Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

Tim Robbins

barneystinson wrote: »

No, you do the mathS.

Put it up on the board, show your workings, state your assumptions. Otherwise it's just all hot air.

Say you buy an annuity that gives you 3% return.

So if you have 500K in your pension fund you get 15K a year.
If you have 1 million in your fund you get 30K a year.
1.5 million 45K a year and about 1.25 million to get 37.5K a year.

The average teacher will get 2 / 3's their closing salary so that's about 37.5K a year in their defined benefit pension.

So, for a private sector person to get that they have to put 1.25 million over a 40 year career. That means 30K a year.

So if they are 50K a year (a reasonable salary), they need to put away 30K to get the same pension as a teacher.

Right, there's my maths. I have simplified things a little of course but you should get the general point that a defined benefit pension is a major nub of gold and paying 10% for it is f all.

PeteFalk78

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The average teacher will get 2 / 3's their closing salary so that's about 37.5K a year in their defined benefit pension.

Your figures are all wrong. The average PS worker will get 1/3 of their closing salary if they have full service. That is 18k a year excluding the SW OAP which you shouldn't include in your figures unless you are intentionally trying to obfuscate.

barneystinson

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Say you buy an annuity that gives you 3% return.

So if you have 500K in your pension fund you get 15K a year.
If you have 1 million in your fund you get 30K a year.
1.5 million 45K a year and about 1.25 million to get 37.5K a year.

The average teacher will get 2 / 3's their closing salary so that's about 37.5K a year in their defined benefit pension.

So, for a private sector person to get that they have to put 1.25 million over a 40 year career. That means 30K a year.

So if they are 50K a year (a reasonable salary), they need to put away 30K to get the same pension as a teacher.

Right, there's my maths. I have simplified things a little of course but you should get the general point that a defined benefit pension is a major nub of gold and paying 10% for it is f all.

2/3 of final salary? Very very few in the PS get that, it's 50% for almost all members. So straight away your simplified figures are nearly 25% overstated.

Class A PRSI payers have their contributory pension included in that figure, so using the figures from your example, that's a 25k pension (50% of 50k) of which about 12k is the normal State pension. So that's a 13k DB pension. According to your figures above that's about 430k of a fund.

You also assume no return whatsoever on the contributions (employees or employers) over the individual's career in accumulating that fund, but using your straight line zero return methodology that'd be 10,750 p.a.

As I mentioned earlier, it's very common for employers to match employees' contributions into a scheme. That'd be 5,375 each. Which is 10.75% of a 50k salary.

Now, let me be very clear, all of those figures are nonsense - both yours and mine. Difference is, I don't believe my nonsense figures whereas you do yours.

Sheldons Brain

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Right, there's my maths. I have simplified things a little of course but you should get the general point that a defined benefit pension is a major nub of gold and paying 10% for it is f all.

The usual deliberately misleading posting that seems to characterise these things.

A teacher will receive a lump and then half of their salary less the OAP. This is more like 15K. Simplifying things is one thing but ending up with a figure two and half times the actual figure is either grossly incompetent or malicious. Which is it?

Brussels Sprout

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Depends how you look at it, it would definitely weight public satisfaction with initiatives more highly as there is an increased chance of the government losing power more frequently. That would be my thoughts on the matter.

It would lead to the worst kind of populism. No government would want to make tough but necessary decisions which are often taken in the beginning to middle period of 5 year cycles.

Long term capital investment in infrastructure would be neglected while governments tried to buy elections with tax cuts and public sector pay raises.

Idbatterim

It would lead to the worst kind of populism. No government would want to make tough but necessary decisions which are often taken in the beginning to middle period of 5 year cycles.

Long term capital investment in infrastructure would be neglected while governments tried to buy elections with tax cuts and public sector pay raises.

I would prefer if money was spent on DU and Metro North, as opposed to even tax cuts for myself. But the parties would probably be better off spending money on this the year after they have been elected or re-elected. Why not just increase the entry point to the crazy marginal rate or reduce the marginal rate, that way public and private sector are better off and they are by far the most deserving for more money in their pockets... But even ahead of those and the most deserving would be those who lost their jobs and are currently jobless...

sabat

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is a genuine post or not. Her 100th birthday? The average life expectancy is 78.

Life expectancy includes deaths of children, accidents, chronic illness, travellers etc. An educated, employed, non-smoking, physically active woman in her 30s or 40s today can reasonably expect to make 100.

PeteFalk78

sabat wrote: »

Life expectancy includes deaths of children, accidents, chronic illness, travellers etc. An educated, employed, non-smoking, physically active woman in her 30s or 40s today can reasonably expect to make 100.

"Reasonably expect"? The odds are 6000/1 against :rolleyes:..... so enough of your diatribe.

http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_people_live_to_100_page1.html

Vizzy

sabat wrote: »

Life expectancy includes deaths of children, accidents, chronic illness, travellers etc. An educated, employed, non-smoking, physically active woman in her 30s or 40s today can reasonably expect to make 100.

Don't you know that all PS workers are uneducated and lazy as sin so she won't be active. If we assume that the woman also smokes I'd say she will be lucky to make it to retirement age at all.

creedp

Idbatterim wrote: »

I would prefer if money was spent on DU and Metro North, as opposed to even tax cuts for myself. But the parties would probably be better off spending money on this the year after they have been elected or re-elected. Why not just increase the entry point to the crazy marginal rate or reduce the marginal rate, that way public and private sector are better off and they are by far the most deserving for more money in their pockets... But even ahead of those and the most deserving would be those who lost their jobs and are currently jobless...

In summary, public servant should never again receive, nor deserve, pay increases!

mirrorwall14

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The usual deliberately misleading posting that seems to characterise these things.

A teacher will receive a lump and then half of their salary less the OAP. This is more like 15K. Simplifying things is one thing but ending up with a figure two and half times the actual figure is either grossly incompetent or malicious. Which is it?

The OAP miscalculation drives me absolutely batty as it is so often done deliberately. Almost everyone except public servants get 12k a year on retirement for PRSI contributions (I believe). Public servants pay PRSI like everyone else but this 12k is included in the pension calculation and then our pensions are vilified as too expensive, people aren't contributing enough etc etc!

antoobrien

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

The OAP miscalculation drives me absolutely batty as it is so often done deliberately. Almost everyone except public servants get 12k a year on retirement for PRSI contributions (I believe).

Wasn't that changed in '95 when the PRSI charged to (most) PS workers was changed?

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

Wasn't that changed in '95 when the PRSI charged to (most) PS workers was changed?

Post 95 PS pay the full rate of PRSI.

antoobrien

kceire wrote: »

Post 95 PS pay the full rate of PRSI.

I know that, the question is are they (post 95 PS employees) also entitled to full contributory pension?

The relevant DSP page seems to indicate that, subject to having enough service, they would be.

barneystinson

antoobrien wrote: »

Wasn't that changed in '95 when the PRSI charged to (most) PS workers was changed?

Yes, and now people hired post-95 are paying full Class A PRSI, and their DB pension includes the State pension, which a private sector scheme doesn't.

antoobrien

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

A teacher will receive a lump and then half of their salary less the OAP.

Would I be correct in assuming that the difference between the pre and post 96 pension scales is the payment/non-payment of the contributory oap?

ardmacha

creedp wrote: »

In summary, public servant should never again receive, nor deserve, pay increases!

But they should get bigger pay decreases than everyone else, of course.

antoobrien wrote: »

I know that, the question is are they (post 95 PS employees) also entitled to full contributory pension?

The relevant DSP page seems to indicate that, subject to having enough service, they would be.

Of course they are entitled to the full OAP, isn't everyone else with 40 years contributions?
The question is surely what pension they receive as employees and the deliberate misrepresentation of same.

Paulzx

antoobrien wrote: »

Would I be correct in assuming that the difference between the pre and post 96 pension scales is the payment/non-payment of the contributory oap?

The Contributory OAP effects pre 95 and post 95 employees differently.

Taking the example of a retiring public servant with 40 years service and a final salary of 50k.

A pre 95 employee retired on a pension of 25k which was paid by the dept he retired from i.e Cork County Council. He paid a D prsi contribution which gave him no entitlement to the Contributory Old Age Pension. However, in the past many retirees took up further employment and then paid an A Prsi contribution which if they certain criteria could entitle them to a full or a portion of the Contributory Old Age pension in addition to their Occupational one.

This system changed in 1995 to stop this.

Now the same employee pays a full A prsi contribution in addition to their Superaanuation contribution. Upon retiring they receive a pension of 25k which is made up of 13k occupational pension and 12K State Contributory pension.

Every employee in the state pays A prsi and therefore has an entitlement to the 12K state pension once they have enough contributions.

Mongfinder General

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You get a defined benefit pension. That's worth a lot more than 10% of your salary.

I won't get anything with the way demographics are shaping up. I am paying into 2 compulsory pension schemes as well as a pension levy. I would prefer to be taxed like a regular "PAYE worker" and allowed to make my own investment decisions. I do not want to pay into a PS pension scheme because there will be nothing left in them when I retire!

luckyboy

You often see references to the "bumper" pension packages of high-ranking public servants or politicians when they retire or leave office. Example: a person retiring from a €150k pa post receives a lump sum of €225k and a pension for life of €75k pa. Such a person is said to have a pension pot worth €1.725m. This is worked out by adding the lump sum to 20 x the annual pension amount. Moving down the scale, a teacher retiring on €60k who gets a €90k lump sum and a €30k pension is said to have a pot worth €690k etc etc, the inference being that all public servants have a Rolls-Royce pension.

Well, flip this on its head a little and consider the following. Every person who qualifies for the full contributory OAP gets €12k pa forever, even if they live to be 130 (future Government pension policy allowing, obviously). Why doesn't anybody use the same logic as for the fat cat public servants and consolidate this into a pot of €240k (multiply it by 20) and say that we all have the guts of a quarter of a million in our pension pots before we even start looking at funding a pension?

It is that reality - that successive Governments have effectively made unsustainable promises to give €240k to each and every qualifying worker when they retire - that underpin John Bruton's recent "controversial" remarks that this is unsustainable and will have to be defaulted upon (whether explicitly or implicitly, through a penal tax on the recipient at the time of payment).

The bottom line, I guess, is that the gap between "gold-plated" public pensions and their private equivalents is not as wide as is sometimes suggested. Better, yes, in most cases, but not unfairly so given the contribution history required to qualify for the full amounts (especially for those who may be paying the pension levy for more than 30 years) and who, when the time comes, really will have funded their pension (and will not be the recipient of unearned largesse, as some commentators like to pretend)

Gumbo

antoobrien wrote: »

I know that, the question is are they (post 95 PS employees) also entitled to full contributory pension?

The relevant DSP page seems to indicate that, subject to having enough service, they would be.

No, it's incorporated into our PS pension. We cannot claim our PS pension and the state COAP on top of that.

sugar_lover

ardmacha wrote: »

But they should get bigger pay decreases than everyone else, of course.




Of course they are entitled to the full OAP, isn't everyone else with 40 years contributions?
The question is surely what pension they receive as employees and the deliberate misrepresentation of same.

currently , you only need have made around ten years of PRSI contributions in order to qualify for the full 230 per week contributory old age pension

thats likely to change i imagine

Sheldons Brain

sugar_lover wrote: »

currently , you only need have made around ten years of PRSI contributions in order to qualify for the full 230 per week contributory old age pension

thats likely to change i imagine

if a teacher, say, paid 10 years PRSI and 10 years pension contributions they would get €11K/year from the PRSI and less than half that from their pension contributions. But then everything is stacked in favour of the pubic service, isn't it?

Paulzx

sugar_lover wrote: »

currently , you only need have made around ten years of PRSI contributions in order to qualify for the full 230 per week contributory old age pension

thats likely to change i imagine

That's not entirely accurate. If you have 10 years of contributions over a 40 year working life an average calculation is carried out and you might only qualify for a portion of the pension.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

In summary, public servant should never again receive, nor deserve, pay increases!

Having listened to that tool Marc Coleman, whose is now calling himself an independent consultant, on TV3 last night (bad idea at 11pm!) I'm even more convinced of the validity of the above summary. In between an emotional story about how he was going to plead for a banking writedown for Ireland in Berlin and Frankfurt - presumably he will don the tricolour t-shirt over the IBEC one on that day! - he delivered an even more emotional plea that prior to awarding pay increases to the PS (maybe OK for the low paid PS - didn't define) the Govt should consider the fact that the private sector (didn't define) hasn't had a pay increase since 2006!! Companies must be using their money to but nice new shiny commercial vehicles if the latest new vehicles registration figures are anyting to go by.

I always find it amusing when these guys go to critisize PS pay they start comparing the likes of the semi-states and the private sector. Last night it was the turn of using IW's bonus culture as an example of out of control pay in the PS. One of these days these experts may get a handle of the fact that the likes of Bord Gais and IW are not paid in the same manner as PS but of course convenienty their higher pay is incorporated into the PS average figure to be compared to the palty private sector equivalent.

Bizaarre stuff for a supposedly independent and objective consultant economist.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact the fact that the so called pension levy is a pay reduction. It was confirmed as such by the minister who introduced it. It isn't a pension contribution.

This crap about the DB pension being "worth more than 10%" - SO WHAT! Most large employers who operate occupational pension schemes have employers' contributions which often match the employees' contributions...

Sorry all it does it gets you lot to pay a bit more for you pension instead of asking the other 1.3million private sector workers who a large % cant afford their own..So suck it up, you get the benefit..You should all be turfed off your pensions and told where to go

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

In summary, public servant should never again receive, nor deserve, pay increases!

They have received pay rises all the way through the crash..Increments have never stopped

Brussels Sprout

creedp wrote: »

Having listened to that tool Marc Coleman, whose is now calling himself an independent consultant, on TV3 last night (bad idea at 11pm!) I'm even more convinced of the validity of the above summary. In between an emotional story about how he was going to plead for a banking writedown for Ireland in Berlin and Frankfurt - presumably he will don the tricolour t-shirt over the IBEC one on that day! - he delivered an even more emotional plea that prior to awarding pay increases to the PS (maybe OK for the low paid PS - didn't define) the Govt should consider the fact that the private sector (didn't define) hasn't had a pay increase since 2006!! Companies must be using their money to but nice new shiny commercial vehicles if the latest new vehicles registration figures are anyting to go by.

I always find it amusing when these guys go to critisize PS pay they start comparing the likes of the semi-states and the private sector. Last night it was the turn of using IW's bonus culture as an example of out of control pay in the PS. One of these days these experts may get a handle of the fact that the likes of Bord Gais and IW are not paid in the same manner as PS but of course convenienty their higher pay is incorporated into the PS average figure to be compared to the palty private sector equivalent.

Bizaarre stuff for a supposedly independent and objective consultant economist.

Marc Coleman is a joke. Nobody takes him seriously. His Sunday night radio show on Newstalk is basically a vehicle for him bang the drum for his pro-life agenda in between coughing and spluttering into the microphone. He tries to mimic the likes of Sean Hannity on Fox News by aggressively questioning and shouting over his guests and using the terms "group think" and "main stream media" repeatedly.

I think in Ireland. like Ivan Bacik, he does his causes more harm than good which is unfortunate in the case of PS pay.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry all it does it gets you lot to pay a bit more for you pension instead of asking the other 1.3million private sector workers who a large % cant afford their own..So suck it up, you get the benefit..You should all be turfed off your pensions and told where to go

But it's not a pension contribution, what part of that do you not get?

And here's proof: There are people, who pay the PRD, who do not accrue any pension entitlement. They don't pay pension contributions, because they aren't in pensionable employment, but they do pay PRD.

So once and for all Fliball, take it on the chin and accept its not a pension contribution.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

They have received pay rises all the way through the crash..Increments have never stopped

Increments are not pay rises. They are progression towards being paid the full rate for a job.

And it's incorrect that they never stopped. I didn't get one this year despite being at the bottom point on a pay scale and satisfactory performance, and under Haddington road my pay will remain the same until 2017...

Is that not stopped?!

AdrianII

increments are still happening. last one would have been received in jan 2014, next one will be 15 months after that (April 2015) then the next one another 15 months (july 2016) then back to every year after that.

_Kaiser_

barneystinson wrote: »

Increments are not pay rises. They are progression towards being paid the full rate for a job.

And it's incorrect that they never stopped. I didn't get one this year despite being at the bottom point on a pay scale and satisfactory performance, and under Haddington road my pay will remain the same until 2017...

Is that not stopped?!

Wut?

I worked in the public sector for almost 5 years and every year got an increment regardless. Not one performance review in that time either, but I came from the private sector so just got on with what needed to be done and as I was managing my own department it was in my own interests to improve and make things more efficient. Plus I'm not the type to sit back anyway.. which is probably why I've continued to progress in my career, despite being laid off from that job and out of work for a year afterwards.

I've no issues with people getting pay raises but they should be based on proven performance against agreed targets (y'know like is the norm anywhere else) - not "just coz", or because they're sitting there long enough.
Equally there should be an effective disciplinary process where people who don't perform may face sanctions up to and including dismissal.. again like anywhere else!

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

But it's not a pension contribution, what part of that do you not get?

And here's proof: There are people, who pay the PRD, who do not accrue any pension entitlement. They don't pay pension contributions, because they aren't in pensionable employment, but they do pay PRD.

So once and for all Fliball, take it on the chin and accept its not a pension contribution.

that is not proof the money from taxes, levies, etc all go into the same pot of money and the gov use it to pay for things such as ps pensions , welfare, etc are paid out.. All this does is gets the p.s to pay more (and not even close to the amount paid by the private sector to cover the rest for public sector pension) and you get a premium gold plated pension..therefore you should pay that bit more..If a PS worker does not get any benefit (tough crap) .. the private sector get no benefit yet we are asked to cover the shortfall...Trust me I would rather you didn't get your pension and then the tax payer could get a tax cut for the amount that they are forced to pay to subsidise the hole that is the public sector pensions scheme.... So you suck it up there pal no reversals in fact the pension levy should be increased until the public sector cover the cost of their own pension. it is morally wrong to ask the other 1.3 million other people to pay for the 300k in the ps and the retired ps at a time when the government have taken money out of private pensions and a lot of people cannot afford their own.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Increments are not pay rises. They are progression towards being paid the full rate for a job.

And it's incorrect that they never stopped. I didn't get one this year despite being at the bottom point on a pay scale and satisfactory performance, and under Haddington road my pay will remain the same until 2017...

Is that not stopped?!

Sorry does the person who gets the increment does their pay go up.?? Yes
Does the amount that the tax payer have to cover go up ?? Yes

its a pay rise..only in the blinkered world of the public sector is a pay rise not a pay rise and a contribution to a defined benefit (the pension levy) is a pay cut??

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry does the person who gets the increment does their pay go up.?? Yes
Does the amount that the tax payer have to cover go up ?? Yes

its a pay rise..only in the blinkered world of the public sector is a pay rise not a pay rise and a contribution to a defined benefit (the pension levy) is a pay cut??

Fliball your hatred for the public sector is almost pathological.

IF you think that all jobs in the PS are so cushy and the perks are so good then why didn't you get one in there yourself?

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Fliball your hatred for the public sector is almost pathological.

IF you think that all jobs in the PS are so cushy and the perks are so good then why didn't you get one in there yourself?

I dont hate the public sector..I hate the collective bargaining, strong handing , unsionised strangle that they have over the country. I hate thier entitlement culture and can be shown here when increments are not considered payrises..

There has been an embargo on it for the last 6/7 years so how could I get in there. ??

All the whinging and moaning about cuts to their wage...yet they forget that in the same period since 2008 there has been 7 increment increases and now they think because the economy is on the up that they should first in the queue for a pay rise.

They need to be told that we are still borrowing billions. The deficit is over 200billion and that other people who contributed more like the tax payer and people who have had disabilities cut are first in the queue when there is some room to maneuver with finances. Then and only then pay rises within the ps and only to those in there that deserve it.

The last 7/8 years the way the gov has dealt with ps pay and pensions has been like trying to empty a swimming pool and taking water out of the deep end and throwing it back in at the shallow end.

Riskymove

well with both Fliball and now myself here ...... I think we are all present and correct and can now rehash the last 5 years or so of Irish Economy pointless arguments!!

increments...check
levy a tax or contribution...check
PS incompetence....check
the bail out, borrowing etc.....check
gold-plated pensions...check

and so on and so forth

BaronVon

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I won't get anything with the way demographics are shaping up. I am paying into 2 compulsory pension schemes as well as a pension levy. I would prefer to be taxed like a regular "PAYE worker" and allowed to make my own investment decisions. I do not want to pay into a PS pension scheme because there will be nothing left in them when I retire!

Same as. I would much rather use my compulsory pension money, and pay off my mortgage quicker, then I could invest the money as I see fit once that's paid off.

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

well with both Fliball and now myself here ...... I think we are all present and correct and can now rehash the last 5 years or so of Irish Economy pointless arguments!!

increments...check
levy a tax or contribution...check
PS incompetence....check
the bail out, borrowing etc.....check
gold-plated pensions...check

and so on and so forth

Only difference is now the ps want a pay rise and think that we are no longer borrowing or in debt??

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Only difference is now the ps want a pay rise and think that we are no longer borrowing or in debt??

Everybody in the whole world wants a payrise. :rolleyes:

bumper234

fliball123 wrote: »

Only difference is now the ps want a pay rise and think that we are no longer borrowing or in debt??

So people who have taken large pay cuts and not had a pay rise in years are now asking for a pay rise and this pi$$es you off? :rolleyes:

fliball123

bumper234 wrote: »

So people who have taken large pay cuts and not had a pay rise in years are now asking for a pay rise and this pi$$es you off? :rolleyes:

Sorry what the hell are increments you got pay rises even in the height of the bust and have so every years since the bust.....There are more deserving people to get some relief before the public sector ever get a larger slice of the pie..

It pi$$es me off that the unions seem to think that we have stopped borrowing or that the 200billion that we owe in debt will some how disappear. I am pi$$ed off with the suggestion that I may have to pay more in tax to cover pay rises for a select 300k people when the right thing to do would be to drop income tax and allow everyone have a bit more in their pocket...

Instead of pay rises in the public sector they should be employing people who meet the employment criteria from people off the dole. That would get those numbers down that collect dole and also help those in the front line services that are under pressure

comongethappy

Is there any stats on how many public & civil servants left their roles in the past 5 years due to low pay?

Anecdotally there are a lot in medicine.

I'm wondering if the government or unions keep a tally?

mirrorwall14

There would a be a lot of transfers in teaching among younger staff because of the splitting of jobs into small amounts of hours

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry what the hell are increments you got pay rises even in the height of the bust and have so every years since the bust.....There are more deserving people to get some relief before the public sector ever get a larger slice of the pie..

You do know there is a cap on the incremental scale, it isn't infinite? Or are you deliberately trying to be one-eyed?

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

You do know there is a cap on the incremental scale, it isn't infinite? Or are you deliberately trying to be one-eyed?

What is one eyed at being asked to pay about 1/4 of a billion a year since 2008 in annual increments and to public sector workers who have no valid performance mechanism

chopper6

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

IF you think that all jobs in the PS are so cushy and the perks are so good then why didn't you get one in there yourself?

He mentioned that heapplied several years ago and was rejected...he obviously wasn't good enough for the role and this is where his hatred comes from...absolutely *not* for the economic good of the country.

comongethappy

chopper6 wrote: »

He mentioned that heapplied several years ago and was rejected...he obviously wasn't good enough for the role and this is where his hatred comes from...absolutely *not* for the economic good of the country.

This kind of stuff gets no one anywhere.
The smug 'oh you weren't worthy' attitude wins the PS few friends.

I think its very legitimate to consider the tax burden on the economy sufficient to run the public services as is.

Though I'm open to being convinced that placing a greater tax burden on the economy to pay you more benefits Ireland.

As it stands though, I don't think that additional burden is justified.

PeteFalk78

Do you have the same aversion to all aspects of public expenditure? Social welfare, education, health, justice etc or just the people who work in there.

comongethappy

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Do you have the same aversion to all aspects of public expenditure? Social welfare, education, health, justice etc or just the people who work in there.

Not at all.

As I said, I think levels of taxation are about right in the economy (approx 35% of GDP for 2014)..... Which is average for OECD countries.

As I said, if there is an economic argument for having this burden increased further to accommodate pay hikes I'm happy to hear it.