Public sector pay increase

Jawgap

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Apparently because its impossible to measure the performance of a public servant..why you ask?..just because.

No, it's quite easy to measure performance - the problem is how do measure action as opposed to movement?

Tiger Mcilroy

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

people see the scale advertised for the post and assume they're so fabulous what being private sector and that, they'll march straight to the top. We've had people refuse offers when they realise were they're starting.

most people in the public service worked in the private at some point (there are a few lifers all right, i find them (very) generally the most resistant to changes). I have worked in private mostly, public and now a type of semistate. there's a different culture and ethos in each, one not necessarily better than the other. Who generally treated their staff better? Private.
Where was i paid more: semi state.
Where had i the most job satisfaction? Public service.

The most vitriolic in criticisms are the ones that haven't worked in different sectors, either through failure to "get in", or failure to apply for one reason or another. Its an open competition, if you don't apply, its your own fault. If you didnt get in, its your own fault. Most public servant acknowledge the system has flaws and is in need of serious reform.[/QUOTE]

I have worked in both and have seen first hand what you describe, couldnt get back to the private sector quickly enough as i could feel the motivation being drained from my work.

Most public servants acknowledge the flaws but are still happy to hide behind these when increments are being handed out.

Jawgap

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I quite simply dont believe that people laughed at the wages in an interview. this didnt happen.

Well I must've imagined it then.

It happened once in about late 2006 when I was interviewing a graduate for a starter position with the regulator I was working for.

The problem was that the PS was (and presumably still is) competing against the Big 4 - in comparison the starting salaries were (and probably still are) ludicrous.

He didn't have to laugh though.

Sheldons Brain

If you want to be able to control the wasters in the PS and reward the diligent, then stop voting for wasters to set the policies. It is the wasters representing you, the citizen, that have brought this about.

Roger Hassenforder

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I have worked in both and have seen first hand what you describe, couldnt get back to the private sector quickly enough as i could feel the motivation being drained from my work.

Most public servants acknowledge the flaws but are still happy to hide behind these when increments are being handed out.

you're right. they should refuse them in a spirit of collegiality with their private sector colleagues, who in turn will refuse bonuses, BIK, share schemes, perks...

meanwhile in the real world...

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you're right. they should refuse them in a spirit of collegiality with their private sector colleagues, who in turn will refuse bonuses, BIK, share schemes, perks...

meanwhile in the real world...

Let's put it another way......

I worked in the PS for 10 years, and got about 6 increments - as well as the various pay rises and pay cuts. Each increment was worth (before tax) about €1,100.....

......so I had about €6,500 in incremental pay adjustments.

I left the PS to return to the private sector - the base salary is a bit better, but throw in the fact that I don't have to pay for my health insurance any more, I've an expensed car (which I do pay BIK for), my professional fees are paid for (as is my indemnity insurance), I can earn annual and interim bonuses (and benefit from team bonuses) and I know which I prefer.......;)

.......oh, and I was given a bike as part of the signing bonus in lieu of gym membership (which I didn't really want).

bjork

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's put it another way......

I worked in the PS for 10 years, and got about 6 increments - as well as the various pay rises and pay cuts. Each increment was worth (before tax) about €1,100.....

......so I had about €6,500 in incremental pay adjustments.

I left the PS to return to the private sector - the base salary is a bit better, but throw in the fact that I don't have to pay for my health insurance any more, I've an expensed car (which I do pay BIK for), my professional fees are paid for (as is my indemnity insurance), I can earn annual and interim bonuses (and benefit from team bonuses) and I know which I prefer.......;)

.......oh, and I was given a bike as part of the signing bonus in lieu of gym membership (which I didn't really want).

Why did you leave the bit I bolded out of your calculations?

Ingenious to say the least

Tiger Mcilroy

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you're right. they should refuse them in a spirit of collegiality with their private sector colleagues, who in turn will refuse bonuses, BIK, share schemes, perks...

meanwhile in the real world...

Your off on a bit of a tangent now.

Real world ..lol..

Jawgap

bjork wrote: »

Why did you leave the bit I bolded out of your calculations?

Ingenious to say the least

Because they were balanced out by the pay cuts, but even if you want to remove the pay cuts from the equation I doubt all the pay rises I received, even if I was still benefiting from them when I left the PS would cover even half the cost of the company jammer I'm toddling about in.

Roger Hassenforder

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Your off on a bit of a tangent now.

Real world ..lol..

If Public service workers are expected to forgo increments in protest at the system, there should be some reciprocal movement from the private sector. Oh wait, thats bull****; first introduced by yourself.

Re: real world, apparently only Private sector workers inhabit it.

Roger Hassenforder

bjork wrote: »

Why did you leave the bit I bolded out of your calculations?

Ingenious to say the least

you probably meant to say "disingenuous" ?:p

bjork

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you probably meant to say "disingenuous" ?:p

No?


in·gen·ious (ĭn-jēn′yəs)
adj.
1. Having great inventive skill and imagination: an ingenious negotiator.
2. Marked by or exhibiting originality or inventiveness: an ingenious solution to the problem.
3. Obsolete Having genius; brilliant.


Numbers are numbers, but it's they inventive way they're spun that counts

Jawgap

bjork wrote: »

No?


in·gen·ious (ĭn-jēn′yəs)
adj.
1. Having great inventive skill and imagination: an ingenious negotiator.
2. Marked by or exhibiting originality or inventiveness: an ingenious solution to the problem.
3. Obsolete Having genius; brilliant.


Numbers are numbers, but it's they inventive way they're spun that counts

well don't let my figures get in the way.....

About two years ago I published details of my salary on another discussion.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84781410&postcount=4570

Tiger Mcilroy

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If Public service workers are expected to forgo increments in protest at the system, there should be some reciprocal movement from the private sector. Oh wait, thats bull****; first introduced by yourself.

Re: real world, apparently only Private sector workers inhabit it.

Im honestly trying to understand your point.

The bit in bold ..now you getting it.

mariaalice

Another issue is the way the negotiation are done via the media and you have the likes of Ingrid Miley with breathless excitement reporting on the public services unions then you have the various political discussion programs on both television and radio.

If you looked at political programs in the Uk how many of them are about public servants pay? in comparison to the here? The Uk has huge public debt just like we do.

I acutely think that is one of the issue holding Ireland back from having a mature political culture, clientism is another one.

uki

Dear Cruiser!

What you are saying is partly right - but not the full story. I agree there are different sections of society to blame for the downturn. However the wrong applied benchmarking made the public sector paybill to large for the Country. Spending went up by 70 % from 2001-2007. The public sector got to big. Sucking out to much money from country.
Agreed savings were not fully implemented from PS. (Haddington Rd agreement).
That is not sustainable in any country. It put an unfair burden on the taxpayer.

Unfortunately elections are coming and the government will do anything to get votes from PS on the expense of private sector. That was done by Bertie and I can see it happening again.

mariaalice

uki wrote: »

Dear Cruiser!

What you are saying is partly right - but not the full story. I agree there are different sections of society to blame for the downturn. However the wrong applied benchmarking made the public sector paybill to large for the Country. Spending went up by 70 % from 2001-2007. The public sector got to big. Sucking out to much money from country.
Agreed savings were not fully implemented from PS. (Haddington Rd agreement).
That is not sustainable in any country. It put an unfair burden on the taxpayer.

Unfortunately elections are coming and the government will do anything to get votes from PS on the expense of private sector. That was done by Bertie and I can see it happening again.

Why would the government do that the private sector are bigger that the public sector so it would be in there interests to court the private sector not the public.

I think whats in the ether form the government to the civil servants is....look lads vote for us and we will give you back some of the money after the next election...live horse and you will get grass.

Perception is everything the government is not going to alienate the private sector by giving the public services a pay restoration/rise before the next election.

Quin_Dub

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If you want to be able to control the wasters in the PS and reward the diligent, then stop voting for wasters to set the policies. It is the wasters representing you, the citizen, that have brought this about.

The issue is the undue influence exerted by the Unions..

I think that the people that we actually want to keep and reward in the Public sector would be ok with the introduction of a meritocracy. Rewards for being above average, penalties (or at least no reward) for being below average etc.

The impediment to that is the unions and the cohort of Public Sector staff that provide them with their mandate to do what they do..

Back in 2008/2009 there should not have been blanket pay cuts.. There should have been targeted redundancies (not voluntary) and targeted pay cuts..Instead we got everybody from top to bottom getting the same % cut..

Utterly ridiculous..

So , the question is - How do we break the negative influence of the PS unions without breaking employment laws etc?

Sheldons Brain

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Back in 2008/2009 there should not have been blanket pay cuts.. There should have been targeted redundancies (not voluntary) and targeted pay cuts..Instead we got everybody from top to bottom getting the same % cut..

Er no, everyone did not get the same pay cut, those on higher salaries have been cut by 20%+, those on lower salaries by less. But when you conduct some comparison with the private sector, it is at lower levels that the PS is better paid.

Quin_Dub

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Er no, everyone did not get the same pay cut, those on higher salaries have been cut by 20%+, those on lower salaries by less. But when you conduct some comparison with the private sector, it is at lower levels that the PS is better paid.

Yes , but it was blanket across the categories..

Instead of reducing the wage bill by X amount through targeted redundancies and variable pay cuts based on role etc. They just cut everyone.

Making it unfair and inefficient.

Jawgap

mariaalice wrote: »

Another issue is the way the negotiation are done via the media and you have the likes of Ingrid Miley with breathless excitement reporting on the public services unions then you have the various political discussion programs on both television and radio.

If you looked at political programs in the Uk how many of them are about public servants pay? in comparison to the here? The Uk has huge public debt just like we do.

I acutely think that is one of the issue holding Ireland back from having a mature political culture, clientism is another one.

I'd agree - there way too much political theatre that goes on here that passes for political discourse.

mariaalice

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Er no, everyone did not get the same pay cut, those on higher salaries have been cut by 20%+, those on lower salaries by less. But when you conduct some comparison with the private sector, it is at lower levels that the PS is better paid.

This is the thing I don't get so what if some clerical employee in the public services gets say 27k and the same job in a bank or what ever pays 22k ( I made up the figures ) cutting the lower paid public services pay is not going to lower my taxes it doesn't work like that. I would be far more interested in efficient public services than in making every public servant lower paid. I also thing perhaps maybe some of the conditions of employment might need to be looked at.

Jawgap

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yes , but it was blanket across the categories..

Instead of reducing the wage bill by X amount through targeted redundancies and variable pay cuts based on role etc. They just cut everyone.

Making it unfair and inefficient.

absolutely - a targeted redundancy programmed aimed at reducing the pay bill and re-shaping public services for the 21st Century would have been the way to go, but every poxy little town in the country has to have its hospital, its Garda station, its FAS office, its Social Welfare Office, its HSE facility, its Teagasc centre etc......there's no votes in closing any of those in the interests of efficiency and the greater public good.

Then there was the debacle over de-centralisation and the PCCs - I must have missed the people protesting them arriving into their towns and suggesting that the public purse would be better served if they were placed elsewhere:rolleyes:

Quin_Dub

mariaalice wrote: »

This is the thing I don't get so what if some clerical employee in the public services gets say 27k and the same job in a bank or what ever pays 22k ( I made up the figures ) cutting the lower paid public services pay is not going to lower my taxes it doesn't work like that. I would be far more interested in efficient public services than in making every public servant lower paid. I also thing perhaps maybe some of the conditions of employment might need to be looked at.

Much better to pay 2 really good people €40k each then pay 3 mediocre people €30k each for example..

It's not about absolute numbers it's about value for money..

The current system does not lend itself to value for money and efficiency

daithi7

List of National Debt by Country

General gross government debt. Mostly using CIA from April 2014.Debt levels for 2013.

Pos Country Debt % of GDP

1 Japan 226 Japan debt
2 Zimbabwe 202.4
3 Greece 175
4 Italy 133 Italy debt
5 Iceland 130.5
6 Portugal 127.8 Portugal debt
7 Ireland 124.2 Ireland debt
8 Jamaica 123
9 Lebanon 120
10 Cyprus 113
11 Sudan 111
12 Grenada 110

I wonder do other members of the illustrious forever indebted club above, also have a government that feels they can now pay the public service and the government members themselves of course even bigger salaries with ever growing national debts!?


Check out the scary

The Finance Dublin Debt Clock of Ireland

The Republic of Ireland's national debt, a measure of the legacy the Government bequeaths to the children of Ireland:

€ 182,484,167,058

Ireland's national debt (NTMA definition - see 'Composition of 'National Debt' table) as a percentage of estimated 2014 GDP (€183.6 bn)* (on the left, below), and as a percentage of 2014 GNP (€155.6 bn)* (on the right):

GDP GNP
99.3922479%

117.2777423%

The key to a country's economic recovery and the restoration of financial normalcy is the stabilisation of the National Debt. The national debt rises if the Government spends more than it takes in, mostly in the form of taxes. If the Government balances its books, like most households, the national debt stops rising.

This situation is ultimately desirable in all countries, because it means that the Government is in harmony with the households of the country it governs. If not, the households in that country will ultimately lack economic confidence in that Government, because everyone intuitively knows that the Government will ultimately have to tax the earnings/wealth of those households to make its ends meet. When such fears prevail beyond the short term, countries' economies begin to implode because households and companies domiciled in the jurisdiction begin to lose confidence in the economic system of that country, and leave it, or at least export their wealth from it, with negative impacts on the economy's growth and ultimate economic prospects.

Countries which, on the other hand, have surpluses on their Government accounts, as Ireland did from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, enjoy the confidence of its resident households and enterprises and enjoy superior growth, superior tax revenues, and falling debt - in short, a virtuous economic and debt cycle.

As long as a country's debt as percentage of its GNP and GDP remains on a rising trajectory, its economic prospects are worsening. However the Finance Dublin Debt Clock is rising at a slower rate than in 2010-2013, and this is bolstered by improvements in GNP growth and Government finances, with debt as a percentage of national income rising at a diminishing rate.

The return to growth of Ireland in 2013 (+3.4% GNP growth), followed by an expected year on year growth rate of over 5 per cent in 2014 indicates that Ireland is experiencing an earlier than anticipated return to financial stability, due entirely to the growth effect in bolstering national income (thus reducing the debt as a percentage of GNP).

Mr. teddywinkles

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Most if not all I would say, I have worked in a well known one, They are also moving into the free internships as well. Pretty much if you are not meeting your metrics set by you manages for a while you get the boot.

There's also a good chunk of temporary agencies staff employed throughout these companies

daithi7

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qH83_0mR8ug/UHWaNSPqCTI/AAAAAAAAJLY/rS0rgkfKWmg/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.38.png

We are the most indebted people in the world according to the imf, at 650% of GDP, we don't need more debt, no more than a junky needs more heroin.

We simply can't afford to pay more for public services. We already pay far too much.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6NjjsSiirbg/UHWaOLTwQhI/AAAAAAAAJLg/TLG9ARf3GuQ/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.48.png

bjork

Jawgap wrote: »

well don't let my figures get in the way.....

About two years ago I published details of my salary on another discussion.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84781410&postcount=4570

It wasn't you in particular because every interested party has their own way of spinning it.


What you linked shows NO cuts to your gross pay.

mariaalice

Issues such as looking at public services pensions are how they are funded are far more important than how much they are paid and really needs to be sorted.

Jawgap

bjork wrote: »

It wasn't you in particular because every interested party has their own way of spinning it.


What you linked shows NO cuts to your gross pay.

Excellent! My gross pay was fine but my take home was down nearly 30%.

If gross pay is what matters no doubt then, you'll have no problem with the government retaining and even increasing USC, income tax, PRSI, and deducting property and water taxes at salary source?

EDIT: incidentally, how can I spend gross salary?

bjork

Jawgap wrote: »

Excellent! My gross pay was fine but my take home was down nearly 30%.

If gross pay is what matters no doubt then, you'll have no problem with the government retaining and even increasing USC, income tax, PRSI, and deducting property and water taxes at salary source?

EDIT: incidentally, how can I spend gross salary?

Newsflash: Not only public sector pay these things


All that shows is your pay "adjustment" has been made up of pay rises and increments and no pay cuts.

Originally Posted by Jawgap View Post
Let's put it another way......

I worked in the PS for 10 years, and got about 6 increments - as well as the various pay rises and pay cuts. Each increment was worth (before tax) about €1,100.....

FYP

Jawgap

bjork wrote: »

Newsflash: Not only public sector pay these things


All that shows is your pay "adjustment" has been made up of pay rises and increments and no pay cuts.




FYP

Yeah, makes you wonder why I ever left if my gross pay was so brilliant

....and gross pay when I left was about €6,200 - down 8% in two years.

In gross salary terms I'm back to about where I was three years ago, but in disposable income I'd say I'm easily exceeding anything I ever enjoyed in the PS.

And the point about the property and water taxes are that they are non-discretionary for everyone. Therefore, like all taxes, they eat into your gross.

Is anyone really bothered by their gross salary? It's nett income and disposable income that people prize, I'd imagine. No point in having a 'generous' gross salary if the bulk of it is taken in tax, charges and non-discretionary commitments.

But I supposed high gross salaries would facilitate the begrudgers to begrudge.

mariaalice

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, makes you wonder why I ever left if my gross pay was so brilliant

....and gross pay when I left was about €6,200 - down 8% in two years.

In gross salary terms I'm back to about where I was three years ago, but in disposable income I'd say I'm easily exceeding anything I ever enjoyed in the PS.

And the point about the property and water taxes are that they are non-discretionary for everyone. Therefore, like all taxes, they eat into your gross.

Is anyone really bothered by their gross salary? It's nett income and disposable income the people prize, I'd imagine. No point in having a 'generous' gross salary if the bulk of it is taken in tax, charges and non-discretionary commitments.

But I supposed high gross salaries would facilitate the begrudgers to begrudge.

You are fantastic to keep at it and I love you posts, however even you would have to concede the pension is big issue favouring public servants particularly at higher levels. That's my big issue..a public servants pension fund should be set up funded the way every pension is funded I,e a mix of employee and employer funding and then the public servants are the treated the same as any pension fund that's only fair.

Jawgap

mariaalice wrote: »

You are fantastic to keep at it and I love you posts, however even you would have to concede the pension is big issue favouring public servants particularly at higher levels. That's my big issue..a public servants pension fund should be set up funded the way every pension is funded I,e a mix of employee and employer funding and then the public servants are the treated the same as any pension fund that's only fair.

Kind of - a few years ago I tried to extract my pension contributions from the scheme in the PS. I wanted to extract them as credits to re-invest in my private pot from an earlier job. Unfortunately there's no mechanism for doing so - and there's no mechanism for porting your pension credits / contributions with you when you go.

From my position, I reckon I'd be better off being able to take my contributions with me - but I agree at more senior levels (PO, A/SecGen and beyond) the public pension is a significant bonus.

KomradeBishop

daithi7 wrote: »

List of National Debt by Country
...

'Public Debt vs GDP' doesn't determine the sustainability of a countries finances, it is 'Interest Payments vs GDP' which determines that.

You also reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP' the fastest, by increasing GDP faster - and we increase GDP the fastest, when the entire country is at full employment - and this can only be done through much greater public spending in the present (which in the medium/long run, leads to lowered 'Public Debt vs GDP' as GDP reaches its maximum growth potential).

We currently have the lowest interest rates ever on newly issued public debt, so it's the most suitable time available, to engage in a sustainable public spending boost.

Looking at 'Public Debt vs GDP' and ignoring 'Interest Payments vs GDP', gives a completely misleading look at the sustainability of a countries finances.

Kermit.de.frog

KomradeBishop wrote: »

'Public Debt vs GDP' doesn't determine the sustainability of a countries finances, it is 'Interest Payments vs GDP' which determines that.

You also reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP' the fastest, by increasing GDP faster - and we increase GDP the fastest, when the entire country is at full employment - and this can only be done through much greater public spending in the present (which in the medium/long run, leads to lowered 'Public Debt vs GDP' as GDP reaches its maximum growth potential).

We currently have the lowest interest rates ever on newly issued public debt, so it's the most suitable time available, to engage in a sustainable public spending boost.

Looking at 'Public Debt vs GDP' and ignoring 'Interest Payments vs GDP', gives a completely misleading look at the sustainability of a countries finances.

Nobody can be this economically illiterate. You must be taking the p. I just refuse to believe that even the most deluded trade union member in the country would believe that.

KomradeBishop

daithi7 wrote: »

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qH83_0mR8ug/UHWaNSPqCTI/AAAAAAAAJLY/rS0rgkfKWmg/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.38.png

We are the most indebted people in the world according to the imf, at 650% of GDP, we don't need more debt, no more than a junky needs more heroin.

We simply can't afford to pay more for public services. We already pay far too much.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6NjjsSiirbg/UHWaOLTwQhI/AAAAAAAAJLg/TLG9ARf3GuQ/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.48.png

This shows a lack of understanding of the significant differences between 'Public Debt' and 'Private Debt' - and how government spending is the best way to help alleviate the problems with 'Private Debt'.

High levels of Private Debt is actually far more of a problem with a countries economy, than high levels of Public Debt - as it can hold a country in debt deflation, where paying down private debts, holds down aggregate demand and prevents GDP from reaching its maximum potential.

KomradeBishop

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nobody can be this economically illiterate. You must be taking the p. I just refuse to believe that even the most deluded trade union member in the country would believe that.

:rolleyes: There's nobody more economically illiterate, than someone who can't even think-up/form a counterargument, laying out their economic position, and just resorts to spewing condescending comments at posters they disagree with.

That's not just economically illiterate, that's the kind of harmful ignorance, that tries to shut down discussion of opposing economic views, without any actual counterargument.

Kermit.de.frog

KomradeBishop wrote: »

:rolleyes: There's nobody more economically illiterate, than someone who can't even think-up/form a counterargument, laying out their economic position, and just resorts to spewing condescending comments at posters they disagree with.

It's deserving of condescension because it is absolute rubbish. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay for public services?

It comes from citizens working in the private sector. They are generating the wealth and that is where the money comes from. And your solution for this busted state is to borrow more money and take more from private workers to pay public sector wages.

The public sector generates no wealth. It consumes the wealth of the productive side of the economy which is the private sector.

It's total delusion.

evolving_doors

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Citation, Public service was 20% higher than average. Why do I need to keep saying that ? If it is not true I am dam sure someone would have given figures by now that the public service was not 20% higher than the private sector. Private sector has received what about 3% over the entire after boom that still leaves the public service old level 17% over current pay if it's restored. Figures people ?

Figures people!!
fact public sector workers have higher levels of education.
And now the shocker, more education = mo money... on average.

darkpagandeath

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Figures people!!
fact public sector workers have higher levels of education.
And now the shocker, more education = mo money... on average.

Citation ? Someone doing secrtarial work should not be paid more becasue of a degree for example.

KomradeBishop

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's deserving of condescension because it is absolute rubbish. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay for public services?

It comes from citizens working in the private sector. They are generating the wealth and that is where the money comes from. And your solution for this busted state is to borrow more money and take more from private workers to pay public sector wages.

The public sector generates no wealth. It consumes the wealth of the productive side of the economy which is the private sector.

It's total delusion.

You're just spouting more bollocks here: If it's rubbish, provide a counterargument.

Posters who try to justify condescension in place of argument, are usually just obnoxious and ignorant - and are mainly just trying to shout someone down out of discussion (and good luck with that, because it just guarantees I'll engage more - not less - to pick apart your nonsense).

You state in one sentence 'where does the money come from?' for rhetorical effect - knowing full well my post explained that - and then go on to even reference my explanation of that in the next sentence.
You're displaying not just a willingness to engage in condescension to try and shout down a post, but deliberate/wilful ignorance and selective reading of the post - i.e. openly dishonest arguments - to try and bash it.

You also don't have a clue of what 'wealth generation' is - you just use it as a nebulous/unexplained term without any understanding of it - anyone with a basic understanding of economic accounting, of sectoral balances, knows that public spending is by definition a net flow of money into the private sector, increasing aggregate demand and allowing private industry to profit, and for private wealth to increase.

The whole 'wealth generation' line of nonsense, is just a flimsy argument to try and paint it as 'government = bad/wealth-consuming', 'private sector = good/wealth-generating'; it's a childish view of economics.

daithi7

KomradeBishop wrote: »

'Public Debt vs GDP' doesn't determine the sustainability of a countries finances, it is 'Interest Payments vs GDP' which determines that.

You also reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP' the fastest, by increasing GDP faster - and we increase GDP the fastest, when the entire country is at full employment - and this can only be done through much greater public spending in the present (which in the medium/long run, leads to lowered 'Public Debt vs GDP' as GDP reaches its maximum growth potential).

We currently have the lowest interest rates ever on newly issued public debt, so it's the most suitable time available, to engage in a sustainable public spending boost.

Looking at 'Public Debt vs GDP' and ignoring 'Interest Payments vs GDP', gives a completely misleading look at the sustainability of a countries finances.

I hope this isn't too condescending for you, my precious public one.

1. Interest is transient, low rates rise. So if & when world economic growth picks up, and when interest rates revert to their norm, then our debts will become truly unsustainable. This could be any time over the next 30 to 50 years!! We have stupidly indebted ourselves for that long, imagine hey!?

2. Debt to GDP is the only measure that matters over the long term. Ours is the highest in the world (HELLO) and growing, and yet still the public sector unions are looking for more & hence far more unsustainable debt to pay for this unnecessary extravagance!

3. If Ireland has the ability to allow some fiscal easing, the obvious way to do this is tax cuts for all the workforce, especially the squeezed middle. I.e Cut USC. This would benefit all tax payers, and lift the economy right across the board, not just increase the overpay of a permanent, protected, pampered section of the workforce I.e. The public sector

4.You're saying that by borrowing even more to pay public servants even more will do the economy good is laughable if it wasn't so damaging. It's just the heroin addict crying out for another fix to stave off cold turkey. We know this type of public sector union delusion economics just leads to bust. yet still after 2 public finance busts in 30 years, we have fools who try to peddle this nonsense. Again sorry if you find that condescending, but I'm not.!

5.Yes,we could borrow to pay for things like broad band, better schools, roads, etc if and only if these things can be shown to give a greater economic payback over the medium term. Swelling public sector salaries further at the expense of all other tax payers, or by doing things like raiding private sector pensions,as is being done currently, is just dumb, counter productive, auction politics in conjunction with self interested public sector unions. It's a proven conspiracy of incompetents.

It's time to call a halt to this lunacy.

daithi7

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Figures people!!
fact public sector workers have higher levels of education.
And now the shocker, more education = mo money... on average.

Ehh no. Studies done by the European Union, CSO & others, allowing for education &other factors find that equivalent workers in the public service are paid 20% more than their private sector equivalents, and that is before pensions you simply could not buy in the private sector, permanency, and other benefits such as holidays, increments, sick leave ' entitlements?', etc, etc, etc

So for example an accountant with 15 years experience will earn more than 20%more in the public sector on average, before pension, permanency, holidays,and other benefits, etc

http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/stats-dont-lie-public-sector-is-still-mollycoddled-29907776.html

darkpagandeath

daithi7 wrote: »

Ehh no. Studies done by the CSO & others, allow for education &other factors find that equivalent workers in the public service are paid 20% more than their private sector equivalents, and that is before pensions you simply could not buy in the private sector, permanency, and other benefits such as holidays, increments, sick leave ' entitlements?', etc, etc, etc

So for example an accountant with 15 years experience will earn more than 20%more in the public sector on average, before pension, permanency, holidays,and other benefits, etc

You will be told that is wrong with no evidence to back it up only veiled remarks to not everyone is on it...

KomradeBishop

daithi7 wrote: »

I hope this isn't too condescending for you, my precious public one.

1. Interest is transient, if & when world economic growth picks up and when interest rates revert to their norm, then our debts will become truly unsustainable. This could be any time over the next 30 to 50 years!!

2. Debt to GDP is the only measure that matters over the long term. Ours is the highest in the world and growing and yet the public sector unions are looking for more & hence far more unsustainable debt to pay for this extravagance

3. If Ireland has the ability to allow some fiscal easing, the obvious way to do this is tax cuts for all the workforce especially the squeezed middle. I.e Cut USC. This world and benefit all tax payers, and lift the economy across the board, not just increase the overpay of a protected pampered section of the workforce I.e. The public sector

4.You saying that by borrowing even more to pay public servants even more will do the economy good, is just the heroin addict crying out for another fix to stave off cold turkey. We know this type of public sector union delusion economics just leads to bust, yet we still after 2 public finance busts in 30 years, have fools who try to peddle this nonsense. Again sorry if you find this condescending but I'm not.!

5.Yes,we could borrow to pay for things like broad band, better schools, roads, etc if and only if these things can be shown to give a greater economic payback over the medium term. Swelling public sector salaries further at the expense of all other tax payers, or by doing things like raiding private sector pensions,as is being done currently, is just dumb, counter productive, auction politics in conjunction with self interested public sector unions. It's a proven conspiracy of incompetents.

It's time to call a halt to this lunacy.

Well you've provided arguments, which is infinitely better than solely-condescension - the latter of which adds nothing to discussion.

1: Debt is not re-issued for 10 years, in some cases lately, not for 30 years. Increases in interest rate, don't affect current debt, only debt taken out after the interest rate change.

2: If you claim 'Public Debt to GDP' is the only measure that matters in the long term, then what you say doesn't counter my arguments, as what I put forward reduces long-term 'Public Debt to GDP'.
You are speaking as if an increase in 'Public Debt to GDP', used to increase GDP, leads to a long-term increase in 'Public Debt to GDP' - when instead, the increase in GDP reduces it.

3: You can do both tax cuts and public spending increases, and there's no reason not to do both.

4: This is just emotive nonsense. Do the math. 'Public Debt vs GDP', means that if you increase GDP, you're improving the overall debt levels - and the sustainability of public spending is what matters, and is determined by 'Interest Payments vs GDP'.

5: What I advocate, is aimed at increasing GDP, that doesn't have to involve stealing pensions or whichever - that's a straw man - government finances do not work like business finances, where profits must match costs.
The stability of government finances, is largely determined by debt sustainability - which in turn is largely determined by the interest rate on the debt - and increasing GDP helps make government finances more sustainable, so maximizing GDP growth is a good measure of what government finances should aim for (so long as it is within debt sustainability).

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well you've provided arguments, which is infinitely better than solely-condescension - the latter of which adds nothing to discussion.

1: Debt is not re-issued for 10 years, in some cases lately, not for 30 years. Increases in interest rate, don't affect current debt, only debt taken out after the interest rate change.

2: If you claim 'Public Debt to GDP' is the only measure that matters in the long term, then what you say doesn't counter my arguments, as what I put forward reduces long-term 'Public Debt to GDP'.
You are speaking as if an increase in 'Public Debt to GDP', used to increase GDP, leads to a long-term increase in 'Public Debt to GDP' - when instead, the increase in GDP reduces it.

3: You can do both tax cuts and public spending increases, and there's no reason not to do both.

4: This is just emotive nonsense. Do the math. 'Public Debt vs GDP', means that if you increase GDP, you're improving the overall debt levels - and the sustainability of public spending is what matters, and is determined by 'Interest Payments vs GDP'.

5: What I advocate, is aimed at increasing GDP, that doesn't have to involve stealing pensions or whichever - that's a straw man - government finances do not work like business finances, where profits must match costs.
The stability of government finances, is largely determined by debt sustainability - which in turn is largely determined by the interest rate on the debt - and increasing GDP helps make government finances more sustainable, so maximizing GDP growth is a good measure of what government finances should aim for (so long as it is within debt sustainability).

Letree

I for one am looking forward to getting this pay rise. Who's going to begrudge me.. come on who?

Iwasfrozen

Letree wrote: »

I for one am looking forward to getting this pay rise. Who's going to begrudge me.. come on who?

Everyone who has to pay for it I would imagine.

daithi7

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well you've provided arguments, which is infinitely better than solely-condescension - the latter of which adds nothing to discussion.

1: Debt is not re-issued for 10 years, in some cases lately, not for 30 years. Increases in interest rate, don't affect current debt, only debt taken out after the interest rate change.

2: If you claim 'Public Debt to GDP' is the only measure that matters in the long term, then what you say doesn't counter my arguments, as what I put forward reduces long-term 'Public Debt to GDP'.
You are speaking as if an increase in 'Public Debt to GDP', used to increase GDP, leads to a long-term increase in 'Public Debt to GDP' - when instead, the increase in GDP reduces it.

3: You can do both tax cuts and public spending increases, and there's no reason not to do both.

4: This is just emotive nonsense. Do the math. 'Public Debt vs GDP', means that if you increase GDP, you're improving the overall debt levels - and the sustainability of public spending is what matters, and is determined by 'Interest Payments vs GDP'.

5: What I advocate, is aimed at increasing GDP, that doesn't have to involve stealing pensions or whichever - that's a straw man - government finances do not work like business finances, where profits must match costs.
The stability of government finances, is largely determined by debt sustainability - which in turn is largely determined by the interest rate on the debt - and increasing GDP helps make government finances more sustainable, so maximizing GDP growth is a good measure of what government finances should aim for (so long as it is within debt sustainability).

1.So debt is reissued, and it needs to be refinanced at the going rate at that time, so when rates go up,as they undoubtedly will, the cost of our debt will spiral too. (e.g. a1% interest rate rise may equal a 30% interest servicing cost rise) See we agree on this. Interest costs!!

2. I said total debt to GDP, the 650% the imf quoted is total debt.so we agree again the Irish are the most indebted race in the world currently by nearly a factor of 2! Now that's scary!!

3. No you can't do both tax cuts &public pay increases unless of course you can actually afford it. Patently Ireland can't, as we're still borrowing more than the growth rate I.e. IRELAND IS ALREADY BORROWING FOR CURRENT EXPENDITURE.

So it's choices, if there is any fiscal wiggle roomat all it should all go towards tax cuts not, public salary increases cos they're already overpaid, CAPICHE!? Tax cuts are fairer & help all workers and hence the whole economy.

4. Governments don't increase GDP,they create the conditions that can allow for increases to occur e.g. infrastructure, productivity, lower taxes (=>more spending), etc, etc

5. Bollocks. Private pensions are already being raided (.6% levy each year) to help pay for over expensive public service salaries and pensions. Do with all due respect Your ' Plan' (ha,ha) is bogus, delusionary, toss. You do not increase your GDP by further overpaying your public servants with other people's money that you have to pay interest on for circa 30 years. Because that interest payment acts as a damper on public spending &GDP every year hereafter going forward!!

Further the salary &pension overpayment rate holds, every year after so you have stupidly committed to borrowing more each yearjust to pay your wage bills!? In so doing you also bend the economy more out of shape by stupidly overpaying a section of the workforce even more at the expense of the others. You're deluded if you think by borrowing to pay public servants more you increase the GDP of the country when our economic history and so many others show completely the opposite.

This is the deceit that is being sold to the Irish people currently. I sincerely hope labour get shafted for this, they fully deserve it imho.

P.S. Love the video you posted tho, class!