Are ICTU insane

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has launched its updated alternative strategy to restore the public finances.

Congress says its ten-point plan prioritises the protection of the vulnerable through an integrated recovery plan and says the Government can afford to increase borrowing to accommodate this.

The 'Better Fairer Way' rules out reductions in social welfare and states that pay cuts are counterproductive because they will trigger a deflationary spiral.
Advertisement

However, unions would like to see a new higher tax rate of over 54% for the wealthy.

ICTU General Secretary David Begg said there should be a clear demonstration that those best able to contribute to the current adjustment should be seen to do so.

It wants a €1bn jobs promotion fund and proposes a national recovery bond to fund infrastructure and stimulate employment.

There is a call to assist those at risk of losing their homes by establishing an 'office of indebtedness' as an alternative to court procedures, with a three-year protection period during which there would be no repossession.

ICTU also wants Government action to tackle the pension crisis, reform of the banking system and legislation enacted to enhance workers' rights.

Congress acknowledges that its alternative will not prevent pain and hardship, but says its approach is better and fairer.

Unions are trying to promote their alternative strategy ahead of what is expected to be an extremely tough budget on 9 December.

The Government has already signalled that it intends to cut €4bn from public spending next year, with €1.3bn coming from public sector pay.

INTO ballot over industrial action

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation is beginning a series of nationwide meetings to ballot members for industrial action.

The INTO executive is asking primary school teachers to support its call for up to three days of industrial action in response to threats to pay, pensions and conditions of employment.

The result of the ballot will be known on 16 November.

The other teaching unions, the ASTI and the TUI, will also ballot members on their response to proposed cuts.

Tánaiste Mary Coughlan has said the Government's preference is to have talks rather strikes.

She said it would be better if everyone came together for the betterment of the country.


are these union people insane, a 54% tax on top of PRSI and Probable pension, i am currently out of the country cos i couldnt get work and if i ever get to whatever the threshold for 54% i certainly won't be moving back. 54% is crazy, 3rd world tax rates. do the unions want to scare off the wealthy people. this is the most stupidest comment i have heard yet from unions.

pubblic servant cuts should be

20k-28k 0%
28k - 40k 2.5%
40k - 60k 5%
60k - 100k 7.5%
100k - 150k 10%
150k+ 15%

all this done like ladder format

so if you earn 120k, this would leave you with 113700 a 9.5% paycut

this way would hit the higher earning public sector more who are on too much money for their work v productivity ratio.
it would make it easier on the lower earning public, if you earn 40k it amounts to a 1% cut, this mightn't work but it would be fairer, instead the unions want to hit a 54% tax which is mental and not touch overinflated bosses pay.
there is way too much levels of management even in colleges, massive waste. principles waste massive money in primary and secondary, just cos you can teach english and irish doesnt mean your a manager. i think there are lots of ways that money could be saved but not all people would like it cos they lose there perks that they shouldnt have in the first place

Mr Benevolent

Yes, this is insane. Cue the union-lovers trying to justify lunacy...

efb

Tax Pat Kenny's gaff!

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

are these union people insane, a 54% tax on top of PRSI and Probable pension, i am currently out of the country cos i couldnt get work and if i ever get to whatever the threshold for 54% i certainly won't be moving back. 54% is crazy, 3rd world tax rates. do the unions want to scare off the wealthy people. this is the most stupidest comment i have heard yet from unions.

pubblic servant cuts should be

20k-28k 0%
28k - 40k 2.5%
40k - 60k 5%
60k - 100k 7.5%
100k - 150k 10%
150k+ 15%

all this done like ladder format

so if you earn 120k, this would leave you with 113700 a 9.5% paycut

this way would hit the higher earning public sector more who are on too much money for their work v productivity ratio.
it would make it easier on the lower earning public, if you earn 40k it amounts to a 1% cut, this mightn't work but it would be fairer, instead the unions want to hit a 54% tax which is mental and not touch overinflated bosses pay.
there is way too much levels of management even in colleges, massive waste. principles waste massive money in primary and secondary, just cos you can teach english and irish doesnt mean your a manager. i think there are lots of ways that money could be saved but not all people would like it cos they lose there perks that they shouldnt have in the first place

I disagree with you here.
People should be paid what they are worth. A person earning 120K a year might be worth that amount, the person earning 20K may not even be worth that.

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.

Finally based on what you say 2 civil servants, married, earning 60K each get to take home much more already than a single earner in a couple earning 120K. Despite this the person earning 120K should have a much larger pay cut than the couple earning 60K each.So dual income family 60K each, total 120K. Cut their pay by 5% each so new total 114K. One earner earning 120K, cut pay by 10% so new total 108K. Do you really think that is fair?

I hope the ICTU get their way (because I'm currently very much reliant on Welfare at the moment, and "The 'Better Fairer Way' rules out reductions in social welfare").

Hope is a great thing though. I don't think they're very realistic in what they're asking for. They want to spend one billion on jobs promotion? Don't want to touch Welfare?

Aside from the ludicrous 54% thing they have going on... They don't seem to be saving any money anywhere?


As I say, I'd love to see them get their way, because it'd benefit me, personally, but I don't see any of the above happening.

irish_bob

efb wrote: »

Tax Pat Kenny's gaff!

yes , eat the rich , that way we can pay our bills for a year and feel better at the same time

:rolleyes:

jiggawigga

These people are retarded

cavedave

efb Tax Pat Kenny's gaff!

gerry28

OMD wrote: »

I disagree with you here.
People should be paid what they are worth. A person earning 120K a year might be worth that amount, the person earning 20K may not even be worth that.

Thats a fundamental problem in the PS and CS, remember management in the PS and CS can't effect numbers, pay or productivity (in any significant way). Do they deserve to be paid 6, 7 or 8 times what some of their lower staff are on?

There are alot of people at the higher levels getting paid way to much in my humble opinion.

OMD Just how useless would someone have to be to not justify a 20K wage??

irish_bob

gerry28 wrote: »

Thats a fundamental problem in the PS and CS, remember management in the PS and CS can't effect numbers, pay or productivity (in any significant way). Do they deserve to be paid 6, 7 or 8 times what some of their lower staff are on?

There are alot of people at the higher levels getting paid way to much in my humble opinion.

OMD Just how useless would someone have to be to not justify a 20K wage??

at every level , the ps are paid too much

Tricity Bendix

Deleted User wrote: »

They don't seem to be saving any money anywhere?

Thats because they would prefer we borrowed our way out of recession. You think their fairer way would be better for you? Think about the higher taxes you'll have to pay for the rest of your life to pay off the massive amounts of debt the unions want to get us into.

gerry28 wrote: »

Thats a fundamental problem in the PS and CS, remember management in the PS and CS can't effect numbers, pay or productivity (in any significant way). Do they deserve to be paid 6, 7 or 8 times what some of their lower staff are on?

Thats a load of bull. There are many, many good public sector managers who have significantly modernised and updated the services they provide. They have plenty of control over staff numbers.

gerry28

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Thats a load of bull. There are many, many good public sector managers who have significantly modernised and updated the services they provide. They have plenty of control over staff numbers.

Yeah general manager, assistant general manager, senior this, senior that. Layer upon layer... sure they all deserve 6,7 or 8 times their lower paid staff for a bit of modernising.

Alcatel

Anyone see frontline last night? The tax lawyer was refreshing, I thought. In order to save us all (cough) and make 4bn in cuts whilst following the unions 'no social welfare or pay bill cuts', we'd need to tax every couple earning, jointly, over 75,000 euro at 75%.

Even if we took a few small % off PS workers here and there, it'd not be much better than that.

So nowadays if you earn 40,000 euro and your spouse earns 35,000 euro you are just on the threshold of being super rich, according to the unions.

Would David and Jack please turn out the lights when the rest of us leave.

gurramok

Its funny reading about INTO's 3 day strike to protect their members 60k average salary. A bit of cop on is needed for that bunch.

OMD

gerry28 wrote: »

Thats a fundamental problem in the PS and CS, remember management in the PS and CS can't effect numbers, pay or productivity (in any significant way). Do they deserve to be paid 6, 7 or 8 times what some of their lower staff are on?

There are alot of people at the higher levels getting paid way to much in my humble opinion.

That is the point. Reduce the pay of "the lot of people getting paid way too much". Reducing everyones pay is pointless. If you are really good at your job, work hard should you get your pay cut as much (or more) as the slacker doing SFA?

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Its funny reading about INTO's 3 day strike to protect their members 60k average salary. A bit of cop on is needed for that bunch.

A 5% pay cut for a teacher earning 60K a year would cost them about €18 a week in take home pay. The unions are obsessed with the idea of pay cuts. They will allow government introduce just about anything else which could reduce the teachers take home pay much more. For example taxing child benefit could cost about €20 a week per child. Changing tax refief on pension contributions would also cost a lot more. The unions will accept all this without a whimper.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

I disagree with you here.
People should be paid what they are worth. A person earning 120K a year might be worth that amount, the person earning 20K may not even be worth that.

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.

Finally based on what you say 2 civil servants, married, earning 60K each get to take home much more already than a single earner in a couple earning 120K. Despite this the person earning 120K should have a much larger pay cut than the couple earning 60K each.So dual income family 60K each, total 120K. Cut their pay by 5% each so new total 114K. One earner earning 120K, cut pay by 10% so new total 108K. Do you really think that is fair?

your argument is so flawed, you are basing 2 CS v 1CS

so in your argument are you going to consider if this CS has a spouse that works in the private sector, is single, is single parent etc.

you can't compare in this situation, next you'll be saying is it fair on jimmys family whose parents work in the public service and get 130k combined to lose out on more than larrys family whose parents and 2 sons work in the public service and earn 150k combined. take 1 employee against another, don't take households or other means to determine who should get what deduction cos it is ridiculous.

and this argument that the wealthier should contribute 54% after a certain threshold is crazt talk,with the levy the higher threshold is close to 50% as is, do you really want to scare off every1 above a certain wage. you'd see a mass exodus to the uk and to other countries with a similar tax base to us already but with a much lower standard of living.

social welfare should be cut, we are running on deflation of nearly 7% i think, cut the dole by 15%, cut VAT to 15%, therefore making things cheaper to offset the welfare cuts,also making it less attractive for people to give there money to the uk government. so many people here brag about shopping up north, do they not realise this is another reason for increasing taxes. people need to stop living in cuckoo land and look at the larger picture and not just the short term gains that will inevitably bankrupt our country

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

your argument is so flawed, you are basing 2 CS v 1CS
so in your argument are you going to consider if this CS has a spouse that works in the private sector, is single, is single parent etc.

It is not flawed. My point is that the amount a person earns does not reflect their ability to pay. This is irrespective of where income comes from. At present the tax advantages for dual income families are much greater than for single income families (whether CS or not). So a dual income family earning 60K each take home more than a single income family earning €120 (or even 130k)
I am pointing out the flaws in your argument. If you take 2 families. One with a single public sector income earning €120K. The other a dual income family with one or both working in public service with a combined income of €120K. At present the dual income family take home more than the single income family. Why should the single income family get their income cut more than the dual income family?

The first thing to do is abolish the current system where dual incomes take home more than single incomes. In this day and age it makes more sense to spread jobs around. In other words it is better for all families to have one income than some two incomes while others have no incomes. I know changing the tax system will not automatically make it happen but the current system encourages two income families.

Deleted User wrote: »

and this argument that the wealthier should contribute 54% after a certain threshold is crazt talk,with the levy the higher threshold is close to 50% as is, do you really want to scare off every1 above a certain wage. you'd see a mass exodus to the uk and to other countries with a similar tax base to us already but with a much lower standard of living.

I agree a new tax rate of 54% is not on. An increase in current top rate to 44/45% makes more sense. People will not flood to UK. standard of living may be the same but the rate of pay in Ireland in most areas is much higher.

Deleted User wrote: »

social welfare should be cut, we are running on deflation of nearly 7% i think, cut the dole by 15%, cut VAT to 15%, therefore making things cheaper to offset the welfare cuts,also making it less attractive for people to give there money to the uk government. so many people here brag about shopping up north, do they not realise this is another reason for increasing taxes. people need to stop living in cuckoo land and look at the larger picture and not just the short term gains that will inevitably bankrupt our country

Are you seriously going to cut dole by 15% but public service pay by a max of 5% on incomes up to 60K? So a single public servant on 60K a year should have take home pay cut by €18 a week. A single person on dole should have their income cut by €30 a week. Get real.

ardmacha

54% is crazy, 3rd world tax rates

Yes indeed, only basket cases like Denmark would have such a rate.

The first thing to do is abolish the current system where dual incomes take home more than single incomes. In this day and age it makes more sense to spread jobs around. In other words it is better for all families to have one income than some two incomes while others have no incomes. I know changing the tax system will not automatically make it happen but the current system encourages two income families.

They should bring back the marriage ban.

bladespin

Are the ICTU insane? I'd have to say yes, yes they are.

yes cut the dole, its too high, maybe means test it.

might be wrong but don't the dole pay an extra bit for each child.

its becoming more beneficial to not work so a line has to be drawn. i remember watching show me the money a good few years ago and with rent allowance and everything else you can get it worked out something crazy.

dole is based on inflation, now theres deflation, cut VAT as i said to 15%, 6% drop if passed on in groceries, clothes, services etc, plus the 7% deflation why not cut the dole by 15%, it'll work out at 1% cut in real terms.

175 euro dole is huge as it is and thats with a 15% cut.

Stark

ardmacha wrote: »

Yes indeed, only basket cases like Denmark would have such a rate.

Ireland currently has a top tax rate of 53% (PAYE 41 + PRSI 4% + health levy 4% + income levy 4%). Drops slightly to 52% if you earn over €75k (PAYE 41 + PRSI 0 + health levy 5 + income levy 6). The 54% they're proposing would be solely PAYE so it would bring the top rate to 65%.

irish_bob

ardmacha wrote: »

Yes indeed, only basket cases like Denmark would have such a rate.




They should bring back the marriage ban.

danes pay thier ps workers about 25% less than we do , oh and the cost of living there is about the same as here if not more expensive , boom time wages cannot be sustained in rescesionary times , particulary when the source of revenue which made boom time public sector wages possible is gone and wont be coming back , bertie aherne done an untold amount of damge to this country , he had people believe that property to ireland was like oil to saudi arabia , no country can maintain its possition as europes strongest performing economy on the back of building houses

Fat_Fingers

They should use benchmarking, famously described by union leaders as "an ATM" for public sector workers, sure it worked great in the past!!! And it should work great again. Unions used to call on it all the time.
So since economy is deflated to levels of 2003 reduce PS and CS pay back to levels of 2003 (and maybe even their numbers back to the levels in 2003)
Problem solved. NEXT!

ceret

Deleted User wrote: »

It wants a €1bn jobs promotion fund and proposes a national recovery bond to fund infrastructure and stimulate employment.

Isn't that what FÁS did/do? They had a budget of €1billion in 2007. And they still didn't help!

meglome

Deleted User wrote: »

I hope the ICTU get their way (because I'm currently very much reliant on Welfare at the moment, and "The 'Better Fairer Way' rules out reductions in social welfare").

Hope is a great thing though. I don't think they're very realistic in what they're asking for. They want to spend one billion on jobs promotion? Don't want to touch Welfare?

Aside from the ludicrous 54% thing they have going on... They don't seem to be saving any money anywhere?


As I say, I'd love to see them get their way, because it'd benefit me, personally, but I don't see any of the above happening.

Some of my best friends are now unemployed, my flatmate is now unemployed. But I just don't see how it's possible that welfare won't be cut. If we don't cut it and public sector pay we'll bankrupt the country and then it'll be really cut.

I'd love if a lot of things were different but I honestly have no problem with taking cuts (and I have already) so long as it helps drag us all out of this mess. I'm afraid the greed and high living of the Celtic tiger is dead and gone, the sooner we accept it's all of us collectively that have to take the hit the better.

The unions are talking out of their pie holes. Yeah we can tax the 20% that already pay 77% of the income tax to fix the problem... jesus H christ.

Brian Griffin

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.


Whats the fact some people having kids got to do with anything? If people have kids its there owe fault and they should have made plans to deal with. Similarly people who got mortgages that they didn't test there ability to repay in event of pay cut/job loss/tax increase, they should not be giving extra consideration to people who planned for these events.

AARRRGH

Brian Griffin wrote: »

Whats the fact some people having kids got to do with anything? If people have kids its there owe fault and they should have made plans to deal with. Similarly people who got mortgages that they didn't test there ability to repay in event of pay cut/job loss/tax increase, they should not be giving extra consideration to people who planned for these events.

I agree. I don't have kids and won't consider having them until I am well off. I also didn't buy a house during the bubble as I recognised we were in a bubble.

Why should I be punished for being a responsible adult?

OMD

Brian Griffin wrote: »

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.


Whats the fact some people having kids got to do with anything? If people have kids its there owe fault and they should have made plans to deal with. Similarly people who got mortgages that they didn't test there ability to repay in event of pay cut/job loss/tax increase, they should not be giving extra consideration to people who planned for these events.

Ignore the children then. My point is still that people and the unions especially are saying that pay cuts and tax rises should only be for those that can afford them. My point is that the wage you earn is not the only indication of how much you can afford.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

They should bring back the marriage ban.

No but change the system. Why should a couple pay less tax simply because both are working rather than one. The system was changed a few years ago to encourage more people to enter the workforce. Times have changed and now we no longer need to encourage people to enter workforce.

P. Breathnach

AARRRGH wrote: »

... Why should I be punished for being a responsible adult?

It's not a question of punishment. We are collectively in trouble. I can say that I didn't do anything to bring it about, but as a good citizen I am prepared to carry a share of the burden involved in getting everybody out of it.

Even if I were to see it solely in terms of self-interest, I see it as being in my own interest that my fellow-citizens are helped when they are in trouble.

AARRRGH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not a question of punishment. We are collectively in trouble. I can say that I didn't do anything to bring it about, but as a good citizen I am prepared to carry a share of the burden involved in getting everybody out of it.

Even if I were to see it solely in terms of self-interest, I see it as being in my own interest that my fellow-citizens are helped when they are in trouble.

I am prepared to carry my share too (although I admit I am emigrating in a couple of months), but irresponsible people should not get off lighter than me.

It is not my fault so many people had children or bought homes without considering the financial consequences. Therefore I should not have to pay extra (i.e. more than them) to subsidise their mistakes.

The pain needs to be at worst equal, and at best harsher for those who made bad decisions.

97i9y3941

public sector are mad,why should there be one rule for the public sector and one rule for the private sector,taxing those private sector people again who pay for the public sector wages is just a spit in the face for them...

OMD

AARRRGH wrote: »

It is not my fault so many people had children or bought homes without considering the financial consequences. Therefore I should not have to pay extra (i.e. more than them) to subsidise their mistakes.
.

No one is saying you should

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

No one is saying you should

The unions are through calls for higher taxes or borrowing further over many years hence the interest bill be sky high. Our taxes have to pay that interest bill.

AARRRGH

OMD wrote: »

No one is saying you should

Someone on a previous page was suggesting a single person on 40k should take a bigger tax hit than a parent on 60k, as the parent probably has less disposable income.

For the sake of this argument I am the single person on 40k. I don't believe I should have to subsidise other people's life choices.

Tipp Man

ceret wrote: »

Isn't that what FÁS did/do? They had a budget of €1billion in 2007. And they still didn't help!

Jack must fancy another board seat

OMD

AARRRGH wrote: »

Someone on a previous page was suggesting a single person on 40k should take a bigger tax hit than a parent on 60k, as the parent probably has less disposable income.

For the sake of this argument I am the single person on 40k. I don't believe I should have to subsidise other people's life choices.

No I didn't. Although I can see how you would think I did.
My point is the unions (and many others) are saying pay cuts should be for those who can afford them. My point was that the amount you earn does not dictate how much you can afford. The type of example I used was a couple earning say 60K would be less able to afford a pay cut than a single person on 40K. It was in response to the OP who said the more you earn the more your pay should be cut. So looking at it the other way. Why should a married person with 2 kids take a bigger cut to support your life choices?

My main point though is that pay cuts should be targeted, not accross the board. Not all public servants earning 40K do the same work or are as skilled or as necessary to the ecconomy.

AARRRGH

OMD wrote: »

Why should a married person with 2 kids take a bigger cut to support your life choices?

No one needs to pay extra tax to support my life choices. I am the ideal citizen in our current economy: good job, no debt, lots of savings, no bad financial decisions. No one needs to pay extra tax to support my lifestyle.

I understand what you're trying to say that a high wage doesn't mean lots of disposable income, but again, everyone has to be responsibile for themselves so if they chose to have 4 kids that should be their problem, not mine!

OMD

AARRRGH wrote: »

No one needs to pay extra tax to support my life choices. I am the ideal citizen in our current economy: good job, no debt, lots of savings, no bad financial decisions. No one needs to pay extra tax to support my lifestyle.

I understand what you're trying to say that a high wage doesn't mean lots of disposable income, but again, everyone has to be responsibile for themselves so if they chose to have 4 kids that should be their problem, not mine!

But the point was that someone earning 40K a year (like you) should take a 5% pay cut and a person earning 60K should take a 7.5% cut. As I said ignore the kids. Why should a couple earning 60K a year take a bigger cut than a single person earning 40K. Not just a bigger amount but a bigger percentage. Their cut would be almost twice as much in monetary terms as the single person.

AARRRGH

OMD wrote: »

But the point was that someone earning 40K a year (like you) should take a 5% pay cut and a person earning 60K should take a 7.5% cut. As I said ignore the kids. Why should a couple earning 60K a year take a bigger cut than a single person earning 40K. Not just a bigger amount but a bigger percentage. Their cut would be almost twice as much in monetary terms as the single person.

Yeah, I can see your point: the cut or extra tax should be across the board; people should not be punished for being successful.

In a fair world it would work like that.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

But the point was that someone earning 40K a year (like you) should take a 5% pay cut and a person earning 60K should take a 7.5% cut. As I said ignore the kids. Why should a couple earning 60K a year take a bigger cut than a single person earning 40K. Not just a bigger amount but a bigger percentage. Their cut would be almost twice as much in monetary terms as the single person.

no no no
look back at your first post in this thread and stop meddling with numbers to try and justify your agrument.
look at my original post, nowhere did i say a couple on 60k to take a 7.5% cut

this is what you said

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.

its still 1 person earning against another.

just to refresh my payscale what i said should happen

20k-28k 0%
28k - 40k 2.5%
40k - 60k 5%
60k - 100k 7.5%
100k - 150k 10%
150k+ 15%

so a single person on 40k gets an overall cut of 300 euro or 0.75% pay cut

next married man working (wife not working should have no relevance) gets an overall cut of 1300 euro or 2.166%

hardly the 5% and 7.5% you were talking about

and aarrrgh's argument was why should he pay more to support some1 who had a family and kids, your first post of this thread says it all

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

no no no
look back at your first post in this thread and stop meddling with numbers to try and justify your agrument.
look at my original post, nowhere did i say a couple on 60k to take a 7.5% cut

this is what you said

Also, is a single person earning 40k a year less able to afford a pay cut than say a married man (wife not earning) with 2 kids earning 60K? You are saying the single person should get a smaller pay cut than the person supporting 4 people.

its still 1 person earning against another.

just to refresh my payscale what i said should happen

20k-28k 0%
28k - 40k 2.5%
40k - 60k 5%
60k - 100k 7.5%
100k - 150k 10%
150k+ 15%

so a single person on 40k gets an overall cut of 300 euro or 0.75% pay cut

next married man working (wife not working should have no relevance) gets an overall cut of 1300 euro or 2.166%

hardly the 5% and 7.5% you were talking about

and aarrrgh's argument was why should he pay more to support some1 who had a family and kids, your first post of this thread says it all

You are getting rather over excited here. I must have misread your post. I took it that when you said cut pay for public servants that each figure was the pay cut for that level. So when I read "40-60K 7.5%" I took it that you meant cut the pay of people earning between 40-60K by 7.5%. Now I take it that you did not mean this. It would have been clearer if your first figure was "0-28K 0%" rather than "20K-28K 0%."

But this is a rather minor point, the figures are unimportant really. The real question is still why should someone earning 60K take a bigger percentage pay cut than someone earning 40K? Why should the person earning 60K get a pay cut 4.3 times higher than the person earning 40K? Can I make a wild guess that your pay is nearer 40K than 60K?

c montgomery

OMD wrote: »

You are getting rather over excited here. I must have misread your post. I took it that when you said cut pay for public servants that each figure was the pay cut for that level. So when I read "40-60K 7.5%" I took it that you meant cut the pay of people earning between 40-60K by 7.5%. Now I take it that you did not mean this. It would have been clearer if your first figure was "0-28K 0%" rather than "20K-28K 0%."

But this is a rather minor point, the figures are unimportant really. The real question is still why should someone earning 60K take a bigger percentage pay cut than someone earning 40K? Why should the person earning 60K get a pay cut 4.3 times higher than the person earning 40K? Can I make a wild guess that your pay is nearer 40K than 60K?

Is 7.5 % not 50% or 0.5 times more than 5.0%?????
Where is this 4.3 times higher coming from??

And just to clarify the figures are very important, their what everyone is arguing over.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

You are getting rather over excited here. I must have misread your post. I took it that when you said cut pay for public servants that each figure was the pay cut for that level. So when I read "40-60K 7.5%" I took it that you meant cut the pay of people earning between 40-60K by 7.5%. Now I take it that you did not mean this. It would have been clearer if your first figure was "0-28K 0%" rather than "20K-28K 0%."

But this is a rather minor point, the figures are unimportant really. The real question is still why should someone earning 60K take a bigger percentage pay cut than someone earning 40K? Why should the person earning 60K get a pay cut 4.3 times higher than the person earning 40K? Can I make a wild guess that your pay is nearer 40K than 60K?

no i said opening this thread that i am abroad as i could not get a job here and that if i ever reached the 54% threshold i wouldn't move back.

on the figures, are you saying a person on 40k should get the same cut as someone on 60k, your whole argument is to be fair,surely someone on 60k get 2.166% cut can absorb it more than someone on 40k getting a 0.75% cut.

you are seriously starting to confuse me as to what you are arguing about here, you seem to change your mind a lot since the start of the thread.

pay cuts should of course increase the higher you go in the payscale

c montgomery

c montgomery wrote: »

Is 7.5 % not 50% or 0.5 times more than 5.0%?????
Where is this 4.3 times higher coming from??

And just to clarify the figures are very important, their what everyone is arguing over.

once again hes manipulating the numbers

hes taking actual cash difference 300 compared to 1300 but fails to recognise the 20k difference in pay

this guy should work for the banks, they'd love him

segaBOY

Why not just keep taxing the rich and turn us into the USSR.

Top earners already pay 80% of income taxes. Taxing the "rich" (who generally create wealth and jobs) to excess drives them away and takes employment with them.

RealityCheck

segaBOY wrote: »

Why not just keep taxing the rich and turn us into the USSR.

Top earners already pay 80% of income taxes. Taxing the "rich" (who generally create wealth and jobs) to excess drives them away and takes employment with them.

Then consider that 50% of the population are outside the tax net. Time for more to make a contribution. The tax base is not wide enough. People who urge the government to narrow it are deluded.

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

once again hes manipulating the numbers

hes taking actual cash difference 300 compared to 1300 but fails to recognise the 20k difference in pay

this guy should work for the banks, they'd love him

keeffo will you stop with the insults. I am not manipulating the figures. You are saying someone who earns 50% more than someone else (ie 40k compared to 60k) should have their pay cut 330% more (ie 1300 compared to 300). WHY? That is the point I am saying is unfair. A person earning 50% more should have their pay cut 50% more if you are trying to be fairer. Also when you mention the 20K difference in pay. This is obviously not take home pay. As a top rate tax payer, the extra 20K gross is the equivalent of about €6500 net.

My other point is that simple % cuts are not the way. Someone earning €100000 may be worth that depending on the work they do (they may not either), someone earning 40000 may not be worth that. To simply say everyone earning X amount of money should take a Z pay cut takes away any idea of the benefit of work. In other words why should I work hard and try to save the country money when I am going to be treated the same as the person who doesn't give a damm. Incidently on the news this morning FG were announcing plans to tackle this issue.

I also made the point that the tax system is unfair in that a family with 2 workers will take home substantially more money than a family with one worker on the same overall wage. That too is unfair.

OMD

OMD wrote: »

keeffo will you stop with the insults. I am not manipulating the figures. You are saying someone who earns 50% more than someone else (ie 40k compared to 60k) should have their pay cut 330% more (ie 1300 compared to 300). WHY? That is the point I am saying is unfair. A person earning 50% more should have their pay cut 50% more if you are trying to be fairer. Also when you mention the 20K difference in pay. This is obviously not take home pay. As a top rate tax payer, the extra 20K gross is the equivalent of about €6500 net.

My other point is that simple % cuts are not the way. Someone earning €100000 may be worth that depending on the work they do (they may not either), someone earning 40000 may not be worth that. To simply say everyone earning X amount of money should take a Z pay cut takes away any idea of the benefit of work. In other words why should I work hard and try to save the country money when I am going to be treated the same as the person who doesn't give a damm. Incidently on the news this morning FG were announcing plans to tackle this issue.

I also made the point that the tax system is unfair in that a family with 2 workers will take home substantially more money than a family with one worker on the same overall wage. That too is unfair.

this 330% is a stupid figure, i'm not insulting just getting sick of the figures you are branding here.

so your saying every1 should get the same paycut no matter what they earn

going by your figures
pay--> cut
40k --> 300
60k --> 450
90k --> 675

all getting the equal paycut of 0.75%

my point is according how far up the ladder the higher the cut
if we listen to you everyone should get the equal paycut from the min to the max

we are talking percentage of wage here

so saying some1 earning 60k takes 330% more of a cut than some1 on 40k is completely wrong. in real terms its 0.75% v 2.16% because the person on 60k is on a higher payscale and will still earn considerably more after the cuts

so now person originally on 60k earns roughly 48% more than the person originally on 40k. and remember the person on higher pay is taking the bigger cut cos it would work on a scale of earnings. and also if you want to bring taxes into it, correct me if i am wrong but if your pay gets deducted doesnt this also reflect on tax so the cut might be even less than 2.16% although only marginally in real money terms

OMD

Deleted User wrote: »

this 330% is a stupid figure, i'm not insulting just getting sick of the figures you are branding here.

so your saying every1 should get the same paycut no matter what they earn

going by your figures
pay--> cut
40k --> 300
60k --> 450
90k --> 675

all getting the equal paycut of 0.75%

my point is according how far up the ladder the higher the cut
if we listen to you everyone should get the equal paycut from the min to the max

we are talking percentage of wage here

so saying some1 earning 60k takes 330% more of a cut than some1 on 40k is completely wrong. in real terms its 0.75% v 2.16% because the person on 60k is on a higher payscale and will still earn considerably more after the cuts

so now person originally on 60k earns roughly 48% more than the person originally on 40k. and remember the person on higher pay is taking the bigger cut cos it would work on a scale of earnings. and also if you want to bring taxes into it, correct me if i am wrong but if your pay gets deducted doesnt this also reflect on tax so the cut might be even less than 2.16% although only marginally in real money terms

I really cannot understand what you are trying to get at here.