Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

not yet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I'm a public sector worker and am pay cut free.... :rolleyes:

Not possible..

Larbre34

Any discussion of the actual merits of returning pay levels to the PS, or how that feeds into the structural deficit, is irrelevant.

This is about the political and probably actual survival of the Labour Party. The 'Emergency Measures' pieces of legislation which enacted the various levies and cuts require, by their nature, annual renewal. A moment will come next year, perhaps just 5 or 6 months out from a general election, where the Labour party TDs will have to vote to continue those emergency measures or not. As self preservation mode kicks in, the numbers to pass that vote could become quite tight all of a sudden, and the legislation could lapse, thereby returning all of the pay levels to 2008 in one go.

Howlin is obviously desperate to avoid that and achieve a negotiated gradual restoration or else it would be a disaster for him and his department and the government as a whole in the eyes of the troika etc. It would also bring down the government early (if Irish Water hasnt done it already).

Howlin should have included this likelihood in the package of measures within Haddington Road and that was a major mistake, but if I were the Public Sector Unions I would sit back and postpone engagement on pay restoration and let nature take its course.

not yet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What's to elaborate?

Never.Got.A.Paycut.

I call bollix.

Riskymove

Larbre34 wrote: »

This is about the political and probably actual survival of the Labour Party.

and FG tbh

Why do you think there is so much take about reducing tax for all workers at the first opportunity

Or why there is insistence at not reducing SW or changing free travel etc in budget

robp

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Jeez I know there was pay freezes, changes to entry scales & pay rises due to qualifications, but was there really many actual pay cuts? Wasn't it more reduction of sick leave, croke park hours, taxation of maternity benefit, not allowing teachers to take holidays in lieu while on maternity leave, pension levy, USC etc. I think they're saving more money outside of paycuts.

Their absolutely was a paycut. Just because someone earns more then 65,000 doesn't mean they don't deserve it and all the more so if you consider pay in the public sector is already considerably more equally distributed then the private sector. If consider pensions, frozen increments and promotion freezes the reduction is very sizeable.

Riskymove

not yet wrote: »

I call bollix.

It is possible

anyone joining after the first paycut and earning less than 65k would not have had a direct paycut

of course it overlooks the fact that the salary they are on is less than it was before

not yet

Riskymove wrote: »

It is possible

anyone joining after the first paycut and earning less than 65k would not have had a direct paycut

of course it overlooks the fact that the salary they are on is less than it was before

The freeze on recruitment came in 08, the first pay cut came in................................................................................



















You guessed it..08, followed by the PRD.

Phoebas

not yet wrote: »

The PS pay bill is approx 17 billion, take back 30% in taxes etc and that leaves 11.90 billion. Now I don't think that figure is excessive to run a country, and had little or nothing to do with the crash.

The crash was caused by greedy bankers-investors-developers and politicans, it was not caused by a PS worker earning 35k a year.

It clearly is excessive when we have to borrow a large part of it.

The crash was caused by a variety of things, including greedy bankers and developers etc, but also including growing a public service too large on the back of unsustainable property based taxes.

barneystinson

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I didn't say none. I said not many. Why people bother wasting time twisting peoples words....maybe argue with the wall? Might be more fun??


Fair enough, I pay the PRD, and along with all the other taxes etc I'm not earning much more than I did 4 years ago. I work in the Education sector, the largest payroll in the country, and afaik there were little actual 'paycuts' but sanctions in other areas, as I mentioned in my first post here.

My thinking, if they reverse these paycuts it won't have much bearing in the Education sector as there were so many other cuts carried out

There were pay cuts across the board in budget 2010;
5% on the first 30k
7.5% on the next 40k
10% on the next 55k

How did you avoid that?

Riskymove

not yet wrote: »

The freeze on recruitment came in 08, the first pay cut came in

There has been some limited recruitment since the moratorium

barneystinson

Riskymove wrote: »

It is possible

anyone joining after the first paycut and earning less than 65k would not have had a direct paycut

of course it overlooks the fact that the salary they are on is less than it was before

True, I joined in 2010 and the scale was lower than the one advertised back in 2008 when the competition took place. I didnt consider it a paycut, but taking a more than 15% drop in gross pay (more if you include pension levy) was scaldy!

Riskymove

Phoebas wrote: »

It clearly is excessive when we have to borrow a large part of it.

obviously the level of government expenditure was a factor in how large the deficit was when government income collapsed due to the economic crash.

Therefore the cost of PS, along with welfare and everything else is a factor in how big the subsequent problems were but was not an actual factor in the economic crash itself

tbh the line that "we are borrowing to pay X" is fairly tiresome at this stage. It is used by many to suit their agenda etc

If they are unhappy with PS, we are borrowing to pay that, if they have an issue with SW then we are borrowing to pay that etc

The estimate for expenditure in 2014 was about €54bn with PS pay €17bn of that

Income was €43bn


to suggest we are borrowing to pay PS is simply lazy imo

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

You haven't learned a single thing in the years you've been on here. You've obviously been mouthing plenty but listening none. Not all staff are on increments. Most people in the public service today are at the top of the incremental scale.

So what? it is the spending side of this I have the issue with it has been costing the tax payer more and more every year.

Anyone who wants to argue go look at how much more we are taking in on tax now than we were in 2008 and go and see how much we are spending.

The spend side since 2008 has not come down? We are being forced to pay about 1/4 of a billion each year in increments since 2008. That money has to be borrowed or got by increasing taxes.

Now the unsions want pay rises on top and at the same time we will be getting charged for water..

Thats the issue I have..If there is any scope for money to be spent PS should be down near the end of the queue..

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

The PS pay bill is approx 17 billion, take back 30% in taxes etc and that leaves 11.90 billion. Now I don't think that figure is excessive to run a country, and had little or nothing to do with the crash.

The crash was caused by greedy bankers-investors-developers and politicans, it was not caused by a PS worker earning 35k a year.

Lies this is lies..the banks cost us 64 billion ..PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade preceeding the bust has cost us just as much if not more..It more than doubled with idiotic schemes like benchmarking. You just refuse to believe it. We are paying too much in tax..first in line for relief should be tax payers.. The good news is all ps are tax payers..Why should the 300k be singled out for special treatment? Where has the other money we owe on our debt come from? We are up over 200billion in debt

Sheldons Brain

fliball123 wrote: »

So what? it is the spending side of this I have the issue with it has been costing the tax payer more and more every year.

Anyone who wants to argue go look at how much more we are taking in on tax now than we were in 2008 and go and see how much we are spending.

The spend side since 2008 has not come down?

The spend on PS pay has come down, so if you have an issue with spending then I suggest you rant in a thread about some other category of spending.

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

Lies this is lies..the banks cost us 64 billion ..PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade preceeding the bust has cost us just as much if not more..It more than doubled with idiotic schemes like benchmarking. You just refuse to believe it. We are paying too much in tax..first in line for relief should be tax payers.. The good news is all ps are tax payers..Why should the 300k be singled out for special treatment? Where has the other money we owe on our debt come from? We are up over 200billion in debt

Lets talk some facts instead of reading your meandering, one-eyed, diatribe, hyperbolic tripe.

According to the CSO’s latest earnings and labour costs report, in the three years to the end of 2012, public sector earnings fell by €42.75 per week or 4.4%. That compared to a decline of €7.60 per week or 1.2% in the private sector. FACT!!!

The report also shows the number of people employed in the public service and semi-state sector fell by 9,100 in the year to the end of 2012. At that point, there were 381,800 employed.
Since 2008, the total number of state employees has fallen by 45,000. FACT!!!


So really if you should redeem any sense to intelligence to this debate you should at least try and back up some of your statements with fact.


However backing up hyperbole with fact is an oxymoron.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

We are up over 200billion in debt

Source for that figure?

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

Lies this is lies..the banks cost us 64 billion ..PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade preceeding the bust has cost us just as much if not more..It more than doubled with idiotic schemes like benchmarking. You just refuse to believe it. We are paying too much in tax..first in line for relief should be tax payers.. The good news is all ps are tax payers..Why should the 300k be singled out for special treatment? Where has the other money we owe on our debt come from? We are up over 200billion in debt

Take it easy there Tiger, can't have you choking on your anger...

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The spend on PS pay has come down, so if you have an issue with spending then I suggest you rant in a thread about some other category of spending.

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

Read post 167.

Flippyfloppy

Riskymove wrote: »

well, imo, the clear implication from your post was that rather than "actual" paycuts there were only other measures

Perhaps if you have said this clear statement in the first place



you could have avoided the issue

What issue?? This thread is hilarious!!

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Lets talk some facts instead of reading your meandering, one-eyed, diatribe, hyperbolic tripe.

According to the CSO’s latest earnings and labour costs report, in the three years to the end of 2012, public sector earnings fell by €42.75 per week or 4.4%. That compared to a decline of €7.60 per week or 1.2% in the private sector. FACT!!!

The report also shows the number of people employed in the public service and semi-state sector fell by 9,100 in the year to the end of 2012. At that point, there were 381,800 employed.
Since 2008, the total number of state employees has fallen by 45,000. FACT!!!


So really if you should redeem any sense to intelligence to this debate you should at least try and back up some of your statements with fact.


However backing up hyperbole with fact is an oxymoron.

First off you ask your self the following

So how much will be eaten into that 4.4% when the 2/3 tranches of increment are taken into account up to 2014?

secondly only 4.4% with 45000 less employees ..thats such a small saving its embarrassing..

Also how many of those 45000 ex ps employees went onto either the dole or onto their pensions? How much is that costing. Increasing the cost on the tax payer

If you want to compare private and public cos, how many private sector companies gave any kind of pay rises whilst the employer was broke and borrowing. (the only exception would be the banks)

Thanks for those facts as they actually condemn the farcical way the government have been dealing with the public sector.

Flippyfloppy

barneystinson wrote: »

There were pay cuts across the board in budget 2010;
5% on the first 30k
7.5% on the next 40k
10% on the next 55k

How did you avoid that?

We're part of a certain....group.

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

By approx 2.5 billion in 5 years, upwards of 30k staff have retired and not been replaced. The PS have been trimmed and is very close to being fit for purpose as they call it. We have some of the hardest working people in the country in the PS.

Just on a side note,

If the PS is a cash cow why didn't all these whingers join it pre 09. Reason: Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Source for that figure?

202.9 at the end of 2013

http://www.ntma.ie/business-areas/funding-and-debt-management/debt-profile/

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

Take it easy there Tiger, can't have you choking on your anger...

whos choking..merely pointing out lies when I see them

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

First off you ask your self the following

So how much will be eaten into that 4.4% when the 2/3 tranches of increment are taken into account up to 2014?

secondly only 4.4% with 45000 less employees ..thats such a small saving its embarrassing..

Also how many of those 45000 ex ps employees went onto either the dole or onto their pensions? How much is that costing. Increasing the cost on the tax payer

If you want to compare private and public cos, how many private sector companies gave any kind of pay rises whilst the employer was broke and borrowing. (the only exception would be the banks)

Thanks for those facts as they actually condemn the farcical way the government have been dealing with the public sector.

I actually feel a little embarrassed for you.

If the average pay has fallen (which you don't dispute), and the number of employees has fallen (which you don't dispute) then its a mathematical certainty that the total cost has fallen.

Your point about increments eating into the reduction also displays a very poor understanding of arithmetic. The 4.4% reduction in average pay quoted by the previous poster is inclusive of all increments payable during that 3-year period. And the average in the subsequent year's figure will include all subsequent increments...

comongethappy

not yet wrote: »

Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

Data to back that?

I think more than 60% of private sector workers earn less than the average wage.

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

By approx 2.5 billion in 5 years, upwards of 30k staff have retired and not been replaced. The PS have been trimmed and is very close to being fit for purpose as they call it. We have some of the hardest working people in the country in the PS.

Just on a side note,

If the PS is a cash cow why didn't all these whingers join it pre 09. Reason: Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

Have you a link for the 2.5 billion? ..You also have some people who are not fit for purpose and get pay rises with no valid performance measure..I have no doubt that there are hard working people there.

As for you Side note..If the PS is so underpaid..how many people have volentarily left and sought employment in the private sector?

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

I actually feel a little embarrassed for you.

If the average pay has fallen (which you don't dispute), and the number of employees has fallen (which you don't dispute) then its a mathematical certainty that the total cost has fallen.

Your point about increments eating into the reduction also displays a very poor understanding of arithmetic. The 4.4% reduction in average pay quoted by the previous poster is inclusive of all increments payable during that 3-year period. And the average in the subsequent year's figure will include all subsequent increments...

That report is up to 2012 is it not? Which means 2013 or 2014 increments are not included?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

That report is up to 2012 is it not? Which means 2013 or 2014 increments are not included?

Exactly. None of the figures include anything for 2013/2014. The further pay cuts and additional working hours imposed under Haddington road aren't included either... can you guess what effect they'll have on the average figures (particularly the p/hr figure)..?

PeteFalk78

fliball123 wrote: »

So how much will be eaten into that 4.4% when the 2/3 tranches of increment are taken into account up to 2014?

4.4% came of the incremental scale also as an average. I thought that would have been obvious to you even with your minimal knowledge of the public sector scaling system

fliball123 wrote: »

secondly only 4.4% with 45000 less employees ..thats such a small saving its embarrassing..

Nope you are the embarrassment is I was referring to your quote here

fliball123 wrote: »

....PS pay and pensions rocketing up over the decade.........

So are you conceding now that PS pay is decreasing?

fliball123 wrote: »

Also how many of those 45000 ex ps employees went onto either the dole or onto their pensions? How much is that costing. Increasing the cost on the tax payer

So lets see, you are giving out about their pay when they were working and now they are no longer on the payroll you are up in arms over that. :eek::D

fliball123 wrote: »

If you want to compare private and public cos, how many private sector companies gave any kind of pay rises whilst the employer was broke and borrowing. (the only exception would be the banks)

As a ratio there were lots. That's why benchmarking was introduced without an whimper from the private sector. There wasn't one protest from the public when benchmarking was introduced. Were you out protesting fliball?

fliball123 wrote: »

Thanks for those facts as they actually condemn the farcical way the government have been dealing with the public sector.

No problems. Thank you for the intelligent "contributions" you made to this thread.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Exactly. None of the figures include anything for 2013/2014. The further pay cuts and additional working hours imposed under Haddington road aren't included either... can you guess what effect they'll have on the average figures (particularly the p/hr figure)..?

Sure they have only kicked in and the unions want them reversed...as if the deficit and debt dont exist..I didnt realise hadding cuts were not in it..So the 4.4% may be more but it will also be clawed back with 3/4 lots on increments in the same period.

Riskymove

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What issue??

the argument

not yet

comongethappy wrote: »

Data to back that?

I think more than 60% of private sector workers earn less than the average wage.

I think you'll find that during the boom tradesmen were earning upwards of 2k a week, drivers were earning 600 euro per week.

Yes there were people on minimum wage but most people were earning good money.

Flippyfloppy

Riskymove wrote: »

the argument

Look, I made a casual comment. The only way the follow up could have been avoided would have been if I'd back read the thread and realised the kind of people inhabiting it.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

How much has ps pay and pensions come down since 2008?

In 2008 the PS pay bill was 17.097bn and in 2012 was 14.402bn. A decrease of 2.7bn.

In 2008 the PS pensions bill was 1.656bn and in 2012 was 2.502bn. An increase of 846m.

Overall a decrease of about 1.85bn.

barneystinson

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Look, I made a casual comment. The only way the follow up could have been avoided would have been if I'd back read the thread and realised the kind of people inhabiting it.

Maybe you should have read the thread before commenting then?!

You haven't explained how you avoided the 2010 pay cuts by the way.

fliball123

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

4.4% came of the incremental scale also as an average. I thought that would have been obvious to you even with your minimal knowledge of the public sector scaling system


Nope you are the embarrassment is I was referring to your quote here

So are you conceding now that PS pay is decreasing?



So lets see, you are giving out about their pay when they were working and now they are no longer on the payroll you are up in arms over that. :eek::D


As a ratio there were lots. That's why benchmarking was introduced without an whimper from the private sector. There wasn't one protest from the public when benchmarking was introduced. Were you out protesting fliball?


No problems. Thank you for the intelligent "contributions" you made to this thread.

I am giving out about all spend not just ps..Spend has not come down since 2008 when all that we are on the hook for. Yet taxation has gone through the roof.

Do you not think that with 40k less people working basically 1/7th or 8th of the work force that was there and there is only a saving of 4.4% up unto 2012...Which I reckon is the main reason why haddington had to be put in place.

Also the hidden cost of us having to repay the 200billion in debt..A portion of that 200billion was for ps pay and pensions.

Look I have no doubt that the paybill is down it had to come down (After more than doubling in the decade preceeding the bust) but it goes back up with increments if no more cuts happen in the ps in a couple of years we will be paying as much as we were, and the ps is still paid a lot when compared to the private sector and other countries, also perks, pensions are taken into account.

As I say there would be a very small amount of PS workers who swaped for the private sector in the period between 2008 and 2014 and that can be measured by adding those who got redancies to those going onto their pensions since 2008 - 2014 and take that away from the 45k you mention.

So things must not be so bad if the vast majority of ps employees are staying put.

Asking for a payrise when people have to start paying for water is very embarrassing for the public sector unions.

What should happen is the USC should be cut and let everyone not just the the 300k ps workers have a bit more and before PS get a payrise new employees should be given a chance in there by offering jobs to those on the dole a job who meet the employment criteria.

As for benchmarking ..why is there no record of this now. Why cant the same process take place now..?? Those in the ps say some of the jobs have no comparison in the private sector ..yet they were happily compared when their wage went up?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Sure they have only kicked in and the unions want them reversed...as if the deficit and debt dont exist..I didnt realise hadding cuts were not in it..So the 4.4% may be more but it will also be clawed back with 3/4 lots on increments in the same period.

The 4.4% also doesn't include the pension levy which is also a paycut.

And I don't know what the point of your first sentence is - of course the unions want any cuts in pay or conditions reversed, that's their raisin d'être! But this thread exists not because of anything the unions have said, but because the minister has acknowledged that he has to revisit the legislation next year to justify its continued operation, which requires getting the labour turkeys to vote for Christmas with a general election looming.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

In 2008 the PS pay bill was 17.097bn and in 2012 was 14.402bn. A decrease of 2.7bn.

In 2008 the PS pensions bill was 1.656bn and in 2012 was 2.502bn. An increase of 846m.

Overall a decrease of about 1.85bn.

Ok so you also have to take into the equation. The cost of golden handshakes, the cost of increments since 2012 and also take away what haddington road cuts come to get the figure for 2014/2015

So with 45k less we are saving 1.85bn and there is no costings for any of the 45k who went onto the dole..

The plan that was followed saves very little and seems to have caused hassle in the ps

They should of just done a third and fourth benchmarking process

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

The 4.4% also doesn't include the pension levy which is also a paycut.

And I don't know what the point of your first sentence is - of course the unions want any cuts in pay or conditions reversed, that's their raisin d'être! But this thread exists not because of anything the unions have said, but because the minister has acknowledged that he has to revisit the legislation next year to justify its continued operation, which requires getting the labour turkeys to vote for Christmas with a general election looming.

Well considering the pensions you guys get it comes no where near covering the costs of those pensions..So its a contribution to a defined benefit and comes out before your taxed.

also I dont want the ps to be cut anymore..I just do not want them getting payrises above what they are already getting..There are fair more deserving people who need to be alleviated first

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

I am giving out about all spend not just ps..Spend has not come down since 2008...

But the wage bill has, as you've admitted, so why not focus your tremendous amount of bile on area(s) that haven't come down?

fliball123 wrote: »

IDo you not think that with 40k less people working basically 1/7th or 8th of the work force that was there and there is only a saving of 4.4% up unto 2012...Which I reckon is the main reason why haddington had to be put in place.

Yep, you're still not understanding the basic arithmetic. 4.4% is an AVERAGE. It is the amount of wages divided by the number of workers. The 4.4% relates specifically to the wages of the people still there, the fact that the number of workers has fallen means nothing, other than the mathematical certainty that if you multiply a lower average by a lower number of workers you have to have a lower cost.

fliball123 wrote: »

Also the hidden cost of us having to repay the 200billion in debt..A portion of that 200billion was for ps pay and pensions.

Once again, where are you getting this figure from?!?!?!?!

Sheldons Brain

fliball123 wrote: »

Look I have no doubt that the paybill is down it had to come down (After more than doubling in the decade preceeding the bust) but it goes back up with increments if no more cuts happen in the ps in a couple of years we will be paying as much as we were,

Fliball, do you accept that in a steady state situation where the size and composition of the PS and the rates of pay do not change, that the payment of increments means no change whatsoever in the overall pay bill of the PS?

If you do not accept this, then perhaps you'll explain why as the rest of us cannot understand your reasoning, or perhaps more accurately your lack of reason.

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Also the hidden cost of us having to repay the 200billion in debt..A portion of that 200billion was for ps pay and pensions.

Can you explain where you're getting this figure from?

Tigger

not yet wrote: »

I think you'll find that during the boom tradesmen were earning upwards of 2k a week, drivers were earning 600 euro per week.

Yes there were people on minimum wage but most people were earning good money.

any figures to back that up?

the carpenters i had working with/for me were on about €900 a week before insurance diesel tool maintenance/replacement but i'm sure you have figures to show we were all fools


http://www.siptu.ie/divisions/utilitiesconstruction/construction/rearatesfortheconstructionindustry/

the craft rate was €725 so those who were employed by others were on that

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Well considering the pensions you guys get it comes no where near covering the costs of those pensions..So its a contribution to a defined benefit and comes out before your taxed.

also I dont want the ps to be cut anymore..I just do not want them getting payrises above what they are already getting..There are fair more deserving people who need to be alleviated first

Just because you call it a contribution doesn't make it so. It's a pay cut.

Edit: just to be clear, it's a pay cut imposed only on serving PS employees - the reason it was implemented the way it has been, was a sop to PS pensioners, a political decision.

Tigger

not yet wrote: »

By approx 2.5 billion in 5 years, upwards of 30k staff have retired and not been replaced. The PS have been trimmed and is very close to being fit for purpose as they call it. We have some of the hardest working people in the country in the PS.

Just on a side note,

If the PS is a cash cow why didn't all these whingers join it pre 09. Reason: Most people earned a lot more then your average PS worker in the boom..

whingers is an emotive expression; i don't understand why its always us and them if the public service have more to spend then i'll earn more its pretty simple. my wife applied to the public service many times its wasn't actually that easy to get into. i remember friends of mine with degrees who had to apply multiple times to become cops and prison officers. i applied to state agencies and then number of people in the halls was massive.

it annoys me that people who are struggling to make ends meet with either effective rates of deductions over 32k of 63% or of 52% don't see that they should join together and have the tax system changed. put the cut off rate back up and increase the higher rate so both the hard working middle in the public and private sectors can get the monkey off their backs.
ffs the illegally paid high earners in the ps are apparently being red circled so they still get obscene amounts cos its one rule for the rich and another for the workers.

why do you think they encourage the public and private sectors to be at each others throats ?

Tigger

barneystinson wrote: »

Just because you call it a contribution doesn't make it so. It's a pay cut.

Edit: just to be clear, it's a pay cut imposed only on serving PS employees - the reason it was implemented the way it has been, was a sop to PS pensioners, a political decision.

this is 100% true it was an effective pay cut and as a private sector worker i said so at the time
it penalized the longest serving least from not at all if retired exponentially increasing as age/years served decreased

also there is a good chance that the gold plated pensions that are about at the moment will not be there in 20 years


the grey vote is very powerful and includes both private and public sector workers/retirees

the center aged center employed public and private sectors need to combine; those of us who have increasing child care/education costs health costs and housing / energy costs are being targeted while the grey with decreasing costs are being pandered to

kippy

Irish Steve wrote: »

Can't help thinking that it would be a lot more equitable to reduce one of the multitude of taxes or charges that have been loaded on to everyone, on the basis that everyone would then benefit, instead of pandering to a specific minority, albeit a large and vocal minority.

Yet again, we see the 5 year mind set political thinking coming to the fore. Forget the good of the country, make sure that I can get re-elected in a short while.

It would be so nice to see some politicians that are thinking beyond the next election, who care about what's happening to Ireland Inc over the next 20 years. Can't see it happening any time soon, so we're going to be stuck with the same old garbage all over again.

Totally agree tbh.

Knock the USC down a notch or five. Would have a far greater impact on the entire working population, and might provide a bit more of an encentive for people to work hard.
Although I would suggest the state don't see this as a good option, mainly because the net cost of employing public servants increase with any tax cut they apply to the working population as a whole.