Voting reform, Dail Scandal and Politican's greed [See post 172]

Twickers

TD's get a Golden Handshake when leaving a Co Council (to adapt to changing lifestyle after leaving) - a farce
They can immediately become TD's when they can give themselves pay rises - forget about the Homeless etc. - Lunacy
Get paid travel expenses to get to work - only in Dail part time.
Get extra money for being on Committees - surely part of their job.
Get extra-ordinary long holidays - a "normal" employee would get the sack for not attending their work place.
Get Pensions immediately they retire - the rest of us have to wait until we are 65/66 to get a Pension
No wonder there are so many candidates at Election time

blanch152

Twickers wrote: »

TD's get a Golden Handshake when leaving a Co Council (to adapt to changing lifestyle after leaving) - a farce
They can immediately become TD's when they can give themselves pay rises - forget about the Homeless etc. - Lunacy
Get paid travel expenses to get to work - only in Dail part time.
Get extra money for being on Committees - surely part of their job.
Get extra-ordinary long holidays - a "normal" employee would get the sack for not attending their work place.
Get Pensions immediately they retire - the rest of us have to wait until we are 65/66 to get a Pension
No wonder there are so many candidates at Election time

A lot of that is blatantly untrue.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/just-how-are-ministers-pensions-worked-out-1.559289

"All TDs elected after April 1st, 2004, cannot receive a pension or pension lump sum until they reach 65 years of age unless they served in a public service body prior to April 1st, 2004."

You also seem to be mixing up councillors and TDs.

HeidiHeidi

Will we see you on the ballot paper next time round, OP, since it's such a handy number?

James Brown

Takes a certain kind of person to put themselves up for election. Of the politicians I know, have known, there is an ego there regardless of political leaning. It's a tough job if you're not built for it. Tougher still if you're not coming up through a family party dynasty, where there is support and protection.
Like most other places pensions should be based on time served rather than positions held.

careers for people not in it for the money, i'll start:

online campaigner
tumblr artist
.....?

nobody useful anyway, but im open to correction

politicians carry more responsibility and are under more scrutiny than many many other jobs that are paid far more

its much more relevant to scrutinise their decisions and their outputs for undue influence or incompetence than it is to complain that they are paid as well as i dunno the director of a fairly successful small family company

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Takes a certain kind of person to put themselves up for election. Of the politicians I know, have known, there is an ego there regardless of political leaning. It's a tough job if you're not built for it. Tougher still if you're not coming up through a family party dynasty, where there is support and protection.
Like most other places pensions should be based on time served rather than positions held.

How are pensions not based on time served rather than positions held?

My understanding is the longer you are there, the higher your pension. I could have missed something in the rules, could you explain?



On the personality of politicians, it takes all types. I know a few Green politicians, all councillors, and I find it hard to match your description to them. To be fair, a few FF politicians I know would easily fit your profile. It may also be a gender thing, as the female politicians I know appear to be fairly likeable people in general. The only ones I ever met with visible egos were Mary Robinson and Mary Harney.

cruizer101

Twickers wrote: »

Get paid travel expenses to get to work - only in Dail part time.

On Travel Expenses to be fair some of them are representing places that are a fair distance from the Dail they shouldn't be disadvantaged compared to those who live closer, they should all be on equal footing.
That said the amounts are probably excessive and they are cheeky feckers for claiming them (e.g. zappone taking a 10km detour in order to be able to claim extra 20k I]I know i havn't my figures right here[/I)

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

How are pensions not based on time served rather than positions held?

My understanding is the longer you are there, the higher your pension. I could have missed something in the rules, could you explain?

One pension regardless of number of ministerial posts held. Basically Leo, Micheal et. al get the same pension rate as Gino and chums based on time served. No bumps or windfalls. Maybe pick a role, base pension on that.
To explain: I think their pensions should be more in line with the rest of us.

blanch152 wrote: »

On the personality of politicians, it takes all types. I know a few Green politicians, all councillors, and I find it hard to match your description to them. To be fair, a few FF politicians I know would easily fit your profile. It may also be a gender thing, as the female politicians I know appear to be fairly likeable people in general. The only ones I ever met with visible egos were Mary Robinson and Mary Harney.

See, that's okay too. I said of the ones I knew. Not all politicians.

oLoonatic

Do you expect people in government to volunteer??? I doubt that would end very well.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One pension regardless of number of ministerial posts held. Basically Leo, Micheal et. al get the same pension rate as Gino and chums based on time served. No bumps or windfalls. Maybe pick a role, base pension on that.
To explain: I think their pensions should be more in line with the rest of us.

Well, they are public servants.

In the public service, pensions are a combination of time served and final salary in the case of the old pension schemes, and average salary in the case of the Single Pension Scheme.

Most have to serve 40 years to get a full pension, but there are exceptions. These exceptions include prison officers, army personnel, gardai, teachers and politicians. Not all of these have the exact same arrangements, but the general principle that a combination of salary (which goes up depending on the position worked) and length of service (which goes up the longer you work) applies in all cases.

So, while there might be some quibbles about the details, I can't see how the principles of calculating their pensions are different. A Secretary General of a Government Department gets a higher pension than a clerical officer because of the salary differential and having worked in a more demanding post, similarly the Taoiseach gets a higher pension because they have worked in a more demanding post than the average gob****e backbench TD such as Gino.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, they are public servants.

In the public service, pensions are a combination of time served and final salary in the case of the old pension schemes, and average salary in the case of the Single Pension Scheme.

Most have to serve 40 years to get a full pension, but there are exceptions. These exceptions include prison officers, army personnel, gardai, teachers and politicians. Not all of these have the exact same arrangements, but the general principle that a combination of salary (which goes up depending on the position worked) and length of service (which goes up the longer you work) applies in all cases.

So, while there might be some quibbles about the details, I can't see how the principles of calculating their pensions are different. A Secretary General of a Government Department gets a higher pension than a clerical officer because of the salary differential and having worked in a more demanding post, similarly the Taoiseach gets a higher pension because they have worked in a more demanding post than the average gob****e backbench TD such as Gino.

Yes, maybe pay a pension based on their most senior role and no unrelated lump sums? Basically, they retire and get a pension, nothing else, like most everybody else.
I don't see the relation to quality though, we've had gobsh*te Taoiseach.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes, maybe pay a pension based on their most senior role and no unrelated lump sums? Basically, they retire and get a pension, nothing else, like most everybody else.
I don't see the relation to quality though, we've had gobsh*te Taoiseach.

Again, your post is based on a misunderstanding of pension regulations and entitlements.

Public servants get a lump sum and a pension, just like Ministers and TDs.

SEPT 23 1989

Sociopaths crave power first the money is an added bonus

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, your post is based on a misunderstanding of pension regulations and entitlements.

Public servants get a lump sum and a pension, just like Ministers and TDs.

Rather, again you are placing your own inferences upon the postings of others. I literally said 'no unrelated lump sums'. To preempt the pedantry, by unrelated I mean not the pension itself. You could surely find some private examples of pensions and lump sums too just to really, miss my point.

I think, IMO, they should just get a pension like most of the rest of us. How's that?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Rather, again you are placing your own inferences upon the postings of others. I literally said 'no unrelated lump sums'. To preempt the pedantry, by unrelated I mean not the pension itself. You could surely find some private examples of pensions and lump sums too just to really, miss my point.

I think, IMO, they should just get a pension like most of the rest of us. How's that?

TDs are in the same pension scheme as public servants, and they get the same treatment as other public servants - a lump sum and a pension. So the lump sum is related to their time as a TD, it is not an "unrelated lump sum".

This is what you said first "Like most other places pensions should be based on time served rather than positions held." I explained how your assumption was wrong, and you moved the goalposts a couple of times since then.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

TDs are in the same pension scheme as public servants, and they get the same treatment as other public servants - a lump sum and a pension. So the lump sum is related to their time as a TD, it is not an "unrelated lump sum".

This is what you said first "Like most other places pensions should be based on time served rather than positions held." I explained how your assumption was wrong, and you moved the goalposts a couple of times since then.

Oh come on Blanch. Yes, like most other places. If you pick out the few like politicians they obviously don't count.
If the majority of working people got a lump sum or possibly various lump sums and a pension you'd have a point.

Once again we are locked together like two titans in a mortal....something...yet you still haven't given an opinion. You seem more interested in trying to pick holes and accusations of misrepresentation. Trying to discuss an opinion open to debate is not an oath of office.
Its my opinion Blanch, I'd rather no lump sums just the pension. How's that? Do you agree? Do you think they don't get enough money? Do you care? I can't tell.
Please note, this was a passing comment in a broader post. Only one you could get your nails into?

Takes a certain kind of person to put themselves up for election. Of the politicians I know, have known, there is an ego there regardless of political leaning. It's a tough job if you're not built for it. Tougher still if you're not coming up through a family party dynasty, where there is support and protection.
Like most other places pensions should be based on time served rather than positions held.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Oh come on Blanch. Yes, like most other places. If you pick out the few like politicians they obviously don't count.
If the majority of working people got a lump sum or possibly various lump sums and a pension you'd have a point.

Once again we are locked together like two titans in a mortal....something...yet you still haven't given an opinion. You seem more interested in trying to pick holes and accusations of misrepresentation. Trying to discuss an opinion open to debate is not an oath of office.
Its my opinion Blanch, I'd rather no lump sums just the pension. How's that? Do you agree? Do you think they don't get enough money? Do you care? I can't tell.
Please note, this was a passing comment in a broader post. Only one you could get your nails into?

Before one can have an opinion on something, you need to get the facts correct.

You are arguing that they shouldn't get a lump sum and a pension when nobody else does. The facts are that all pension schemes under revenue rules can offer both a pension and a lump sum. If they offer a lump sum, the pension amount is a different formula.

In the case of TDs, their pension and lump sum entitlements are similar to those of public servants. They have a faster accrual rate - similar to judges - but otherwise are the same.

You can have an opinion that the world is flat, I will just point out the fact that the world is round and produce evidence. I don't need to do anything more. You then have the choice to refute producing evidence or make an argument as to why the evidence is flawed.

In this particular case, you are saying that TDs should get pension arrangements based on service and salary as others do, I am pointing out that the facts are that they do get pension arrangements based on service and salary as others do. All that means is that your opinion is no longer based on any facts, and therefore I can't agree with it, whether or not I want to. Now, if you examine the details of the pension arrangements of TDs, and want to argue they are unfair because X, and X is a provable fact, then I will engage and give an opinion.

To date, the X you have advanced is false, so no need to engage.

If you ever get your facts right on TDs pensions, and have an arguable opinion, I will engage. We might even agree.

Geuze

Twickers wrote: »

TD's get a Golden Handshake when leaving a Co Council (to adapt to changing lifestyle after leaving) - a farce
They can immediately become TD's when they can give themselves pay rises - forget about the Homeless etc. - Lunacy
Get paid travel expenses to get to work - only in Dail part time.
Get extra money for being on Committees - surely part of their job.
Get extra-ordinary long holidays - a "normal" employee would get the sack for not attending their work place.
Get Pensions immediately they retire - the rest of us have to wait until we are 65/66 to get a Pension
No wonder there are so many candidates at Election time

Several of these statements are false.

TDs do not control their own pay.

TDs can no longer receive their pensions before NRA.

If you think TDs have long holidays......I suggest it is a 24/7 job, there is never any down time, you are always on duty.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Before one can have an opinion on something, you need to get the facts correct.

So they just get a pension? No lump sums relating to previous postings?

blanch152 wrote: »

You are arguing that they shouldn't get a lump sum and a pension when nobody else does. The facts are that all pension schemes under revenue rules can offer both a pension and a lump sum. If they offer a lump sum, the pension amount is a different formula.

No. You are misrepresenting my post here. You even quoted this:

Like most other places

What part of I think they should just get a pension is throwing you? Never said they didn't, couldn't, don't get lump sums.

blanch152 wrote: »

In the case of TDs, their pension and lump sum entitlements are similar to those of public servants. They have a faster accrual rate - similar to judges - but otherwise are the same.

So what?

blanch152 wrote: »

You can have an opinion that the world is flat, I will just point out the fact that the world is round and produce evidence. I don't need to do anything more. You then have the choice to refute producing evidence or make an argument as to why the evidence is flawed.

Point out how when I said they get lump sums and I don't think they should. They should just get a pension like most of the rest of us, pertains to your condescending comment here? How is my evidence flawed? It might be based on your willful misrepresentation of my quote, sure, but that's not legit now is it?

blanch152 wrote: »

In this particular case, you are saying that TDs should get pension arrangements based on service and salary as others do, I am pointing out that the facts are that they do get pension arrangements based on service and salary as others do. All that means is that your opinion is no longer based on any facts, and therefore I can't agree with it, whether or not I want to. Now, if you examine the details of the pension arrangements of TDs, and want to argue they are unfair because X, and X is a provable fact, then I will engage and give an opinion.

Nope. I said like most of us do. You pointed out others with similar set ups like politicians. This means absolutely nothing and is not evidence of anything but your jaded attempts at point scoring in a game that never seems to end for you.
I think politicians should get one pension. No lump sums. I'm even open to debate on that but you still have not offered an opinion and refuse to engage in any meaningful legitimate discussion, you'd rather attack all the time. It's predictable and tiresome.

blanch152 wrote: »

To date, the X you have advanced is false, so no need to engage.

They get lumps sums. Most of us don't. I'd like them not to get lump sums. For some reason this draws out your vitriol. I'd look into that Blanch.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you ever get your facts right on TDs pensions, and have an arguable opinion, I will engage. We might even agree.

You are likely incapable of reading comments and not adding your own slant.

Seth Brundle

Mod Note: Matt & Blanch - calm down! You both seem to want to prove the other wrong and by doing so, seem to provoke a response from the other which becomes somewhat of a downward spiral.
Lets just be civil or just walk away - if the bickering continues then I'm just going to lock this (with cards awarded!)!

beggars_bush

No down time?

Sure most of them have 2/3 secretaries or PAs to take their calls

Getting well paid and they cannot even do the most basic aspect of their job... turn up and vote

James Brown

There's the running up Dáil bar tabs too. Was in the news not so long ago.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There's the running up D bar tabs too. Was in the news not so long ago.

Which was primarily tea and sandwiches for visiting groups, as was covered in said news.

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

Which was primarily tea and sandwiches for visiting groups, as was covered in said news.

Never suggested they were buying glue to sniff, more about the unpaid tabs.

Unpaid Dáil bar bills written off over failure to settle tabs

Unpaid Dáil bar bills have been written off because there is “no realistic prospect of recovery of the sums due”, according to a report circulated to politicians in recent days.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/unpaid-d%C3%A1il-bar-bills-written-off-over-failure-to-settle-tabs-1.3171521

Relax, it's cross party.

Infernal Racket

So they just get away Scot free again after committing fraud. Where will the corruption end??

is_that_so

Gerry G wrote: »

So they just get away Scot free again after committing fraud. Where will the corruption end??

It's not corruption, it's lazy and slack application of the rules. A vote should have a pre-signal to say I'm in my seat before they can vote. Turning off the buttons and having them marching through an Aye and Nay lobby would also sort them out!

Infernal Racket

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not corruption, it's lazy and slack application of the rules. A vote should have a pre-signal to say I'm in my seat before they can vote. Turning off the buttons and having them marching through an Aye and Nay lobby would also sort them out!

Of course it's corruption if no action is taken. The initial crime is a fraud too. If I walked in to a ballot box and voted for you it's a crime. I can't see the difference here. Cowboys, every last one of them

is_that_so

Gerry G wrote: »

Of course it's corruption if no action is taken. The initial crime is a fraud too. If I walked in to a ballot box and voted for you it's a crime. I can't see the difference here. Cowboys, every last one of them

So what punishment should they have got? It's slack procedures and needs to be stopped right now.

NIMAN

They do themselves no favours, do they?

is_that_so

NIMAN wrote: »

They do themselves no favours, do they?

It's turned into in a playground drama with fingers pointing everywhere. Bunch of idiots who need to be properly corralled.

Plumbthedepths

I would imagine whomever brought Dooley and Collins to the attention of the Indo is seething the reprehensible behaviour spread far and wide beyond FF.
I'm surprised that some would believe there would be sanctions.