Post Cowen Plan debate:

nesf

Do it here guys. I'm sure there are plenty of good issues to debate here.

I'll throw out the first:

"Why did it take so long for this to be done and has FF's hesitance to act decisively cost the country?"

My opinion: Yes. Not tackling the deficit in the Exchequer earlier they've spooked the markets and undermined our ability to borrow while simultaneously acting to help the banks which increased the deficit problem.

SkepticOne

nesf wrote: »

My opinion: Yes. Not tackling the deficit in the Exchequer earlier they've spooked the markets and undermined our ability to borrow while simultaneously acting to help the banks which increased the deficit problem.

I would agree with that. There is still a lack of a plan that demonstrates an understanding of the situation and a perception that the government is rudderless and lurching from crisis to crisis.

Mena

All he delivered today was fluff. And how long did it take him to get to this point... Waste of time and not in any way confidence inspiring.

jmayo

Agreed it has taken too long to do anything constructive.
To outsiders they probably look like helpless inept passengers who aren't trying to take radical action to head off the growing deficit problems.

If anyone ran a business or a household in this way they would be facing serious times.
What am I saying, some people in this country do run business and households that way, then they look for handouts from the tax payers when the sh** is about to hit the fan :rolleyes:
Me thinks Clowen may be of a mind to call on EU/ECB when the cr** really hits, lets use EU taxpayers money to then bail us out.
Either that or face dragging down the euro when IMF arrives :eek:

Everything they have done has been cack handed since this time last year.
The budget deficits kept rising, revenue projections have been way off.
Ok fair enough things were changing rapidly, but people were calling for decisive action last summer.
Then they bring the budget forward with no real savings in there.
They do try a few things like targetting the so called easy targets i.e. pensioners and students, but they don't have the balls to grasp the nettle of real high cost of public sector, the wage bill.

IMHO about the only thing they have jumped quickly to do is bail out one particular bank at a huge cost to the exchequer and probaly in the long run limiting the funds available to save the other more important banks.

Mr. Incognito

It's not enough.

We'll be looking for another 2 billion in a month

bdoo

I kinda like Cowen but fu**kin hell he hasn't a clue. In fairness even the shinners are talkin sense in areas and gilmore made a fair point - what will it actually cost everyone? and to what benefit?

snubbleste

An incredibly disappointing response to tackle the current situation from Cowen

At this stage imo we need an election to create a mandate from the electorate.

nesf

Some details of Cowen's Plan here on RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0203/economy.html

mike65

*shudders* (and not cos its cold)

nhughes100

This is a joke, it took them a month and the best they can come up with is screwing public sector workers for their "free" pensions. Practically No capital cutbacks or no social welfare changes, no redundancy programs, Zero imagination, a complete and utter letdown. Some civil servant needs to teach Cowan how to talk without scratching his nose every 30 seconds and they need to get him a suit that fits. He looks a mess, acts like a mess and gets us further into this mess.

snubbleste

nesf wrote: »

Some details of Cowen's Plan here on RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0203/economy.html

All details below..try to stay awake

The following is the text of a speech delivered by Irish Prime Minister Brian
Cowen in the parliament in Dublin on Feb. 3, 2009.)

Taoiseach Announces Government Decision on the Implementation of the
Framework for Stabilisation, Social Solidarity and Economic Renewal
following negotiations with the Social Partners.

Just before Christmas the Government published its strategy for “Building
Ireland’s Smart Economy: A Framework for Sustainable Economic Renewal”. Its
primary objective was to outline a pathway forward for the Irish economy
which acknowledged the severe short-term challenge, while focusing on how
we could return to sustainable growth in the medium-term.

At that time, the Government committed to engage intensively with the
Social Partners on how we could develop and implement that Framework,
beginning with the need to devise a credible time frame in which to close
the gap in the public finances. We decided to work together with a specific
focus on agreeing an approach to managing those challenges we now face.

And those challenges are immense. As we pointed out last week, we are
experiencing the most profound global economic crisis in seventy years. In
addition to the effects of an international financial and banking crisis
and a worldwide recession, the Irish economy is suffering from the
aftermath of a large housing and construction boom and a loss of cost
competitiveness after a period of sustained growth.

This is being exacerbated by the decline in the value of Sterling relative
to the Euro which is placing extreme pressure on Ireland’s base of
exporting companies.

Intensive discussions with the Social Partners on these challenges resulted
in the agreement last week of a Framework for a Pact for Stabilisation,
Social Solidarity and Economic Renewal.

In this Framework, the Government and Social Partners agreed that we would
only achieve the prosperous future that the Irish people deserve if, during
these extremely difficult times, we take urgent and radical action to
restore stability to the public finances, to maximise short-term economic
activity and employment and to improve competitiveness.

Stabilisation

This approach is rooted in the belief that stable public finances are
essential for the future of our economy. Every action that we take in the
period ahead must be motivated by that objective. Without stable finances,
there will be no economic recovery.

The Framework agreed with the Social Partners endorses the fiscal plan
submitted to the European Commission and commits to working together to
eliminate the Current Budget deficit by 2013.

The difficulty in achieving this cannot be overstated. The Social Partners
have agreed that a credible start requires an immediate adjustment of the
order of 2 billion. This must be followed with adjustments of EU4 billion
in 2010 and again in 2011, EU3.5 billion in 2012 and EU3 billion in 2013.
Today we are announcing the first steps towards achieving those targets.

Social Solidarity
During intensive negotiations with the Social Partners over the past week
progress was made on a range of issues under the Framework. In the context
of the discussions, the Government tabled proposals to achieve a full-year
saving of EU1.4billion through the introduction of a public service pension
levy. The unions decided that they were not in a position to agree to
that proposal.

While this is regrettable, it does not mean that the engagement with the
social partners was a failure:
the overall framework has been agreed,
the need for an immediate adjustment of EU2 billion on a credible basis was
also agreed, the need for a significant contribution to be made by the public
service pay bill in achieving that adjustment is also agreed,
as are links to the Government’s strategy for economic renewal published in
December.

I am grateful to all those involved in the discussions for the quality and
the sincerity of the engagement that took place over the past four weeks.

The Government considered the position at its meeting this morning and took
the necessary decisions in respect of the fiscal adjustments required as I
indicated we would in the absence of a final agreement. Our decisions take
account of the views expressed by the Social Partners during those
discussions.

These adjustments will deliver in excess of EU2 billion on a full-year basis
and represent a huge political, economic and social challenge for every
single person in this country and will be achieved through the following
full-year expenditure savings:

EU1.4 billion on the public service pay bill, the great bulk of which will
be achieved through a new pension-related payment to be made by all public
servants (including employees of local authorities), with a small element
of the total to be secured through reductions in travelling and subsistence
rates and other savings.

In addition, the increases provided for under the Review and Transitional
Agreement with effect from 1st September 2009 and 1st June 2010 will not now be
paid on those dates;
this will deliver savings of EU1billion in 2010
EU95 million through a reduction in Overseas Development Aid;
EU80 million through a general reduction of the order of 8% in all
professional fees, for example in the legal and medical areas;
EU75 million through a reduction in the Early Childcare supplement from
EU1100 to EU1000 per year and a restriction to child under 5.
EU140 million through general administrative efficiencies and savings,
including those arising from the non-payment of the scheduled 1st September
pay increase arising under the Towards 2016 Agreement, through further
savings in Advertising, PR and Consultancies; and through savings on
Defence equipment;
EU300 million through an across-the-board reduction in the 2009 Budget
Exchequer capital allocations;
and,

We are in a position to reduce the EU8.2 billion capital allocation by EU300
million because of the fact that we are achieving far more output for less
money than was the case in the past due to the fact that competitive
tenders for capital projects are coming in at prices 20% less than before.
We therefore expect to maintain the level of output on capital projects
while achieving this saving.

I wish to make the House aware that legislation will urgently be brought
forward to give effect to the pension-related measures which I have
outlined. This will include legislative provisions to realize the payroll
saving in respect of local authority staff for the benefit of the Exchequer
through a reduction in the Exchequer allocation to the Local Government
Fund. Implementation will be discussed in the normal way with the Public
Service Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

The Government has been guided by the principles of fairness and prudence
in making these tough decisions. The new pension-related payment will be
graduated to reflect different income levels in the public service, while
our other expenditure adjustments seek to ensure all sectors of society
contribute on an equitable basis.

In addition, we have already introduced highly progressive tax-raising
measures in the 2009 Budget which will raise an estimated EU2 billion or 1%
of GDP additional taxation. The Income Levy targets higher incomes while
protecting those on lower incomes, social welfare or in receipt of
redundancy payments. 20% of the money raised will come from those with
incomes over EU250,000. In addition, those with second homes will pay tax
on those homes for the first time.

Today’s measures build on our decisions last July to secure an initial
round of savings which delivered EU440 million in 2008 and EU1,000 million in
2009. These included a 3% payroll reduction by end-2009 and reductions in
spending on consultancies, advertising and other measures. We introduced
further administrative efficiencies and savings in the October Budget
including a proposed reduction in a number of agencies.

We will continue to target expenditure and tax measures on those most able
to bear the cost, and we will support those who are most vulnerable in our
society consistent with a responsible budgetary policy and an assessment of
what is sustainable in the current circumstances.

We are conscious of the many challenges people face but it is in everyone’s
interest that we deal responsibly with the situation and safeguard this
country’s future prospects.

In doing so, we will utilise the social partnership process, which is about
engagement and the sharing of analysis, as well as the forging of specific
agreements. The social partnership discussions over the past few weeks
has deepened our shared understanding of the challenges facing the economy
and the appropriate direction for a response.

The Tanaiste, the Minister for Finance and myself have devoted a large
amount of time since the beginning of January to these discussions, both in
formal meetings and through many informal contacts and discussions,
including over several nights and weekends. No greater priority could have
been given to these efforts and I believe that the social partners
themselves would acknowledge this fact.

The inability of the ICTU to agree to the Government’s proposals does not
mean that the partnership process has failed. The overall framework
remains in place and will be built on.

The ICTU has indicated that it is available to continue discussions on the
implementation of the overall framework, as have the other social partners.
The Government will continue to engage with them over coming weeks as it
implements the strategy agreed in the Framework document regarding:

support for enterprises,
refining price regulation in the energy sector,
stabilising the financial and banking sector to meet the needs of the Irish
economy and society,
implementing a pro-active labour market approach appropriate to Irish
conditions to support vulnerable employment and those who lose their jobs,
developing a new national pensions framework, and
completing the reform and economic renewal agenda to which we are
committed.

Economic Renewal
The decisions taken by Government lay the foundations for the next phase of
Ireland’s national development.

Despite the budgetary constraints, the Government is maintaining
proportionately the largest capital investment programme in Europe.

We will continue to commit considerable expenditure on roads, on schools
and on housing. We are investing significantly in important infrastructure
and research and development to drive competitiveness, growth and jobs in
the future. We have proportionately the largest investment programme in the
EU. This is an investment in the future as well as being our very own
stimulus package for the Irish economy.

We have also decided today to re-prioritise EU150 million of capital
expenditure to employment-intensive activities in the areas of school
building and energy efficiency improvements.

The biggest tragedy of the current difficult circumstances is the loss of
jobs. Protecting jobs to the best extent possible and supporting those who
become unemployed is of fundamental importance. The Government will
continue to deploy every means at our disposal to help minimise the impact
of the credit crisis and the severe downturn in global markets on
employment prospects in this country.

The Government is also working to significantly improve access for
unemployed persons to job search, training and education, and employment
programmes. Relevant Ministers and their Departments are working together
to maximise opportunities for up-skilling and re-skilling so that people
will be better placed to avail of new job opportunities where they become
available.

Immediate steps are being taken to adapt to the unprecedented pace and
scale of change including:

increasing the monthly capacity of job search (from 6,500 to 12,250
persons) to assist individuals through the provision of guidance on
employment, education and training opportunities and development;


planned creation of an additional 51,000 training places for newly
unemployed people;

design and delivery of further courses in sustainable energy and green
technology techniques;

work towards providing redundant apprentices with the opportunity to
complete their apprenticeships.

The Government will bring forward further measures in these areas which
ensure that we get the maximum impact from resources available and that
innovative approaches are used to maintain people in employment as well as
assisting those who lose their jobs.

As I stated before, this further saving of EU2billion is the next step in
stabilising our public finances. We will continue to work with the social
partners on the basis of the Framework we agreed last Friday to address the
short-term issues, in order to maximise economic activity and employment in
the short-term and helping those who lose their jobs. The Government is
committed to working with all stakeholders to confront the challenges this
country faces in a global recession. We will provide the necessary hope
and direction and we will take the difficult decisions now in the interests
of the country and our people.

Firefox10

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's not enough.

We'll be looking for another 2 billion in a month

I agree. Speaking as someone who is going to loose my job this year (i am being made redundant at the end of year) i feel that the goverment has yet again failed to gasp with the situation. the pandering to public sector unions has gone on far too long. Why was there no pay cuts?:mad:

jimmysull

I had hoped for more. I thought this morning that this would be Cowen's chance to show what he's made of.
Now that the shackles of elite social partnership where the governemnt needed permission to scratch have been thrown aside, I really thought we would see some real leadership. Nothing but fudge here.

On the basis of this plan we'll be seeing another plan in a few months when things get worse. Then we'll have to see some real decsions.
I'll give him one more chance but then he has to go.

Mr.Micro

For the moment he has hit the public sector workers, a safe option for the Government and left the private sector for the minute to make small savings in a very large gulf. No point in further penalising the private sector at the minute, as with detiorating conditions many firms may not be around in the near future.

Het-Field

"A sticking plaster over a gaping wound" said Enda Kenny.

This is another ad hoc, short term measure. It is underwhelming as Cowan has done nothing to stimulate the economy, nothing to address the massive debt which has accumulated, and nothing to punish the banks and regulators for reckless behaviour.

Poll taxes on 2nd homes will create a drop in the ocean amount of money, while the pension levy will anger the Civil Servants whose standard of living is not that great to begin with. The re ajustment of the Childcare allowances calls into question the statements of Mary Hanafin.

These are nothing moves, which will do nothing to move the economy forward, nor will it address the problems which have accumulated.

Social Partnership 2009 was a waste of time. Well done Mr Cowan and Mr Lenihan.

jimmysull

snubbleste wrote: »

An incredibly disappointing response to tackle the current situation from Cowen

At this stage imo we need an election to create a mandate from the electorate.

Not sure what good an election would be. They'd be falling over themselves to lose it. Does the winner then have a true mandate?

What we need is Enda Kenny to step aside as leader of FG, get R Bruton to take over. That will take time but then have an election when there is someone who could actually sort out the mess ready to take over. He would get a mandate with Gilmore as Tainaiste. Better give a mandate to people we believe have a fighting chance of sorting out the mess than rushing it now and having a government with a "default" mandate.

Only problem is we could be bankrupt in the meantime:(

jhegarty

Het-Field wrote: »

Social Partnership 2009 was a waste of time. Well done Mr Cowan and Mr Lenihan.

Fixed it for you.

Het-Field

jhegarty wrote: »

Fixed it for you.

:P

professore

Firefox10 wrote: »

I agree. Speaking as someone who is going to loose my job this year (i am being made redundant at the end of year) i feel that the goverment has yet again failed to gasp with the situation. the pandering to public sector unions has gone on far too long. Why was there no pay cuts?:mad:

In fairness it amounts to an average 7% pay cut to civil servants. I think he's done the right thing .... finally, he has to start somewhere. Now wait for the strikes.

Could you see Enda Kenny doing something similar?

mike65

I've suspicion that strikes will be rare or not happen at all, its clear to any class of fool we are on the brink of current account doom. The Union leadership know they will not be able to stop this, ordinary members know that if they don't knuckle under the state will not be able to borrow at any rate and then the ECB or IMF come calling.

Mr.Micro

professore wrote: »

In fairness it amounts to an average 7% pay cut to civil servants. I think he's done the right thing .... finally, he has to start somewhere. Now wait for the strikes.

Could you see Enda Kenny doing something similar?

I know it is tough taking people's money in current times but the levy is going to their guaranteed pensions, if I have got that right. So striking over that would be a little silly, but you may be right.

doncarlos

I really doubt there will be a strike to be honest.

Also is the levi going to be on top of what members of the civil service already pay into their pensions or inclusive? This would make it even more sellable to workers on the lower scale

nesf

doncarlos wrote: »

Also is the levi going to be on top of what members of the civil service already pay into their pensions or inclusive? This would make it even more sellable to workers on the lower scale

From the way he was talking I'd guess that it was to be on top of what is already being paid. I could be wrong though.

He really should have given more detail on the levy.

Firefox10

professore wrote: »

In fairness it amounts to an average 7% pay cut to civil servants. I think he's done the right thing .... finally, he has to start somewhere. Now wait for the strikes.

Could you see Enda Kenny doing something similar?

True Enough. To be honest it does not matter what colour the goverment is, the public sector unions will have them over a barrel and they will not take the drastic steps needed to make this country competitive
again. It's in the right direction allright but we just dont have the luxury of time on our hands to tackle the crisis in peicemeal fashion.

nesf

Cowen has for all intents and purposes cut public pay but done it in a way that doesn't cut pensions for ex-public servants. This is clever, if he directly cut pay this would automatically cut people's pensions. By introducing a levy he defers a fight with the pensioners to another day and still reduces the public pay bill.

It's a smart way to approach it if you want to fight on the issue on as few fronts as possible. I don't think he's cut enough spending here and he should have introduced either some cuts or tax increases but he's obviously trying to give bitter medicine in small doses, one step at a time etc.

BroomBurner

nesf wrote: »

From the way he was talking I'd guess that it was to be on top of what is already being paid. I could be wrong though.

He really should have given more detail on the levy.

Yeah, he really should be giving the nuts and bolts, tbh. Public Sector pensions are all worked out differently.

Also, will he be revising the TD pension? They get a guaranteed pension providing they have worked as a TD for 2.5 years. The rest of us have to work 40 years (public servants, I'm talking about) to get a small portion of that.

There were so many things wrong with his statement, I had to have a cuppa tea and take a deep breath.

murfie

I agree, strikes are not likely. But this is a only the beginning as there is another 16 billion to follow. And more if the predictions are not correct!!

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Cowen has for all intents and purposes cut public pay but done it in a way that doesn't cut pensions for ex-public servants. This is clever, if he directly cut pay this would automatically cut people's pensions. By introducing a levy he defers a fight with the pensioners to another day and still reduces the public pay bill.

It's a smart way to approach it if you want to fight on the issue on as few fronts as possible. I don't think he's cut enough spending here and he should have introduced either some cuts or tax increases but he's obviously trying to give bitter medicine in small doses, one step at a time etc.

I agree with this analysis (and, as a public service pensioner, I also benefit from this way of doing things). I think Cowen has done a bit better than I feared he might. His poor script and lack of oratorical skills might have conveyed a bad impression of what he was setting out.

Even the long engagement with the social partners might pay off for him, as the unions went a long way down the road on the package. It might be that they pulled out at the end simply to stay onside with their membership; but they will possibly now tell the members that even though they didn't fully assent to the package, they prevented it from being even worse.

What about the head of steam that was being built up for property tax? Is that where the next €2bn will be found?

jimmysull

professore wrote: »

In fairness it amounts to an average 7% pay cut to civil servants. I think he's done the right thing

Not so sure it's 7% it may be but..... we need to wait to see how the levy is applied. If it's considered a compulsory "pension contribution" then the levy will also reduce the rest of their tax bill. Therefore it's like a private sector worker contributing 7% to their pension. In reality it costs about half (exampt from 41% tax and 6% PRSI). So it could be a 3.5% cut.
If that turns out to be the case, then it's probably much much less than the negative inflation we'll see in private sector wages.

Time for benchmarking again I think!!! Then they'd go on strike???

jimmysull

nesf wrote: »

he's obviously trying to give bitter medicine in small doses, one step at a time etc.

Prolonging the agony....time for action

nesf

nesf wrote: »

From the way he was talking I'd guess that it was to be on top of what is already being paid. I could be wrong though.

He really should have given more detail on the levy.

From RTE news, it looks like this will replace the old levy. So it's changed from a flat 5% to a more proportional (and higher) cut.

nesf

jimmysull wrote: »

Prolonging the agony....time for action

I agree but it's not entirely clear what that action should be.

foxy06

Can someone tell me if this is a levy on all wages earned or just on money paid into your pension?

Fishyfreak

It's a levy on Gross Pay. It's a joke that penalises the ordinary man. Public Sector workers already contribute around 5% to the pension, now he's slapping 7% on top of this.

He's quite happy to pump money into the banks willy nilly.

There will be strikes believe me.

foxy06

Great! I've lost my job and my husband is down 70 quid a week. Would both be better off screwing the system in this poxy country.

nesf

Fishyfreak wrote: »

It's a levy on Gross Pay. It's a joke that penalises the ordinary man. Public Sector workers already contribute around 5% to the pension, now he's slapping 7% on top of this.

He's quite happy to pump money into the banks willy nilly.

There will be strikes believe me.

RTE were making it sound like that'll replace the old 5% contribution. Lack of details is a bitch isn't it?

krust

foxy06 wrote: »

Great! I've lost my job and my husband is down 70 quid a week. Would both be better off screwing the system in this poxy country.

foxy06

They have not explained this at all. I am down about 1400 a month in my house and we have 2 children. If we both went on the dole we would have more money. WHY is this country such a joke????

BroomBurner

nesf wrote: »

RTE were making it sound like that'll replace the old 5% contribution. Lack of details is a bitch isn't it?

Yeah, RTE keep saying that "Public Servants are now going to have to pay for their pensions" as if we don't already!!

Berti Vogts

Fishyfreak wrote: »

It's a levy on Gross Pay. It's a joke that penalises the ordinary man. Public Sector workers already contribute around 5% to the pension, now he's slapping 7% on top of this.

He's quite happy to pump money into the banks willy nilly.

There will be strikes believe me.

Well it's better than losing your job, isn't it?

nesf

BroomBurner wrote: »

Yeah, RTE keep saying that "Public Servants are now going to have to pay for their pensions" as if we don't already!!

If you calculated how much it would cost to get that pension in the private sector you don't pay anything close to what it should cost. No offence but you really don't pay for them up to now and this new levy doesn't really cover the cost either.

How about we don't apply the old and new levy and you can have private pensions instead? If I was you I really wouldn't take this option. Take a glance at what's happened to private pensions in the last two years if you want to see what it's like for the rest of the country.


I'll put it this way, if I was offered a deal where by paying 10-15% of my salary I'd get a guaranteed job and a guaranteed pension like the public sector one, I'd jump at the chance.

BroomBurner

Possibilities wrote: »

Well it's better than losing your job, isn't it?

That's a very simplistic attitude to take.

There are surely better ways to raise money than to tax a pension? It smacks of a government making decisions based on members of the private sector whispering in their ear.

No one in the public sector is ignorant to the bad times we're currently in, so let's leave off the simple slurs.

mike65

Wonder what the rating agencies will make of this programme of cuts/tweaks.

bk

Fishyfreak wrote: »

It's a levy on Gross Pay. It's a joke that penalises the ordinary man. Public Sector workers already contribute around 5% to the pension, now he's slapping 7% on top of this.

The thing is to get an equivalent pension in the public sector, you would need to pay about 20 to 25% of your salary, so you are still doing well.

Fishyfreak wrote: »

There will be strikes believe me.

The problem is if there are strikes, it will only lead to the necessity for even more cuts on the public sector.

Here is the thing, we currently have a AAA rating from the credit rating agencies. If the government are seen to be bringing the current spending levels down, then we will keep this rating and the cost of the government borrowing money will decrease.

However if there are strikes, we will quickly lose the AAA rating, which will mean a big increase in the cost of borrowing money, which will just mean even more cutbacks are needed of public expenditure.

It isn't in anyone interest, specially public sector workers interest to go on strike.

nesf

mike65 wrote: »

Wonder what the rating agencies will make of this programme of cuts/tweaks.

Any guaranteed cuts in expenditure that continue year on year will help our credit rating. We'll need to do more to get an AAA rating though.

BroomBurner

nesf wrote: »

If you calculated how much it would cost to get that pension in the private sector you don't pay anything close to what it should cost. No offence but you really don't pay for them up to now and this new levy doesn't really cover the cost either.

How about we don't apply the old and new levy and you can have private pensions instead? If I was you I really wouldn't take this option. Take a glance at what's happened to private pensions in the last two years if you want to see what it's like for the rest of the country.

I'm not disputing that it's a good pension scheme, but it is also well paid for by the public sector. As stated there on RTE, there is no "black hole" in the HSE pension fund, everyone gets out what they pay in. I am currently paying for someone that has already retired, that's fair enough. In the future (hopefully), someone will be paying for me to be retired. That's how it works.

For private pension, however, it works differently, you save and invest for yourself, so take the risk yourself.

There's really no comparing the two.

nesf

BroomBurner wrote: »

I'm not disputing that it's a good pension scheme, but it is also well paid for by the public sector. As stated there on RTE, there is no "black hole" in the HSE pension fund, everyone gets out what they pay in. I am currently paying for someone that has already retired, that's fair enough. In the future (hopefully), someone will be paying for me to be retired. That's how it works.

For private pension, however, it works differently, you save and invest for yourself, so take the risk yourself.

There's really no comparing the two.

The old levy was only 5%, that's tiny! The thing is, why do public servants get pensions that are unavailable to the rest of the country? Bear in mind that public pensions come from current spending so any short fall is paid by taxes paid by everybody, not just public servants.

donmaga1

Ireland should be ran like a buisness. Ireland has some great buissness people. Get them in to advise the government.

If in the budget had a 1% extra on income tax I dont think ther would be any one giving out. Harsh yes but the other governments around the world would see Ireland doing something to prop up the state.

If for the month of December the government took the duty off booze not so meny people would have gone up north and done there shopping there two.

Brian Lenihan is Minister for Finance, and he is a Barrister. What does a Barrister know about finance?

Cowen show have appointed an accountant as Minister for Finance.

bk

BroomBurner wrote: »

There are surely better ways to raise money than to tax a pension? It smacks of a government making decisions based on members of the private sector whispering in their ear.

Yes, a real pay cut, rather then this fake pay cut would have saved us a lot more money.

Or alternatively firing 10% of the public sector would have been another option.

Which would you prefer?

mike65 wrote:

Wonder what the rating agencies will make of this programme of cuts/tweaks.

Positively, as long as the cuts can be pushed through without major strikes or disruption.

bdoo

Bring back McCreevy!!

BroomBurner

nesf wrote: »

The present levy is only 5%, that's tiny!

It's actually not. It's 5% minimum, which increases as your wage increases. I'm currently paying the minimum as I'm not long in the door. However, if my wage goes up, so does my %. And before you say that as my wage goes up, obviously 5% of it is going to be more, the actual percentage will go up, which is out of my hands.

As I said, I'm not disputing that it's a good deal, but there is no comparison to a private sector pension, there just isn't. Unless you work in a place big enough to have a similar scheme. It's also about where the pension money is invested. Private pensions tend to err towards the more risky in order to maximise return, whereas with public, they have to be a lot more careful.

Begrudery is a dangerous thing.

Anyway, back to the main topic. The dole should have been decreased aswell. If Ireland wants to stay competitive, we should have a competitive workforce and one that doesn't find it easier to be on the dole than to work.