Is it not time EVERYONE considers not voting for FF or FG in the upcoming election

Stacksofwacks

If I vote it will likely be FG as I have always done. Not that I like them very much but I just don't trust any of the alternative parties. SF have some decent policies but I don't like their brand of republicanism or they people they put forward. Labour aren't electable and haven't been for quite some time. The independents and left wing parties are just a mash up of characters with chips on their shoulders.

James Brown

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

If I vote it will likely be FG as I have always done. Not that I like them very much but I just don't trust any of the alternative parties. SF have some decent policies but I don't like their brand of republicanism or they people they put forward. Labour aren't electable and haven't been for quite some time. The independents and left wing parties are just a mash up of characters with chips on their shoulders.

Those chips would tend to be regarding social issues, which might be expected from anyone interested in representing the public.

Eric Cartman

lawred2 wrote: »

or indeed wouldn't even need to pay more tax

If we just had the balls to break the unions , trim middle management and cut out the quangos we could both deliver more efficient services and cut taxes. Theres a big funding black hole in the middle of our government and everyone only pays attention to the dail bar and td's sallaries on one end, the lack of funding for teachers and gardai on the other, meanwhile karen the HEO on 75k a year who still has no idea how to use a computer will have her union rep on speed dial if shes even asked to produce 20k worth of productivity for the state and nobody calls it out at the top or bottom.

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If we just had the balls to break the unions , trim middle management and cut out the quangos we could both deliver more efficient services and cut taxes. Theres a big funding black hole in the middle of our government and everyone only pays attention to the dail bar and td's sallaries on one end, the lack of funding for teachers and gardai on the other, meanwhile karen the HEO on 75k a year who still has no idea how to use a computer will have her union rep on speed dial if shes even asked to produce 20k worth of productivity for the state and nobody calls it out at the top or bottom.

Must have missed that meeting where HEOs got 75k. Can you point out on the list where the bad civil servant (at HEO level) touched you?

https://www.forsa.ie/about-forsa/divisions/civil-service/civil-service-pay-scales/

Eric Cartman

relax carry on wrote: »

Must have missed that meeting where HEOs got 75k. Can you point out on the list where the bad civil servant (at HEO level) touched you?

https://www.forsa.ie/about-forsa/divisions/civil-service/civil-service-pay-scales/

ok, 50-60k , some of the salaries for grades above that are staggering though

lawred2

9k on top of 30k is a lot more than 13%

efanton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If we just had the balls to break the unions , trim middle management and cut out the quangos we could both deliver more efficient services and cut taxes. Theres a big funding black hole in the middle of our government and everyone only pays attention to the dail bar and td's sallaries on one end, the lack of funding for teachers and gardai on the other, meanwhile karen the HEO on 75k a year who still has no idea how to use a computer will have her union rep on speed dial if shes even asked to produce 20k worth of productivity for the state and nobody calls it out at the top or bottom.

I think people severely overate the impact unions have on the gross total spend of our government. Breaking them is as likely to cost as much money in future pay negotiations as it might possibly save. personally I would say without union deals we would be paying far more because with no benchmark many civil servant would then demand similar wages to those in the private sector. For the lower ranks there would be money saved, but for the higher ranks it would cost a whole lot more if the unions were removed from negotiating pay deals. Senior civil servants and Managers would no longer be constrained by union pay deals so although you might trim some cost of the ordinary civil servants we see every day, that would be more than offset by demands made by senior staff.

As always people miss where the real money is spent, tenders and service providers, temporary labour, and as I previously pointed out the complete lack of any incentive for managers in the civil service to save money because they dont want to see next year budget reduced.


If some how I was elected as the benevolent dictator of Ireland there are two simple actions I would take.
All senior positions in state bodies and the civil service would be on a strictly contract basis. Poor performance would mean the contract not being renewed, no golden hand shakes and no shuffling them off to another department to cause yet more mayhem. But I would also consider raising the salary of some of these positions so that only the very best managers would be attracted and retained. I might even consider awarding them a very small percentage of any reductions in their yearly budget that they might achieve.

the second thing I would do is ensure the states tendering process is completely overhauled. All tenders would be fixed price, fixed term, and certainly not have the crazy holes in them that we currently have where terms and conditions, additional charges and costs somehow magically appear immediately after a contract is awarded. It doesn't happen in the private sector so why should it be acceptable in the public sector. By far this is where the majority of tax revenue is wasted.
People bleat on about unions, pay deals,etc but they really haven't got a clue as to where the vast majority of tax revenue is wasted.

If I did absolutely nothing else, just those two things, the country would be far far better off, and instead of the inevitable increased taxes and stealth charges in each budget the opposite might be possible, or at the very least no adjustments would be required at all.

This goes back to my opening in this thread. Until we are prepared to refuse to elect TD's and ministers that have failed no matter which party they are from or which party we would like to see in government, nothing, absolutely nothing will change. How could any government seriously implement those two change I suggested as things stand now. The TD's and ministers don't want to see reform of the civil service, because for the most part they themselves are not doing their jobs or taking their own jobs seriously. They are more than happy to let the civil servants do most of their work for them, and because of that will never consider or attempt any meaningful reform of how tax revenue is spent by these civil servants or reform of how senior civil servant are appointed.

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ok, 50-60k , some of the salaries for grades above that are staggering though

As are the workloads to go with it. Not exactly sure what your point here was.

Eric Cartman

relax carry on wrote: »

As are the workloads to go with it. Not exactly sure what your point here was.

hah, found the civil servant. Theres a tiny proportion of people making 6 figures in the private sector who would put in less than 80 hours a week, id be shocked if anyone above HEO was even pulling 50 hours.

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

hah, found the civil servant. Theres a tiny proportion of people making 6 figures in the private sector who would put in less than 80 hours a week, id be shocked if anyone above HEO was even pulling 50 hours.

Oh no you got me! And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling keyboard warrior!

On a point of clarity where are you getting your information regarding the "tiny portion of people making 6 figures in the private sector putting in less than 80 hours per week?" Is there credible source for it at all? And on the flip side of that, do you have a credible source for what hours those on over 6 figures in the civil service work?

efanton

lawred2 wrote: »

9k on top of 30k is a lot more than 13%

sorry, you are absolutely right. It actually closer to a 30% increase

Must have been have a bit of a brain fart and divided them the wrong way round when calculating the percentage.
And me critcising someone else about their maths I guess I owe them an apology.

Eric Cartman

relax carry on wrote: »

Oh no you got me! And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling keyboard warrior!

On a point of clarity where are you getting your information regarding the "tiny portion of people making 6 figures in the private sector putting in less than 80 hours per week?" Is there credible source for it at all? And on the flip side of that, do you have a credible source for what hours those on over 6 figures in the civil service work?

AP grade starting at 65k and extending to over 80k work 43 hours a week or get extra pay.

Hours of attendance
Hours of attendance will be fixed from time to time but will amount to not less than 43 hours 15 minutes gross per week. The successful candidate will be required to work such additional hours from time to time as may be reasonable and necessary for the proper performance of his/her duties subject to the limits set down in the working time regulations. The rate of remuneration payable covers any extra attendance liability that may arise from time to time.

https://www.publicjobs.ie/documents/AP%20Information%20booklet.pdf

https://www.publicjobs.ie/documents/Head_of_Finance_Shared_Services_Info_Booklet.pdf
43 hours a week here with extra pay for more hours, 30 days holidays and sick pay and that fat pension. 87k minimum sallary with over 100k after a few years.

There is no job in the land in the private sector with that level of pay for that few hours unless you own the company and spent a decade putting in 100 hour weeks building it up.

Lyan

Lyan wrote: »

On paper, Fine Gael are the only party with semi-decent policies. So until some future trend mixes things up I'm fine sticking with FG to at the very least keep the purely populist Fianna Fail out, as well as the other more radical parties.

So the homeless crisis, health mess, social welfare overspend, excessive intake of refugees when all the above is bursting at the seams makes voting fg fine.

I Am The Law

Eric Cartman wrote: »

AP grade starting at 65k and extending to over 80k work 43 hours a week or get extra pay.

https://www.publicjobs.ie/documents/AP%20Information%20booklet.pdf

https://www.publicjobs.ie/documents/Head_of_Finance_Shared_Services_Info_Booklet.pdf
43 hours a week here with extra pay for more hours, 30 days holidays and sick pay and that fat pension. 87k minimum sallary with over 100k after a few years.

There is no job in the land in the private sector with that level of pay for that few hours unless you own the company and spent a decade putting in 100 hour weeks building it up.

It's just as well you never applied for a job in the public sector, you'd never have been able to live with shame.

efanton

suicide_circus wrote: »

But its a too high percentage of workers. A million. A MILLION. There are 2.3m working people in Ireland and 1m of them pay no income tax. That is utterly unsustainable. No wonder services are crumbling. And yes I know this is not the only cause but its pretty stark.

What is utterly unsustainable is that we have such a huge divergence in salaries, and far far too many people earning an income below the tax threshold. The reason they are below that threshold is quite simple, put them above it and them trying to work for a living becomes pointless, rather than simply rely on the dole and social welfare where they would be far better off.

If someone is earning less that €16.4k a year it means they will not be contributing to a private pension, they will forever be relying on social housing or rented property, and they certainly will not be putting savings aside. You don't care, it doesn't affect you at the moment but it certainly will affect you a few years down the line.

What happens in 30 or 40 years when these same people retire?
They will not afford any rents in the private sector that they might be in at the time on a state pension, a pension which the state will have to provide because they were never able to afford a private one.
At that point we will still have the 1.3 million that do earn above the tax threshold funding absolutely everyone else without exception. Where else is the money going to come from?
Even if you lowered the minimum tax threshold it simply would not come close to covering the additional spending requirements.

The minimum wage has to increase dramatically, or we have to seriously consider taxing the very wealthy more to ensure that we dont hit that point where it simply becomes impossible not to increase taxation on everybody dramatically.

the 'I'm all right jack' or someone else should pay attitude is simply not going to work. It might work now, but not in the long term. You think your taxation is bad at the moment, wait until that happens and you will really see what crippling taxation looks like.

This country needs to dramatically increase its social housing stock, raise its minimum wage, and I personally would argue add another tax band for those earning over €120k. That magic money tree that many claim Sinn Fein use will be needed by any and every political party in government at that point.

flazio

Anytime I think I might consider giving Sinn Fein a chance, I remind myself that they lobbied for the early release of the murderers of an Irish Detective Garda, on Irish soil.
If I'm not supposed to forget what Fianna Fail did with the economy, or what Fine Gael is doing to the lower classes right now I most certainly will never forget what skewed view Sinn Fein have to justice.
Right now it's my intention to vote an independent #1 and a Fine Gael candidate #2 because just prior to her joining FG, she fought real hard and succeeded in keeping a waste management contract out of my town and joining a poor party doesn't cancel that achievement out completely.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2018/income/


Median household income is 49,260.

So half earn below this, half above.



After direct taxes and transfers, the median disposable income is 42,865 per household.

I double-checked, and these figures are correct.

They are from table 2.3a of the 2018 SILC.

They are median household incomes figures.

49,260 is the median gross household income.

42,865 is the median disposable household income.

pinkyeye

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

OK, call me what you want, I don't care anymore.

So called refugees in DP should fkn stay there imo. The demands to house them elsewhere are ridiculous when you think of our own people. ok I will be called racist.

NO, I am a realist.

Lovely rant. What's it got to do with the OP?

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

I double-checked, and these figures are correct.

They are from table 2.3a of the 2018 SILC.

They are median household incomes figures.

49,260 is the median gross household income.

42,865 is the median disposable household income.

no they are Nominal median incomes not the same as REAL median incomes or simply median incomes.

I pointed out the difference in my earlier post. I even used the figures supplied by the CSO.

these are the numbers to need to look at
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2018/income/
table 2.1a

Compare the two and you will see the differences

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

no they are Nominal median incomes not the same as REAL median incomes or simply median incomes.

I pointed out the difference in my earlier post. I even used the figures supplied by the CSO.

these are the numbers to need to look at
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2018/income/

Compare the two and you will see the differences

The CSO data confirm that the median household gross income in 2018 is 49,260.

After taxes and transfers, the median household disposable income is 42,865, see tables 2.1c and 2.3a

Geuze

Note that many workers are part-times, etc., and this explains why their incomes are low, and may not pay much tax.

Also, over 65s enjoy two extra tax reliefs, so they can earn up to 18k / 36k without paying income tax.

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

AP grade starting at 65k and extending to over 80k work 43 hours a week or get extra pay.

https://www.publicjobs.ie/documents/AP%20Information%20booklet.pdf

https://www.publicjobs.ie/documents/Head_of_Finance_Shared_Services_Info_Booklet.pdf
43 hours a week here with extra pay for more hours, 30 days holidays and sick pay and that fat pension. 87k minimum sallary with over 100k after a few years.

There is no job in the land in the private sector with that level of pay for that few hours unless you own the company and spent a decade putting in 100 hour weeks building it up.

I don't know why I bother and apologies to everyone for dragging the thread way off topic but;

Not sure if English is your first language or not. You yourself quoted people on 6 figures. The advert for the AP grade you posted is on 5. Also what part of the add says get extra pay for extra hours worked? If it's there I'd like to apply.

The second advert is for a PO grade where the finishing salary after quite a few years at the grade ends at 107k. The minimum hours are 43.5 and again where in the advert does it say additional pay for hours over 43.5?

Both adverts just mention staying within the working time regulations. You know the same regulations that cover the private sector too. Both adverts mention that additional time is required above the 43.5 hours. So again where is the study that compares hours worked between the sectors?

Bit of googling shows that there's quite a few private sector jobs on offer over 100k in Ireland. But probably best to stick with statistics.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/documents/statistics/income-distributors/individualised-gross-income.pdf

For 2017 there's over 92000 people on incomes of over 100k in Ireland. Unfortunately it's not broken down into civil service versus private sector so I can't say how many are senior civil servants but considering there was just over 38k Civil Servants in total in 2017 that must mean there's not that many civil servants in the over 100k category compared to the private sector.

Think I'll just give up with this.

efanton

flazio wrote: »

Anytime I think I might consider giving Sinn Fein a chance, I remind myself that they lobbied for the early release of the murderers of an Irish Detective Garda, on Irish soil.
If I'm not supposed to forget what Fianna Fail did with the economy, or what Fine Gael is doing to the lower classes right now I most certainly will never forget what skewed view Sinn Fein have to justice.
Right now it's my intention to vote an independent #1 and a Fine Gael candidate #2 because just prior to her joining FG, she fought real hard and succeeded in keeping a waste management contract out of my town and joining a poor party doesn't cancel that achievement out completely.

And I would say fair play to you.

As stated I'm not trying to persuade anyone to vote for any particular party.

If she worked hard for her community, hasnt feck'd up as a minister, why not give her a transfer. I'm not suggesting people not to vote FF FG but I am certainly suggesting that we consider not reelecting those that have performed badly as ministers or only giving them a transfer rather than 1st preference.

The point I was making is not that everyone MUST change the way they typically vote, but everyone should CONSIDER changing the way they typically would vote.

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

Note that many workers are part-times, etc., and this explains why their incomes are low, and may not pay much tax.

Also, over 65s enjoy two extra tax reliefs, so they can earn up to 18k / 36k without paying income tax.

What you are saying is absolutely true.

But is it a case that they work part time because that is all the work they can get? Is it that once they hit a certain threshold they essentially start working extra hours for nothing so refuse to work those extra hours? Or is it as pensioners its an income that they dont rely on but work as more of a social outlet or that they cant adjust to not doing any work at all?

THere is also a very significant number of zero hours contract workers out there too. Why do Dunnes Stores employ two people to work part time when they could just as easily employ one person to work full time to do the same hours?
That would not have any thing to do with it reducing Dunne Stores obligations and overall employment costs, would it?
Call me cynical but I think these zero hours contract have a lot to do with it. Essentially Dunne Stores, and others, are getting the state to supplement their business running costs. Someone working 20 hours a week no doubt also claims supplementary income from the social welfare, so the net result is the state is paying out yet more benefits while companies that use zero hour contracts reduce their costs. Who pays for all this, that's us the tax payer.

Idbatterim

shesty wrote: »

It's pretty depressing.
I think most people like to complain but don't want to hear they might have to pay more tax to fund better public services, or have to take a reduction in benefits or allowances (I see FF already talking about raising children's allowance, FFS).
It's easier to keep voting in the familiar than to accept any form of change as far as I can see.People are very resistant to change.It's a bit of a "better the devil you know" scenario.

Who wants better public services ? Those paying nothing in ? I want tax cuts !

purifol0

This election has Mícheal Martin proclaiming that we must improve public services. This is a dog whistle to all public sector workers to let them know a vote for FF is a vote for pay rises for public and civil servants.

The vote buying is real and since the private sector worker can't foot the bill on income tax alone, the increase in general taxes and increasing national debt will continue. As well as an even higher age for the state pension.

The gulf in pay and pensions between the private and public worker is ever increasing. It took 20 years for the avg pay in the private sector to match the avg pay in the public sector ( 2018)! Such is the damage the FF benchmarking fiasco has wrought.

markodaly

The Public Sector Unions know that they will get their pound of blood a lot easier if they have FF at the helm. MM has been talking up about lessons learned but when it comes to the crunch, they do what is easier in terms of buying votes and giving everyone what they want, rather than improving anything or the PS.

jimmycrackcorm

efanton wrote: »

.

If someone is earning less that €16.4k a year it means they will not be contributing to a private pension, they will forever be relying on social housing or rented property, and they certainly will not be putting savings aside. You don't care, it doesn't affect you at the moment but it certainly will affect you a few years down the line.

What happens in 30 or 40 years when these same people retire?

The fallacy in this argument is that people only earning that low wage are going to do that for life. Especially now that the while concept of a job for life is gone, there are opportunities to do much better.

There are plenty of people in hauled where one partner is working part time only earning that but the other has a well paid job and this might only be temporary until the kids get older.

Wanderer78

Fg and ff are gonna get the majority of votes between them, we re not ready for change yet

smurgen

Idbatterim wrote: »

Who wants better public services ? Those paying nothing in ? I want tax cuts !

I do and I pay lots of tax. I would also not mind paying more tax to get more services.however I would first like to see a party that isn't involved in crony capitalism and woefully inept at procurement take the reigns before we contribute more. Can you honestly say FG are managing the public purse effectively? God no!