Proposed Public sector pay rises

Sheldons Brain

Rightwing wrote: »

The bulk of the debt was because of PS folly. Greece made the same mistake.

This is horse manure. The private sector lost the money and fecked up the economy aided and abetted by the government elected predominantly by people in the private sector. The PS were neither here nor there.

barneystinson

little_scamp wrote: »

why would that happen when pay in the private sector is lower ?

For what job?

sarumite

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is horse manure. The private sector lost the money and fecked up the economy aided and abetted by the government elected predominantly by people in the private sector. The PS were neither here nor there.

You're both talking utter nonsense. A school teacher was no more to blame for the crash than a school supplies salesman.

Rightwing

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is horse manure. The private sector lost the money and fecked up the economy aided and abetted by the government elected predominantly by people in the private sector. The PS were neither here nor there.

Acting like a sponge mopping up the country's resources.

In isolation I can agree that say a nurse didn't bankrupt the country. As a whole, no one should look any further that the PS. These are the facts.

The fiction is the union talk.

sbkenn

DOOH !
V/E day, from the litter wardens to the Chief Justice !

sbkenn

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is horse manure. The private sector lost the money and fecked up the economy aided and abetted by the government elected predominantly by people in the private sector. The PS were neither here nor there.

Fudged figures over many years, complacency, PS's riding high, knowing they were safe, even though they weren't THAT safe as it turns out, but they thought they were ... immune to the economy

katydid

Rightwing wrote: »

Acting like a sponge mopping up the country's resources.

In isolation I can agree that say a nurse didn't bankrupt the country. As a whole, no one should look any further that the PS. These are the facts.

The fiction is the union talk.

So the bankers, the speculators, the corrupt politicians are pure as the driven snow, and the nurses and teachers of this country were partying...

You seem to have been living in a parallel universe.

Geuze

Rightwing wrote: »

We have over 1,000 school principals on over €100K+

Being a manager of 50-70-100 staff and 500-1000 students is a demanding role, with long hours.

A sensible society would want to attract high calibre people to these roles, and so should offer 80k - 100k.

As long as the principal is productive and accountable, it's money well spent.

The CEO of Paddy Power earns 1.5m. That, in my opinion, is a massive waste of society's resources.

noodler

sbkenn wrote: »

One thing that I really don't understand: "expert" economists were saying "there is room for growth" right up to the last day, and the government is still employing them !

Who was the Government employing?

noodler

crusier wrote: »

Maybe you could have paid more tax for your services seeing as you are so unselfish!

ardmacha wrote: »

Why should he pay more, he's volunteered you to take the hit!

crusier wrote: »

3 times!

More absolute nonsense of the highest order sadly.

Nearly 30bn euros worth of adjustments to the public finances since 2008.
http://www.ntma.ie/download/investor_presentation/January%202015.pdf
(page 40).

Everywhere else did take the hit. And to a much worse degree than the 2bn+ the pension levy and pay cuts brought.

Taxes were highered:
- USC introdcued
- Tax bands lowered substantially
- PRSI weekly threshold abolished
- Property Charge introduced
- VAT increased
- DIRT increased
- CGT increased

Expenditure cuts were bigger again.

So I repeat, the idea that pay could have been shielded to an even greater extent than it already was is just nonsense.

antoobrien

katydid wrote: »

and the nurses and teachers of this country were partying...

I take it you haven't been to coppers.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

More absolute nonsense of the highest order sadly.

Nearly 30bn euros worth of adjustments to the public finances since 2008.
http://www.ntma.ie/download/investor_presentation/January%202015.pdf
(page 40).

Everywhere else did take the hit. And to a much worse degree than the 2bn+ the pension levy and pay cuts brought.

Taxes were highered:
- USC introdcued Applies to public servants as well
- Tax bands lowered substantially Applied to public servants as well
- PRSI weekly threshold abolished Applied to public servants as well
- Property Charge introduced Applied to public servants as well
- VAT increased Applied to public servants as well
- DIRT increased Applied to public servants as well
- CGT increased Applied to public servants as well

Expenditure cuts were bigger again. Applied to public servants as well

So I repeat, the idea that pay could have been shielded to an even greater extent than it already was is just nonsense.

Wouldn't argue that pay could be shielded to an even greater extent.

However, public servants took a disproportionately higher hit from the government in the bad times and should therefore get something back.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Wouldn't argue that pay could be shielded to an even greater extent.

However, public servants took a disproportionately higher hit from the government in the bad times and should therefore get something back.

Sorry, what about the 200,000 people who lost their jobs?

How about those in the private sector who took pay cuts? Or less hours? Or were forced to part time work? (One hour a week is all it takes to count as unemployed in the CSO's QNHS).

How about cuts to social welfare?

How about 6/7 years of State Pension freezes?

How about 6/7 years of having unemployment benefits either cut or frozen?



Meanwhile, and despite the crisis, increments were being paid out to those eligable in the PS at an extra annual cost to the State of €450m a year every year. Although not everyone qualfies for an increment - they certainly help those on lower pay deal with those awful taxe increases I mentioned above.

While I am at it, the Private Sector Pension levy would not have applied to any Public Servant unless they had their own seperate pension fund as well.


The deliberate and deceptive narrowness of your viewpoint gets me everytime Godge.

I mean, consider an obvious response to your argument, making all approx 20bn of the expenditure measures fall outside of the Public Sector Pay Bill. Would you then argue that the Private Sector had been unfairly targeted?

Would you have preferred additional cuts in Education and Health despite additional demographic pressures in these areas?

No, it is fairly obvious that PS workers were ABSOLUTELY NOT unfairly targeted. It is a clever starting point for negotiations on pay increases alright - but laughable on its own terms.

Tiger Mcilroy

Godge wrote: »

Wouldn't argue that pay could be shielded to an even greater extent.

However, public servants took a disproportionately higher hit from the government in the bad times and should therefore get something back.

Are you factoring in that the public sector wages were disproportionately higher in comparison to the private sector equivalents and therefore starting from an inflated value in the first place?

Increments have still been paid out in a lot of cases which would have eroded some of the cuts also.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Sorry, what about the 200,000 people who lost their jobs?

How about those in the private sector who took pay cuts? Or less hours? Or were forced to part time work? (One hour a week is all it takes to count as unemployed in the CSO's QNHS).

How about cuts to social welfare?

How about 6/7 years of State Pension freezes?

How about 6/7 years of having unemployment benefits either cut or frozen?



Meanwhile, and despite the crisis, increments were being paid out to those eligable in the PS at an extra annual cost to the State of €450m a year every year. Although not everyone qualfies for an increment - they certainly help those on lower pay deal with those awful taxe increases I mentioned above.

While I am at it, the Private Sector Pension levy would not have applied to any Public Servant unless they had their own seperate pension fund as well.


The deliberate and deceptive narrowness of your viewpoint gets me everytime Godge.

I mean, consider an obvious response to your argument, making all approx 20bn of the expenditure measures fall outside of the Public Sector Pay Bill. Would you then argue that the Private Sector had been unfairly targeted?

Would you have preferred additional cuts in Education and Health despite additional demographic pressures in these areas?

No, it is fairly obvious that PS workers were ABSOLUTELY NOT unfairly targeted. It is a clever starting point for negotiations on pay increases alright - but laughable on its own terms.

"However, public servants took a disproportionately higher hit from the government in the bad times and should therefore get something back"

The bit in bold is what you missed. The Government didn't close all the private sector businesses.

As for the €450m a year for increments, that is absolute nonsense, hyperbole.

doctor_yes

sbkenn wrote: »

There was an option. It wasn't our debt.
Iceland took the alternative route, and are far better off for it.

ireland is in much better shape than iceland today

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

"However, public servants took a disproportionately higher hit from the government in the bad times and should therefore get something back"

The bit in bold is what you missed. The Government didn't close all the private sector businesses.

As for the €450m a year for increments, that is absolute nonsense, hyperbole.

PS workers have duel relationship with the government in that it is both service provider and employer. The government response to the crisis in terms of providing a service was a balanced approach of reducing costs and increasing the 'price' of the service. It's actions were in keeping with that of many other employers during he crisis. In terms of reducing costs, much of this will naturally affect those that are working for any organisation instigating cost cutting. With regards increasing the price of a service, naturally those who access said services or who are required to fund said services will be affected. People working for other employers will not, for obvious reasons, be affected by another person employer undergoing cost cutting measures. However that is a mutually exclusive interaction and irrelevant to the impact of increasing the price of a service.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Wouldn't argue that pay could be shielded to an even greater extent.

However, public servants took a disproportionately higher hit from the government in the bad times and should therefore get something back.

That's left wing nonsense.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

As for the €450m a year for increments, that is absolute nonsense, hyperbole.

Agreed and I apologise.

The actual figure these days is much smaller apparently less than €180m.

However, I don't know the cost for 2007-2012.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pay-hikes-for-civil-servants-earning-more-than-70000-26845848.html

EDIT: Apparently only €250m a year in the 2007-2011 period.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-servants-given-14bn-in-pay-rises-since-collapse-30323425.html

I don't retract the thrust of the point obviously.

I wonder if those figures are Gross or Net by the way.

sarumite

noodler wrote: »

Agreed and I apologise.

The actual figure these days is much smaller apparently less than €180m.

However, I don't know the cost for 2007-2012.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pay-hikes-for-civil-servants-earning-more-than-70000-26845848.html

EDIT: Apparently only €250m a year in the 2007-2011 period.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-servants-given-14bn-in-pay-rises-since-collapse-30323425.html

I don't retract the thrust of the point obviously.

I wonder if those figures are Gross or Net by the way.

The government usually always use Gross figures. I suspect it is gross.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

Agreed and I apologise.

The actual figure these days is much smaller apparently less than €180m.

However, I don't know the cost for 2007-2012.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pay-hikes-for-civil-servants-earning-more-than-70000-26845848.html

EDIT: Apparently only €250m a year in the 2007-2011 period.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-servants-given-14bn-in-pay-rises-since-collapse-30323425.html

I don't retract the thrust of the point obviously.

I wonder if those figures are Gross or Net by the way.

No problem, I knew the figure was way off.

The figures are gross before tax, superannuation, PRSI, pension levy, USC etc. Net cost would be less than half (c 40%) because increments are taxed and levied at the marginal rate.

However, similar costing apply to all the pay figures. What is missing is any saving from new entrants. So, for example, in an office there are ten people. Five at the top of the scale, five getting increments. Next year, two of the people at the top of the scale leave and are replaced by two new people at the bottom of the scale who will get increments. The saving from the two leaving is not counted against the cost of increments. In fact, because there are now seven getting increments, the cost of increments shows an increase even though in that particular case, the overall pay cost has fallen.

Mongfinder General

Godge wrote: »

No problem, I knew the figure was way off.

The figures are gross before tax, superannuation, PRSI, pension levy, USC etc. Net cost would be less than half (c 40%) because increments are taxed and levied at the marginal rate.

However, similar costing apply to all the pay figures. What is missing is any saving from new entrants. So, for example, in an office there are ten people. Five at the top of the scale, five getting increments. Next year, two of the people at the top of the scale leave and are replaced by two new people at the bottom of the scale who will get increments. The saving from the two leaving is not counted against the cost of increments. In fact, because there are now seven getting increments, the cost of increments shows an increase even though in that particular case, the overall pay cost has fallen.

The government could restore all the pay cuts. When you're taxing your employees at rates of 62% plus in some cases mandatory pension contributions (into a scheme that has been fleeced) the net effect is between 30 or 40% of what you've promised to pay.

Godge

Mongfinder General wrote: »

The government could restore all the pay cuts. When you're taxing your employees at rates of 62% plus in some cases mandatory pension contributions (into a scheme that has been fleeced) the net effect is between 30 or 40% of what you've promised to pay.

The cost is too much in one go.

The full savings are close to €3 bn from both the pension levy and the pay cuts.

Even at 30/40%, that is close to €1 bn. That isn't available.

€200 - €400m net cost could be available next year, depending on what is done on tax and USC and also depending on what is done on extra numbers.

You could also see a phased restoration with agreement for three payments, 1 Jan 2016, 1 Sep 2016 and 1 June 2017 for example. That would mean the full year cost wouldn't be paid until 2018. If necessary that phased payment could be extended out further.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

The cost is too much in one go.

The full savings are close to €3 bn from both the pension levy and the pay cuts.

Even at 30/40%, that is close to €1 bn. That isn't available.

€200 - €400m net cost could be available next year, depending on what is done on tax and USC and also depending on what is done on extra numbers.

You could also see a phased restoration with agreement for three payments, 1 Jan 2016, 1 Sep 2016 and 1 June 2017 for example. That would mean the full year cost wouldn't be paid until 2018. If necessary that phased payment could be extended out further.

Do you also think welfare should be restored over time ?

noodler

Rightwing wrote: »

Do you also think welfare should be restored over time ?

The State pension will also be pushing for an increase after so many years of being held constant.

There are a million and one pressures, thats why any clawback will probably disappoint many in terms of how gradual it is.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Do you also think welfare should be restored over time ?

Welfare was cut as part of the budgetary process, not as part of a financial emergency act.

Therefore the legal requirement to restore welfare is not as strong.

The political element is different obviously.

noodler wrote: »

The State pension will also be pushing for an increase after so many years of being held constant.

There are a million and one pressures, thats why any clawback will probably disappoint many in terms of how gradual it is.

One thing that needs considering is restoring the difference between the non-contributory and contributory pensions. Handing out pensions to people who have made little contribution all their life to the State is a luxury we may not be able to afford.

Rightwing

I think increasing anything would be putting unnecessary pressure on the State's finances. Right now, I believe it could cope with giving something back but it wouldn't be prudent.

The positive is the economy is structurally better now than in 07. But central planners should always ask the question 'What if'. And unfortunately, they rarely do.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Welfare was cut as part of the budgetary process, not as part of a financial emergency act.

Therefore the legal requirement to restore welfare is not as strong.

The political element is different obviously.




One thing that needs considering is restoring the difference between the non-contributory and contributory pensions. Handing out pensions to people who have made little contribution all their life to the State is a luxury we may not be able to afford.

I don't really agree with this. I see many lower paid workers as a necessity. Carers for instance, do an important job on extemely low pay. Your proposals would be essentially punishing the most vulnerable in society twice.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I think increasing anything would be putting unnecessary pressure on the State's finances. Right now, I believe it could cope with giving something back but it wouldn't be prudent.

The positive is the economy is structurally better now than in 07. But central planners should always ask the question 'What if'. And unfortunately, they rarely do.

From a public finances point of view you are right.

However, we are dealing with socio-political realities as well as emergency legislation that can't go on for ever given the way it was written.

My guess is that the next budget will see the full restoration of the Christmas bonus, some further cuts in taxation to favour those earning between 35k and 80k and some roll-back of the pension levy paid by public servants. Offsetting these measures will be the increased income tax and VAT from the lower unemployment and the lower social welfare expenditure for the same reason.

Won't be tackling the health and education problems, they will have to be dealt with by early in the next electoral cycle but it could well be enough to see a FG/Labour/Ind government next time out.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't really agree with this. I see many lower paid workers as a necessity. Carers for instance, do an important job on extemely low pay. Your proposals would be essentially punishing the most vulnerable in society twice.

The contributory pension is paid to those who have paid PRSI so they will be covered, including the low-paid you mention.

The non-contributory pension is paid to those who were on social welfare most of their life, returning emigrants who never paid PRSI here, and others who were never paying (or earning otherwise) PRSI credits. It is not fair that this pension is as high for them as it is for those who have contributed all their life.

Sheldons Brain

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't really agree with this. I see many lower paid workers as a necessity. Carers for instance, do an important job on extemely low pay. Your proposals would be essentially punishing the most vulnerable in society twice.

People who work should get some recognition for that in their pension. In many European countries PRSI type payments bring income related unemployment benefits and pensions.

Carers are a different question, their work should be recognised with PRSI credits or the like and not placed on a par with those who choose not to work.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

From a public finances point of view you are right.

However, we are dealing with socio-political realities as well as emergency legislation that can't go on for ever given the way it was written.

My guess is that the next budget will see the full restoration of the Christmas bonus, some further cuts in taxation to favour those earning between 35k and 80k and some roll-back of the pension levy paid by public servants. Offsetting these measures will be the increased income tax and VAT from the lower unemployment and the lower social welfare expenditure for the same reason.

Won't be tackling the health and education problems, they will have to be dealt with by early in the next electoral cycle but it could well be enough to see a FG/Labour/Ind government next time out.

I agree with your reasoning above, certainly health something badly needs to be done there, education not a priority.

Godge wrote: »

The contributory pension is paid to those who have paid PRSI so they will be covered, including the low-paid you mention.

The non-contributory pension is paid to those who were on social welfare most of their life, returning emigrants who never paid PRSI here, and others who were never paying (or earning otherwise) PRSI credits. It is not fair that this pension is as high for them as it is for those who have contributed all their life.

Equity doesn't really come into it though. You should punish people by having a very low welfare rate when/if they are fit for work. Cut them off after a period. I don't know anything about the disabled benefits, but certainly some are deserving of it and are unfit to work so they should get the normal pension. I was led to believe before that this was hugely exploited by others. That's the real problem.

Returning emigrants, I would agree with you on that.

Idbatterim

Do you also think welfare should be restored over time ?

no, close to full employment should be restored over time, as is currently happening. public servants have far more cause for a pay reinstatement than welfare recipients IMO. Noodler mentioned an increase in the OAP, Noodler I read an article in the indo a few weeks ago, that if anything, mentioned the need to decrease it from some sort of working group on the issue, given we now have such a young population and what a ticking timebomb the pensions issue is. Politically, cutting it may not be to attractive an option, so freeze it. We are talking about the sector of society who had by far the least fall out from the bust IMO...

This well as money becomes available, we should divide the pie in equal amounts is total bulls**t in my opinion. Each group needs to be looked at and it should be decided on merit, probably not much chance of that happening though when you throw in good aul politics... Some groups are still getting too much IMO, actually I will throw it out there that everyone other than workers at the marginal rate, are contributing very little or getting too much.

If you look at the figures, our welfare is out of line with europe, so is our ridiculous marginal rate of tax...

My guess is that the next budget will see the full restoration of the Christmas bonus, some further cuts in taxation to favour those earning between 35k and 80k and some roll-back of the pension levy paid by public servants. Offsetting these measures will be the increased income tax and VAT from the lower unemployment and the lower social welfare expenditure for the same reason.

Won't be tackling the health and education problems, they will have to be dealt with by early in the next electoral cycle but it could well be enough to see a FG/Labour/Ind government next time out.

We may well see what you have proposed, the restoration of the christmas bonus, when some working dont get a bonus despite the fact they may be financially screwed. I can only hope this is the last budget that FG and Labour give and next time round, one of the parties in the coalition isnt a financially illiterate. I.e the reform alliance or group of likeminded independents can go in with FG...

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

If you look at the figures, our welfare is out of line with europe, so is our ridiculous marginal rate of tax...

I'd certainly favour further tax reform over a pay increase at present

McTigs

crusier wrote: »

An even more folly to lose their votes in the next election!

well i suppose they have a choice, lose the PS vote if they don't appease the PS unions, lose everybody elses vote if they do

Rightwing

I think the Government should be putting more resources into the health system. Clearly there is something wrong there. Sort of a trade off between pay and numbers. Can't have both.

noodler

Idbatterim wrote: »

Noodler mentioned an increase in the OAP, Noodler I read an article in the indo a few weeks ago, that if anything, mentioned the need to decrease it from some sort of working group on the issue, given we now have such a young population and what a ticking timebomb the pensions issue is. Politically, cutting it may not be to attractive an option, so freeze it. We are talking about the sector of society who had by far the least fall out from the bust IMO...

What do you think such an analysis would say if extrapolated for PS pensions and pay though?

My point was more that that the State pension hasn't seen an increase in years where as many in the PS would at least have had increments and that there would be pressure from those who have it as their sole source of income.

But they were just examples. There will be million calls on where to spend any extra money. The money will be small though.

Farmer Pudsey

noodler wrote: »

What do you think such an analysis would say if extrapolated for PS pensions and pay though?

My point was more that that the State pension hasn't seen an increase in years where as many in the PS would at least have had increments and that there would be pressure from those who have it as their sole source of income.

But they were just examples. There will be million calls on where to spend any extra money. The money will be small though.

This is the big issue and few understand it. The truth is we have many bottle necks in the system. Health, early childcare, housing, broadband, tax rates are more than likly the main issues. If we divert money to other issues we will be back to where we started in 2008 in 4-5 years.

We really need to reform health but it remains a disaster where we have failed to have meaningfull reform that can be implemented over the last 30 years. Money is not the answer but seems to be the only solution that works. Early childcare needs to be addressed as is social and affordable housing for low to middle income earners. This may be self financing as we have so little building over last six years any incentive that reduces costs by reducing levy's by local authorities may well be self financing.

It goes back to how much health suck out of the economy over next two to three years that will decide amount available for other issue. However if health is solved will Education rise it ugly head above the parapet to suck any flexabilty out of the system