Everybody against Cuts!

Riskymove

optocynic wrote: »

Now throw in annual increments regardles of results.. and you have anarchy!!... The fiscal equivalent of an infant in charge of their own pocket-money!

the system does actually require an assessment

the problems are (a) the woeful implementation of a performance review system (b) the lack of support (or indeed any incetive) to managers who do actually try and do something like stop an increment or even give a poor rating and (c) Unions taking the piss

I should add I am aware of people having had an increment stopped or probation extended etc but they are very rare and basically come down to the issues I mentioned above

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

the system does actually require an assessment

the problems are (a) the woeful implementation of a performance review system (b) the lack of support (or indeed any incetive) to managers who do actually try and do something like stop an increment or even give a poor rating and (c) Unions taking the piss

I should add I am aware of people having had an increment stopped or probation extended etc but they are very rare and basically come down to the issues I mentioned above

Once again Riskymove... You are a voice of sense amongst foolish children!

P. Breathnach

MaceFace wrote: »

... Oh, and I think for those on welfare - cut the cash part by 50% but give them vouchers for the other 50% that can be used in supermarkets to buy non-luxury goods.

Food stamps, anybody?

optocynic

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Food stamps, anybody?

Actually this one I agree with. They should not be even able to purchase booze with the vouchers in my opinion!! It is supposed to make them get by... feed their kids...

The Ugly Truth

mewso

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

Some of the waste of money is crazy no doubt, but stick to what you know as fact first.

I didn't make it up nor did I intend it as a government report on bin men's pay. When someone who deals with them on a daily basis tells you how much some of them have earned you tend to believe them. Like I said people can investigate this for themselves. There was no need for you to repeat what I said just to have a dig.

MaceFace

Inconspicuous wrote: »

What I don't accept is the bile being poured out from those in the private sector who are really only after one thing: Make sure everyone in the public sector pays and takes cuts irrespective of the consequences for those people behind the numbers

What I think would be fair is to go back to the way it was - the public sector got 10-15% less pay than their equivalent in the private sector but they had job security.

The current class war is because the private sector see their public sector equivalents being paid more than they are, have a job for life and a massive pension.

It is up to the public sector and the unions to look at themselves and point out that the private sector are wrong and they do not have all these perks or accept it and reform.

I don't actually blame anyone in the public sector at all - I blame the unions. They are stoking the fire every day with stupid ideas - todays one being is to spread the recovery over the next 8 years instead of the next 4.

Anyone who defends the Unions or partakes in their me fein attitude deserves no sympathy.

Inconspicuous

optocynic wrote: »

And, my salary is based on productivity, and results! If I don't perform, I don't get an increase... and more importantly, if the company is in financial trouble... I take a pay cut... or simply have to move...

Are you noticing the real differences here?

Regardless of how well I perform in my duties (and so far I've always gotten a 5 in my PMDS ratings. Although truth be told I think the system needs upgrading. Mind you it is very similar to the system I had to use in the private sector so I don't think either sector has gotten it correct yet) I am unable to gain any increase in my pay. In the company I worked in in the private sector; as a manager, I was given guidance to award a minimum of 2% of a pay increase per annum to those who performed the least in my team and anywhere up to a maximum of 10% for those who I found to be exceptional in their duties (rarely was I actually allowed to give such an increase, but technically I was). As I've already stated the company for which I used to work have introduced pay cuts this year due to the "reccession" yet are still posting huge profits. Despite this some employees have still managed to secure pay increases. These are purely managerial decisions and always boils down to profit before people.

In the public sector I am unable to acheive any pay increase whatsoever. My pay is tied to a salary scale that increases by approx 2% per year to adjust for inflation. I accept that in some years there will be deflation in the economy, however over the past number of years inflation has being running close to 5% so the years in which there is deflation balances out the years of higher inflation and in theory my salary scale keeps my purchasing power in relatively the same position each year. As I understand it, this was the purpose of increments and that they were in no way to be comparable to pay increases and bonuses in the private sector.

So yes, I am noticing the real differences here. I've seen and lived both sides of the coin. I'm not somebody who has spent all of my life in just one sector. So I have actually experienced the differences first hand.

optocynic wrote: »

A small price to pay. I like that my skills and productivity provide me with ample reward that I EARN...

You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. I was asking how is it possible for somebody in the private sector to compare their salary and skills and productivity to me and my skills and productivity (a civil servant) when they can't even compare their salary to the person working next to them doing the exact same job. All they can see in the media and the Dept of Finance website is a job title and a salary scale attached to that job title. Unless they have worked in that job themselves and experienced the conditions in the job, they can't compare it to their own. It's easy to bash figures published by the Dept of Finance when private sector salaries are kept secretive and when actual conditions have not be completly and properly compared.

optocynic wrote: »

Give everyone the same money regardless of effort.. and you get sh!tty results!... Like in the Dept. of Finance... or more importantly.. the regulators office!

Now throw in annual increments regardles of results.. and you have anarchy!!... The fiscal equivalent of an infant in charge of their own pocket-money!

Sorry, I fail to see what point you're trying to make? Are you suggesting that simply because everyone in the Dept. of Finance is supposedly on the same money then that's why the country is in the state it is? If so, I think that viewpoint may be a little naive

As regards to blaming the regulators for the state of the economy I personnally think this is a bit of a cop out. Why should we need regulators in the first place? Surely corporate entites should be responsible enough to act in a correct and responsible manner in the first place? Surely the mere existence of a regulator means that these private entities were always going to be "up to something" or were continously going to try and circumvent the law. If that's the case then why in God's name aren't people looking to them for the answers as to why the country is in such a state and why they needed regulation in the first place? Why haven't peopled questioned the major investment corporations as to why they didn't care about the economies they were potentially destroying with their business tactics. Blaming the regulators for failing to stop these companies is akin to blaming the Gardaí for not preventing ervy drunk driver getting into a car and wrecklessly drving home only to kill an innocent person and ruin their family's lives. To me, blaming a regulator doesn't make sense. People and corporate entities know the difference between right and wrong.

And no, before you ask, I don't work for one of the regulators

Inconspicuous

MaceFace wrote: »

What I think would be fair is to go back to the way it was - the public sector got 10-15% less pay than their equivalent in the private sector but they had job security.

While in theory I do agree with you that public sector wages should probably be lower than the private sector to reflect job security I think that it poses challenges within itself.

Firstly, nowhere in my contract with the government does it state that I cannot be fired. Contrary to popular opinion it is actually possible to sack a civil servant and it has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. The difference between the two sectors is that the government must follow employment laws to the letter. Afterall, they are the ones who implemented it. All to often companys in the private sector are a lot looser when it comes to which employment laws they choose to follow and which ones they don't. Unfortunately most of the average works aren't as familair with employment laws as they probably should be.

In theory, it is just as difficult to sack somebody in the private sector. On many occaisons I have witnessed employees in the private sector not perform to the same standard as their counterparts but couldn't be sacked as they were still performing their duties. In many cases the company tried to sideline these people into "makey-upy" (for want of a better word) positions in order to minimise the damage they could do.

So, imagine if the government actually put a clause into the contract to state I could not legally be fired. I'd love to see the press reaction to that one! But I accept that what you mean by job security is that the government isn't about to pull out and relocate to India and hopefully won't go belly up (if that happens we're all doomed!). So, if as you suggest I should earn 10% less than my fellow private worker and there is some intrinisic way of figuring out exactly what s/he earns, that would also imply that you'd be happy that my wages should always increase year on year in accordance with the private sector? Essentially bringing back a form of benchmarking? Of course the problem with this system is that the stats from the private sector wages are not freely available and given the reaction to the last benchmarking process, while most people would be happy to see my wages decrease, very few would be happy to see them increase again not least the government themselves

MaceFace wrote: »

The current class war is because the private sector see their public sector equivalents being paid more than they are, have a job for life and a massive pension.

It is up to the public sector and the unions to look at themselves and point out that the private sector are wrong and they do not have all these perks or accept it and reform.

I accept your point. So let me give you a little of my own experience. In the private sector I was a manager with a large company. I received a salary which was approx 10% less than what I currently earn (moving to the public sector was a promotion in my career path). In my private sector job I received free health insurance, gym membership, life assurance, a discounted stock purchase plan, stock options and shares, quarterly bonuses and company party at christmas. I also received a company contribution of upto 6% of my annual salary in towards a PRSA pension scheme. I'm sure that most people would agree that these are fairly substanial perks of the job. And, I know that these sort of perks were not only confined to the company which I worked in. On average I spent about 50 hours a week in work sometimes more, sometimes less. I received no overtime.

In the public sector I receive more remuneration, but then, I have more responsibilites and work in an area which can be very stressful and high pressure (yes, there are actually areas in the civil service which can be like this ). The only perks I receive is that on average I only spend about 40-45 hours per week in work, I have job security (in that we're hopefully not going bust) and I receive a generous pension entitlement. On the balance of it, the shorter working week and the pension is what has kept me in the public sector and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Much in the same way I was not ashamed to mention that that perks in my previous jobs are what attracted me to it. In fact, only last week I had an offer to return to the private sector with the potential to earn 50% more than i currently do but turned it down because I like the work-life balance I have now.

In terms of the famed pension that a lot of people (and one in particular on Boards) like to harp on about, people have to realise how exactly it is currently funded. Unlike the private sector pension I had, my public pension is not an individual fund that is assigned to me and managed by a private pension company. It is not individually invested in certain stocks and bonds with the intention of growing it into a larger fund which can then be drawn down on retirment. Likewise it is not at risk from market factors the way my private PRSA fund is. The simplistic way of looking at the civil service pension bill is to look at it as an extension of the annual wages bill. These people are still kept on the books but are paid a reduced salary until they die. This is the perk they receive for their 40 years service to the company. While these retired employees are receiving this money it is coming from the deductions made from the present employees plus reserves pooled up by the government.

Is it a good perk? Yes. Could a private company offer the same perk? Yes. Will they? No Why? Because its easier and more attractive to offer the range of employee perks I received in the private sector than to actually make any valid contribution the employee's future. Why do they do this? Because there is no real sense anymore of employee loyalty and they need to attract other employees by offering more attractive benefits packages than their competitors.

MaceFace wrote: »

I don't actually blame anyone in the public sector at all - I blame the unions. They are stoking the fire every day with stupid ideas - todays one being is to spread the recovery over the next 8 years instead of the next 4.

Anyone who defends the Unions or partakes in their me fein attitude deserves no sympathy.

I have no time for today's unions. I'm not a member and never will be. I will say one thing. In the bygone era of thier early days thy did serve a purpose in securing changes to employment laws and workers rights.

These days though I think they are overpaid gombeens!

ninty9er

Realistically I *could* take a cut of a grand a year which would double my current tax bill of €20 a week and net me about €385 a week. That's because I have no major expenditure apart from rent, tax, insurance and feeding myself. That includes PRSI, but I think that PRSI has probably outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any) and can be absorbed into a levy of 9-10% as a base on all income as opposed to 2% for general expenditure, combined with a reduction in PAYE and a significant reduction in Welfare payments for those on the dole for longer than 6 months.

Realistically if I was taxed that much it'd be fine, but I wouldn't forego it as income considering I get paid for a 44 hour week that reaslistically turns into a 60+ hour week a lot of the time.

If everyone working paid an extra €20 minimum a week in levies then at least €1.9bn a year would be raised. However, considering the average wage in 2008 was about €37.5k (according to averages from sectors from CSO) a levy of 10% on all income based on averages would raise €6.75bn

The above is based on 1.8 million taxpayers.

optocynic

Inconspicuous wrote: »

Regardless of how well I perform in my duties (and so far I've always gotten a 5 in my PMDS ratings. Although truth be told I think the system needs upgrading. Mind you it is very similar to the system I had to use in the private sector so I don't think either sector has gotten it correct yet) I am unable to gain any increase in my pay. In the company I worked in in the private sector; as a manager, I was given guidance to award a minimum of 2% of a pay increase per annum to those who performed the least in my team and anywhere up to a maximum of 10% for those who I found to be exceptional in their duties (rarely was I actually allowed to give such an increase, but technically I was). As I've already stated the company for which I used to work have introduced pay cuts this year due to the "reccession" yet are still posting huge profits. Despite this some employees have still managed to secure pay increases. These are purely managerial decisions and always boils down to profit before people.

In the public sector I am unable to acheive any pay increase whatsoever. My pay is tied to a salary scale that increases by approx 2% per year to adjust for inflation. I accept that in some years there will be deflation in the economy, however over the past number of years inflation has being running close to 5% so the years in which there is deflation balances out the years of higher inflation and in theory my salary scale keeps my purchasing power in relatively the same position each year. As I understand it, this was the purpose of increments and that they were in no way to be comparable to pay increases and bonuses in the private sector.

So yes, I am noticing the real differences here. I've seen and lived both sides of the coin. I'm not somebody who has spent all of my life in just one sector. So I have actually experienced the differences first hand.




You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. I was asking how is it possible for somebody in the private sector to compare their salary and skills and productivity to me and my skills and productivity (a civil servant) when they can't even compare their salary to the person working next to them doing the exact same job. All they can see in the media and the Dept of Finance website is a job title and a salary scale attached to that job title. Unless they have worked in that job themselves and experienced the conditions in the job, they can't compare it to their own. It's easy to bash figures published by the Dept of Finance when private sector salaries are kept secretive and when actual conditions have not be completly and properly compared.



Sorry, I fail to see what point you're trying to make? Are you suggesting that simply because everyone in the Dept. of Finance is supposedly on the same money then that's why the country is in the state it is? If so, I think that viewpoint may be a little naive

As regards to blaming the regulators for the state of the economy I personnally think this is a bit of a cop out. Why should we need regulators in the first place? Surely corporate entites should be responsible enough to act in a correct and responsible manner in the first place? Surely the mere existence of a regulator means that these private entities were always going to be "up to something" or were continously going to try and circumvent the law. If that's the case then why in God's name aren't people looking to them for the answers as to why the country is in such a state and why they needed regulation in the first place? Why haven't peopled questioned the major investment corporations as to why they didn't care about the economies they were potentially destroying with their business tactics. Blaming the regulators for failing to stop these companies is akin to blaming the Gardaí for not preventing ervy drunk driver getting into a car and wrecklessly drving home only to kill an innocent person and ruin their family's lives. To me, blaming a regulator doesn't make sense. People and corporate entities know the difference between right and wrong.

And no, before you ask, I don't work for one of the regulators

Then what the hell is the regulator's JOB?... Are they not in place to 'regulate' the sector?...
And I do blame the gardai for that!... why don't they sit outside EVERY pub with a full car park... do they really think the pub is selling that much Coke?? Don't let thenm outta the car park... and they won't kill anyone..

Now equate that simple logic to what the regulator should have been doing!!!

The fact that you have the courage to come on here and complain.. even though you have had an increase is commendable (or arrogant.. I'm not sure which)... but either way.. Your 'company' is bust... are you going to help it get back on its feet?

Inconspicuous

optocynic wrote: »

Then what the hell is the regulator's JOB?... Are they not in place to 'regulate' the sector?...
And I do blame the gardai for that!... why don't they sit outside EVERY pub with a full car park... do they really think the pub is selling that much Coke?? Don't let thenm outta the car park... and they won't kill anyone..

Sorry, but that's probably one of the most unbelievably ridiculous things I think I've ever heard!!! You're actually blaming Gardaí for people making their own personal decision to drive to a pub get drunk, drive home and possibly kill somebody en route??

Sorry, but you've just dropped way down in my estimation! If you're the sort of person who holds other people accountable for the actions of others then I really have no more time for continuing this discussion with you.

optocynic wrote: »

Now equate that simple logic to what the regulator should have been doing!!!

The idea that a regulator is needed in the first place and that people are now blaming them for the ills of the economy is what actually gauls me. Why aren't people holding the actual companies themselves to account? To me there seems to be this "cute hoor" syndrome in Ireland where if you can do something dodgey and get away with it then sure that's grand. But if it ends up blowing up in your face then all of a sudden it's a case of blaming the authorites because they should have prevented it! No, the person or company who commited the acts are responsible, not the authorities!!

optocynic wrote: »

The fact that you have the courage to come on here and complain.. even though you have had an increase is commendable (or arrogant.. I'm not sure which)... but either way.. Your 'company' is bust... are you going to help it get back on its feet?

I've not come on here to complain and I don't think that I have. I've come on to try and offer some insight on the views of somebody who has worked in both sectors and can actually make some real comparisons rather than just offer biased views based on the experiences obtained in just one sector.

I've already stated twice that I'm willing to take further cuts. But like it or not, "Ireland Inc" is your "company" too. So, are you willing to do the same?

optocynic

Inconspicuous wrote: »

Sorry, but that's probably one of the most unbelievably ridiculous things I think I've ever heard!!! You're actually blaming Gardaí for people making their own personal decision to drive to a pub get drunk, drive home and possibly kill somebody en route??

Sorry, but you've just dropped way down in my estimation! If you're the sort of person who holds other people accountable for the actions of others then I really have no more time for continuing this discussion with you.

Petulant much? I hold most of the blame with the half wits that drive while drunk. But I do always wonder why the gardai do not just sit outside each pub's car park to conmpletely stop the half wits!.. It would be 100% effective in saving lives... do you not think so?

Inconspicuous wrote: »

The idea that a regulator is needed in the first place and that people are now blaming them for the ills of the economy is what actually gauls me. Why aren't people holding the actual companies themselves to account? To me there seems to be this "cute hoor" syndrome in Ireland where if you can do something dodgey and get away with it then sure that's grand. But if it ends up blowing up in your face then all of a sudden it's a case of blaming the authorites because they should have prevented it! No, the person or company who commited the acts are responsible, not the authorities!!

It is the regulator's job to regulate. This includes analysis of new practices and products in their relevant sectors. The outlandish risk taking, and cheap money approach caused havoc. Should the regulator not have regulated it?.. If not... I ask again... what the hell are they doing?

Inconspicuous wrote: »

I've not come on here to complain and I don't think that I have. I've come on to try and offer some insight on the views of somebody who has worked in both sectors and can actually make some real comparisons rather than just offer biased views based on the experiences obtained in just one sector.

I've already stated twice that I'm willing to take further cuts. But like it or not, "Ireland Inc" is your "company" too. So, are you willing to do the same?

You do not seem to be willing to accept change much.. and as I have stated in other posts, I am willing to take a cut, if my company needs me to.. I am willing to spend.. to help the economy get back on its feet.. and my wife and mother have both taken large pay cuts... I am already suffering...
And Ireland Inc. is not my 'company'... I am their customer... and I want value for money.

jimmmy

This thread - according to the original poster - is about cuts : "Who is willing to take a cut which will effect them personally? Everybody is now coming out with " no cuts which effect me....etc".

On the board we have just two net recepients ( but I am open to correction ) of government money who are willing to take a pay or pension cut as the case may be. Hats off to them. However I wonder are there not more recipients of government expenditure ( pay/pension payments etc ) who will willingly accept a cut ? On the frontline programme last Monday it appeared as if no govt employee would accept govt cuts.

optocynic

jimmmy wrote: »

This thread - according to the original poster - is about cuts : "Who is willing to take a cut which will effect them personally? Everybody is now coming out with " no cuts which effect me....etc".

On the board we have just two net recepients ( but I am open to correction ) of government money who are willing to take a pay or pension cut as the case may be. Hats off to them. However I wonder are there not more recipients of government expenditure ( pay/pension payments etc ) who will willingly accept a cut ? On the frontline programme last Monday it appeared as if no govt employee would accept govt cuts.

Don't hold your breath.

I can understand people not wanting to have their pay cut. But to hide behind socialist union leaders, saying cuts are unfair, without realising that...

a) Their salaries are disproportionatley high
b) Not accepting cuts will rain down fire on the people receiving welfare

seems totally hypocritical to me!

What kind of lunatic new form of socialism is this?

MaceFace

jimmmy wrote: »

This thread - according to the original poster - is about cuts : "Who is willing to take a cut which will effect them personally? Everybody is now coming out with " no cuts which effect me....etc".

On the board we have just two net recepients ( but I am open to correction ) of government money who are willing to take a pay or pension cut as the case may be. Hats off to them. However I wonder are there not more recipients of government expenditure ( pay/pension payments etc ) who will willingly accept a cut ? On the frontline programme last Monday it appeared as if no govt employee would accept govt cuts.

Hold the horses with the public sector baiting - we are all recipients of government handouts in one way or another - mortgage interest relief, child welfare, tax credits, etc etc

Tipp Man

MaceFace wrote: »

Hold the horses with the public sector baiting - we are all recipients of government handouts in one way or another - mortgage interest relief, child welfare, tax credits, etc etc

i have no mortgage, no kids, tax credits are merely a reduction on my tax bill. how exactly am i a recipient of government handouts??

NewDubliner

Tipp Man wrote: »

i have no mortgage, no kids, tax credits are merely a reduction on my tax bill. how exactly am i a recipient of government handouts??

Do you use public roads?

jimmmy

People who use the bus you could say do indeed use public roads, but they pay their bus fare. People useing their car which they have pay vrt + vat on etc may use public roads but they also pay car tax. All this money goes to the govt ( along with income tax collected in the acquisition of the car etc ). Let's not be too nitpicky about people using public roads or not. The government gets a lot of money- through vat, vrt, excise duty, income tax, capital acquisitions tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc. It spends most of this money on public expenditure such as the public sector ( mostly wages ) and social welfare. The thread title is "Everybody against Cuts! ". If public expenditure was reduced to even 2004 levels many many billions would be saved. I am not against cuts in any of the sectors....given we are borrowing 20 to 24 billion per year I think they are necessary.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

It spends most of this money on public expenditure such as the public sector ( mostly wages ).

And interest repayments on money borrowed to bail out banks and property developers?

jimmmy wrote: »

If public expenditure was reduced to even 2004 levels many many billions would be saved.

Will the private sector agree to reduce mortgage capital repayments to levels based on 2004 prices?

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Will the private sector agree to reduce mortgage capital repayments to levels based on 2004 prices?

So if you bought a house off someone in 2004 you want the person you bought it off to give you back some of the money, because you paid too much for it ? Is that what you are proposing ? Sorry old chap, the world does not work like that. Nobody forced you to buy your property in 2004. The banks can reposess, and if the banks were so badly regulated by the p.s. that they need a bailout to repay the foreign banks the interest on your loan, thats how it is.

Tipp Man

NewDubliner wrote: »

Do you use public roads?

i sure do and i pay a rather large road tax for the priviledge, as well as the tolls, nevermind the huge vrt making irish car some of the most expensive in europe

anyway since when are roads a handout??

jimmmy

Tipp Man wrote: »

i sure do and i pay a rather large road tax for the priviledge, as well as the tolls, nevermind the huge vrt making irish car some of the most expensive in europe

anyway since when are roads a handout??

We got plenty of EC money to upgrade the roads that were already there. Our road tax, vrt, vat etc ( which makes irish cars some of the most expensive in europe ) goes to our public service, along with our cheques for vat , income tax, cgt, cat, stamp duty and all the other taxes.
What cuts - if any - will you accept in public expenditure, NewDubliner ? Or maybe you think the govt can go on borrowing as it is, to keep signing cheques as it is ?

Tipp Man

NewDubliner wrote: »

And interest repayments on money borrowed to bail out banks and property developers?

Will the private sector agree to reduce mortgage capital repayments to levels based on 2004 prices?

can you give a breakdown of the government current expenditure and its borrowing of 26bn so far this year. i think you'll be amazed at exactly how much welfare and wages are costing the government, especially as the banks will return the (some at least) money at some stage

if we were only borrowing the amount needed to save the banks it wouldn't be too bad

NewDubliner

Tipp Man wrote: »

i sure do and i pay a rather large road tax for the priviledge,

There is no road tax in Ireland.

Tipp Man wrote: »

i think you'll be amazed at exactly how much welfare and wages are costing the government,

The public are demanding many services. It costs money to provide them and to do so you have to pay people - teachers, firemen, doctors, nurses, administrators, engineers, IT experts.

Tipp Man wrote: »

especially as the banks will return the (some at least) money at some stage

Bless your innocence. You're new to Fianna Fail, I guess.

jimmmy wrote:

What cuts - if any - will you accept in public expenditure, NewDubliner ?p

Wasteful expenditure. For example: decentralised offices, political advisors, bank bailouts, NAMA, political appointments to sinecures.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

There is no road tax in Ireland.

And there is no vat, vrt, excise duty, income tax, capital acquisitions tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc either :rolleyes: ....do you think public servants ( for example ) are paid out of thin air, or exclusively out of the 20 to 25 billion per year the govt is borrowing ?

techdiver

NewDubliner wrote: »

Wasteful expenditure. For example: decentralised offices, political advisors, bank bailouts, NAMA, political appointments to sinecures.

NAMA is not coming from current expenditure. It is nothing to do with the overrun in public expenditure.

NewDubliner

techdiver wrote: »

NAMA is not coming from current expenditure. It is nothing to do with the overrun in public expenditure.

So it won't cost us a cent, right?

jimmmy wrote:

And there is no vat, vrt, excise duty, income tax, capital acquisitions tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc either

These exist. But, there is no road tax, you do know this, right?

Tipp Man

NewDubliner wrote: »

So it won't cost us a cent, right?

These exist. But, there is no road tax, you do know this, right?

So if the Gardai stop my car on the way to work this morning and ask where's my tax disk, can i just say to them that there isn't any road tax in Ireland

I'm baffeled, please explain this 1 to me?? (and please don't get smart about it going to my local county council and not central government)