "problems" we now have with "spending" are as a direct result of this and include the bank guarantee scheme,NAMA and the increase in social welfare recipients.

marienbad

chopper6 wrote: »

I accept that it was the activities of the banks and the construction sector mutually conspiring to create a housing "boom" which subsequently crashed that caused the problem,yes.

Any "problems" we now have with "spending" are as a direct result of this and include the bank guarantee scheme,NAMA and the increase in social welfare recipients.

So what is your solution ?

wetdarknight2

chopper6 wrote: »

I accept that it was the activities of the banks and the construction sector mutually conspiring.......

lol lol lol. "mutually conspiring" !!!!!!!! I have heard of conspiracy theories but that ir ridiculous...to suggest a conspiracy between the hundreds thousands of people who worked in the banks and the construction industries.

For your information, it was the government and central bank and regulator and dept of finance ....all well paid public servants ....who were supposed to make the rules and implement them, and "steer the ship"...if anyone is to blame for the way the country was ran and ended up its them. Ordinary people then behave as people behave.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2013/qnhs_q42013.pdf


"Public Sector Employment
Based on the higher response levels and lower levels of subjectivity associated with the Earnings, Hours and Employment Costs Survey (EHECS) the CSO believes it offers a more reliable source for public sector employment estimates over time.
Table A3 in the annex shows these estimates of public sector employment.
The number of employees in the public sector declined by 5,500 (-1.4%) in the year to Q4 2013, bringing the total number of employees in the public sector to 376,300. The total reduction in employment in the public sector over the three years from Q4 2010 to Q4 2013 was 27,700 (-6.9%). See table A3.

The number of employees in the private sector showed an increase of 27,800 (+2.4%) over the year to Q4 2013, compared with an increase of 300 in the year to Q4 2012. The total number of employees in the private sector increased by 46,400 (+4.1%) over the three years from Q4 2010 to Q4 2013. See table A3."

I will have to have a look later, but just wondering if you treating the private sector as a closed environment; which it isn't. It would be a bit disingenuous to a tell a group of people in say Cork who just lost their jobs that everything is hunky dory in the private sector because an equal number of new graduates got a job in Dublin. The headline stat would show there is no loss of jobs, the reality is far different!

wetdarknight2

ryan101 wrote: »

The wonderful private sector and their corruption caused the mess and their private gambling and speculation debts had to be bailed out with taxpayers money.

According to the IAVI the biggest single group of investors in holiday homes during the boom was teachers and university lecturers. When the downturn came many struggled to pay the costs.

chopper6

wetdarknight2 wrote: »

According to the IAVI the biggest single group of investors in holiday homes during the boom was teachers and university lecturers. .

Holiday homes...not investment properties.

Holiday homes are usually purchased by mortage free or mortage-comfortable professionals in thier 50's and 60's.

They typically dont draw down a large amount of funds to buy as they usually can afford to pay the lion's share upfront.

But i digress....the IAVI have released data about "holiday homes during the boom" and "investors" usually being "teachers and university lecturers"?

Could you provide me with a link to this please?

Sheldons Brain

sarumite wrote: »

I will have to have a look later, but just wondering if you treating the private sector as a closed environment; which it isn't. It would be a bit disingenuous to a tell a group of people in say Cork who just lost their jobs that everything is hunky dory in the private sector because an equal number of new graduates got a job in Dublin. The headline stat would show there is no loss of jobs, the reality is far different!

If it is OK to treat the PS as a group, without reference to the detail, then I suppose it is equally appropriate to treat the private sector in the same way.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

I will have to have a look later, but just wondering if you treating the private sector as a closed environment; which it isn't. It would be a bit disingenuous to a tell a group of people in say Cork who just lost their jobs that everything is hunky dory in the private sector because an equal number of new graduates got a job in Dublin. The headline stat would show there is no loss of jobs, the reality is far different!

You can apply the same thing to the public sector.

It is a bit disingenuous to tell 100 temporary clerical officers lost their jobs because the Revenue became better automated but not to worry 50 teachers were taken on over there because the young population is growing.

If it were otherwise, we would still have blacksmiths working away. A rather simplistic argument you make.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

You can apply the same thing to the public sector.

It is a bit disingenuous to tell 100 temporary clerical officers lost their jobs because the Revenue became better automated but not to worry 50 teachers were taken on over there because the young population is growing.

If it were otherwise, we would still have blacksmiths working away. A rather simplistic argument you make.

Agreed, it would be disingenuous. Which is why I remain skeptical and even more so now. A deeper analysis is required. Which is why, to use your own term, "a rather simplistic argument you make".

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Agreed, it would be disingenuous. Which is why I remain skeptical and even more so now. A deeper analysis is required. Which is why, to use your own term, "a rather simplistic argument you make".

You cannot conduct a deeper analysis using available statistics.

For example if the private sector lost 200,000 jobs and gained 180,000 jobs while the public sector lost 30,000 jobs but had a recruitment freeze, there would be more private sector individuals who suffered the loss of a job but the net loss in employment would be less. And in fact, if the better qualified public sector individuals took some of those private sector jobs, the statistics that showed more public sector job losses would be wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know if that is the case or the opposite (in teaching, young teachers are getting and losing temporary jobs at an incredible rate) as the statistics available do not go into such detail.

We can only use what we have and the statistics show it the way I tell it. Now if someone can show compelling argument or information that shows how the statistics are flawed, I am happy to go along with that too.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

You cannot conduct a deeper analysis using available statistics.

Then don't draw conclusions based on too limited data. In a dynamic open environment with multiple variables, it is unlikely that any conclusion based on a single statistic will be in anyway meaningful.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Then don't draw conclusions based on too limited data. In a dynamic open environment with multiple variables, it is unlikely that any conclusion based on a single statistic will be in anyway meaningful.

I wasn't drawing conclusions. While I agree that you can't draw conclusions based on limited statistics, you can certainly debunk urban myths using those statistics.

The facts show that employment in the private sector has recovered and is growing strongly while employment in the public sector is declining. The myth that the private sector has suffered more in the aggregate since the start of the recession because of job losses is certainly a myth. You see, what is clear is that private sector pay levels and employment numbers have returned but those public sector pay cuts remain in place.

It certainly explains why the public sector unions can justify looking for pay increases first.