Gilmore opposed to pay cuts for public sector

gurramok

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html

Eamon Gilmore wrote:

He proposed instead that the target figure could be reached through a combination of agreed public service reform, a reduction in the capital budget through lower tendering prices and more revenue from taxation through the elimination of tax relief for landlords and a new third rate of tax on incomes above €100,000.

So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

So reform can achieve €1.3bn(assume this figure here) per year until 2014??

I just find that very very hard to believe, there is only so much reform that can be done to get that amount of savings without touching anywhere else.

thatsa spicy

Gilmore knows right well that the revenue collected from such a plan would amount to only a drop in the ocean of what's needed. I'm assuming he knows this, because if he doesn't he's too stupid to be the leader of a political party. I'm assuming Joan Burton knows that she's spouting crap aswell when she refuses to acknowledge the need for savage cuts across the board.

whatnext

Riskymove wrote: »

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

I can't think of any public sector reforms that the unions would approve of off the top of my head, can you?

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

So reform can achieve €1.3bn(assume this figure here) per year until 2104??

it might, you'd have to see the detail proposed

bear in mind there is already over €2bn saved off the bill from measures already taken

Obviously there is reduced numbers as the biggest savings

I have heard things like...no overtime for certain areas, overtime at a reduced rate, rationalisation of allowances, strict monitoring of expenses, etc

I've also heard of an idea that rather than a pay-cut, public servants will agree to take a certain amount of unpaid leave over a specific period

Riskymove

whatnext wrote: »

I can't think of any public sector reforms that the unions would approve of off the top of my head, can you?

if it means avoiding a pay cut, you'll be surprised what they'd approve

Gilmore knows right well that the revenue collected from such a plan would amount to only a drop in the ocean of what's needed

tax is only one part of what he is proposing

murphaph

All this sh!te is akin to moving deckchairs on the Titanic. Cuts to core pay are the only thing that will set this country on the right road again. The private sector can see it plain as day and expect even more cuts there if the govt have the balls to hold firm and push one through on the public sector.

tapo

Public servants have to bear some of the pain that the rest of the country is experiencing and the only way that this can be done is through pay freezes and pay cuts
but it must be done with the higher earners paying more than the lower paid

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

Cuts to core pay are the only thing that will set this country on the right road again.

only way that this can be done is through pay freezes and pay cuts

they are not the only thing that can be done

whats important is reducing the public sector pay bill (and welfare and other spending) to a more sustainable level

there are many different options to doing that

tapo

Look, a message needs to be sent to public servants that they are not immune to the current state of our nation. They must take some of the pain

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

it might, you'd have to see the detail proposed

bear in mind there is already over €2bn saved off the bill from measures already taken

Obviously there is reduced numbers as the biggest savings

I have heard things like...no overtime for certain areas, overtime at a reduced rate, rationalisation of allowances, strict monitoring of expenses, etc

I've also heard of an idea that rather than a pay-cut, public servants will agree to take a certain amount of unpaid leave over a specific period

€2bn, link? If there indeed has been, €20bn is needed without touching welfare and with zero capital spending.

I just can't see public servants working longer unpaid hours, think you are an optimist

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

€2bn, link?

From irish times

At the talks yesterday the Department of Finance told trade unions that the Government will save about €2.3 billion next year as a result of measures introduced already to curb the public sector pay bill. Department officials said yesterday that the introduction of the pension levy would generate savings of €1.1 billion next year.

They also said that based on existing staffing levels in the public service, the suspension of the payment of the wage increases agreed by the Government under the social partnership deal reached in autumn last year would produce savings of €900 million next year. Officials indicated the moratorium on recruitment would save €300 million in a full year.

If there indeed has been, €20bn is needed without touching welfare and with zero capital spending.

for 2010

there is no way welfare budget will be untouched

if you want to go with the current plan, we are down to under €18bn taking the above into account

with government looking for €1.3 more off pay bill moves it to under €17bn


then you will have welfare and other savings of around €3bn I'd say for 2010

I just can't see public servants working longer unpaid hours, think you are an optimist

from the discussions i have had since I heard about it, it would be far preferable to people than a straight cut

btw, noone mentioned longer, unpaid hours

Riskymove

tapo wrote: »

Look, a message needs to be sent to public servants that they are not immune to the current state of our nation. They must take some of the pain

If you are interested in sorting out the finances of this country, there are options involved without implementing a core pay cut that will do that

it is not pain-free

papachango

Negative benchmarking is one of the essentials in normalising the economy to a sustainable level. slash the PS wage bill. Listening to the PS coming up with alternatives really shows how incompetent they really are. even when their salaries are on the line they cannot come up with anything. I have yet to here one decent proposal from them.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

for 2010

there is no way welfare budget will be untouched

if you want to go with the current plan, we are down to under €18bn taking the above into account

with government looking for €1.3 more off pay bill moves it to under €17bn


then you will have welfare and other savings of around €3bn I'd say for 2010

Whats the 'other' savings?

If welfare is really targeted in this budget, can it be targeted every year?

Do you agree with Gilmore that his plan is feasible?

meditraitor

gurramok wrote: »

Do you agree with Gilmore that his plan is feasible?

You havent posted a single point that shows its not? So clearly you and Gilmore come from the same school

Are there savings to be made in the public/civil service other than wage cuts/ lay offs? of course!

Im not saying its enough but your being a vague as Gilmore so I can only think it Gilmore that has inspired your ire and not the fact he is proposing something other than job cuts and pay reductions.

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

Whats the 'other' savings?

public expenditure is basically set out as 3 categories

1. Welfare

2. Public sector pay bill

3. everything else

If welfare is really targeted in this budget, can it be targeted every year?

of course

welfare is the biggest sectoral spend, it cannot be avoided

it encompasses a myriad of items, its not just dole and oap

Do you agree with Gilmore that his plan is feasible?

there's not enough detail to say

basically he is saying he can see a way of getting €4bn through certain cuts in public sector, some tax changes and savings in capital expenditure

I'm sure you could do that..though i am no tax expert....but you'd have to see specific proposals

Taxipete29

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html



So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

I love the way you only quoted the part of the article that suits your argument. It states very clearly in the first couple of lines that he is in favour of reducing the overall pay bill through negotiations.Reducing the overall pay bill has the same net effect as reducing wages assuming it can be done to the levels needed.

He said reducing the capital budget through lower tendering prices. Everyone knows that we have got bad value for money in most of the major capital projects in this country and that needs to change. Labour are in favour of capital spending.

Are you suggesting their are no Union members in any of the other main political parties?? The fact is that Labour was established as a political arm of the Union movement. Hence the name. The way you suggest its riddled with Union members makes no sense. Its a shame that there arent more Union members supporting Labour.

whatnext

Riskymove wrote: »

if it means avoiding a pay cut, you'll be surprised what they'd approve




tax is only one part of what he is proposing

In my 34 years on this earth the Unions have never surprised me and I don't expect them to start now.

What I asked for was an example of what reforms you would expect them to accept to gernerate the savings required.

My arguement is that I don't believe they will accept any reforms, therefore making the public sector reform arguement a complete waste of time in my opinion.

murphaph

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I love the way you only quoted the part of the article that suits your argument. It states very clearly in the first couple of lines that he is in favour of reducing the overall pay bill through negotiations.Reducing the overall pay bill has the same net effect as reducing wages assuming it can be done to the levels needed.

He said reducing the capital budget through lower tendering prices. Everyone knows that we have got bad value for money in most of the major capital projects in this country and that needs to change. Labour are in favour of capital spending.

Are you suggesting their are no Union members in any of the other main political parties?? The fact is that Labour was established as a political arm of the Union movement. Hence the name. The way you suggest its riddled with Union members makes no sense. Its a shame that there arent more Union members supporting Labour.

Pete, we're running a 25bn budget defecit-There is no money for capital expenditure. We need to cut current expenditure, NOT capital expenditure (huge mistake actually).

Gilmore is waffling. Benchmarking was fine on the way up, now it should be fine on the way down....but it isn't for Labour and the unions it seems. Sickening attitude to 'benchmarking'. The term "reverse benchmarking" should not be used. Benchmarking automatically implies salaries should be able to fall in the public sector, does it not?

gurramok

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I love the way you only quoted the part of the article that suits your argument. It states very clearly in the first couple of lines that he is in favour of reducing the overall pay bill through negotiations.Reducing the overall pay bill has the same net effect as reducing wages assuming it can be done to the levels needed.

He said reducing the capital budget through lower tendering prices. Everyone knows that we have got bad value for money in most of the major capital projects in this country and that needs to change. Labour are in favour of capital spending.

Are you suggesting their are no Union members in any of the other main political parties?? The fact is that Labour was established as a political arm of the Union movement. Hence the name. The way you suggest its riddled with Union members makes no sense. Its a shame that there arent more Union members supporting Labour.

'Negotiated'. Do you honestly think PS workers will take a paycut when they are going to strike AGAINST any paycuts before they are even announced??

Labour are heavily associated with unions, the other major parties like FF/FG who can grab power are not.

Gilmore wants tax increases for all of us to support public sector wage levels, that is wrong.
Capital spending is what, €15-18bn where PS pay and welfare are about 20bn and 21bn.
Revenues are 30-33bn. Even if capital spending is reduced to zero(very bad), the deficit will be 10bn!!

gurramok

meditraitor wrote: »

You havent posted a single point that shows its not? So clearly you and Gilmore come from the same school

Are there savings to be made in the public/civil service other than wage cuts/ lay offs? of course!

Im not saying its enough but your being a vague as Gilmore so I can only think it Gilmore that has inspired your ire and not the fact he is proposing something other than job cuts and pay reductions.

Seriously, tax rises in what Gilmore wants does not work as raising taxes in a recession fails. Taxes were raised in the previous 2 budgets and revenue is still falling.

Reducing capital spending with competitive tenders sounds good alright, it goes nowhere to reducing the currentdeficit so a non-starter there.

He opposes paycuts for PS workers and opposes welfare cuts, so eh, where does the money come from to pay for these?

Sleipnir

Riskymove wrote: »

reform of public services instead a straight pay-cut...along with the other things he mentions

its been touted before and seems to be a part of the ongoing Government talks

Reform of public services doesn't work because the public sector workers have no desire to change what they do day-to-day.
Or, they want more money for doing so and if they don't get it, they won't get off their arses.

Gilmore is suggesting what Brian Cowen has already admitted has failed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-ive-failed--on-public-sector-overhaul-1937655.html

Taxipete29

murphaph wrote: »

Pete, we're running a 25bn budget defecit-There is no money for capital expenditure. We need to cut current expenditure, NOT capital expenditure (huge mistake actually).

Gilmore is waffling. Benchmarking was fine on the way up, now it should be fine on the way down....but it isn't for Labour and the unions it seems. Sickening attitude to 'benchmarking'. The term "reverse benchmarking" should not be used. Benchmarking automatically implies salaries should be able to fall in the public sector, does it not?

I agree with your definition of benchmarking. Why then did FF not start a benchmarking process at the start of the year when we all knew that cuts would have to be made. It would of been alot harder for the Unions to fight back against cuts under the same process that they gained from. Another Major error from FF.

Allowances, automatic increments. Its items like these that should be addressed first. If it doesnt reap the neccessary levels of savings then actual pay or job cuts will have to be looked at. Its seems though that attacking core pay without looking at some of the crazy allowances that Gardai and the like get is madness.

We obviously need to see figures for these proposed savings, but I know Gilmore is no fool and I doubt he his making spurious claims without knowing that it is possible. It should also be noted that Labour do not support the economic proposals laid out by the ICTU in the last few weeks. They support some of the individual measures as did alot of people but they rejected the majority of it.

Taxipete29

gurramok wrote: »

Seriously, tax rises in what Gilmore wants does not work as raising taxes in a recession fails. Taxes were raised in the previous 2 budgets and revenue is still falling.

Reducing capital spending with competitive tenders sounds good alright, it goes nowhere to reducing the currentdeficit so a non-starter there.

He opposes paycuts for PS workers and opposes welfare cuts, so eh, where does the money come from to pay for these?

Raising taxes across the board fails. We are still for the most part a low tax economy. The tiger was built on consumption taxes which have dried up.

How many jobs have been lost since the last 2 budgets?? How much has consumer spending dropped??

We need to broaden the tax base. Its too narrow. There are too many people not paying any tax( apart from a 1% levy, Im open to correction on that). We need a third bracket for higher earners. We need to stop tax breaks for landlords, developers etc.

The fact is there are ways to achieve savings without totally screwing middle income earners who always seem to be the worst hit. It just takes a little bit of imagination and creative thinking. Anyone can say cut cut cut. Its cutting in the right place that makes a person a good leader.

ParkRunner

Sleipnir wrote: »

Reform of public services doesn't work because the public sector workers have no desire to change what they do day-to-day.
Or, they want more money for doing so and if they don't get it, they won't get off their arses.

Gilmore is suggesting what Brian Cowen has already admitted has failed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-ive-failed--on-public-sector-overhaul-1937655.html

Has the way you deal with the Revenue Commissioners changed in any way in the last few years?

Sleipnir

EF wrote: »

Has the way you deal with the Revenue Commissioners changed in any way in the last few years?

Yeah, they got a website. How much did that save? Did any public servant subsequently get made redundant?

ParkRunner

Sleipnir wrote: »

Yeah, they got a website. How much did that save? Did any public servant subsequently get made redundant?

I dont know. Im sure many got transferred to social welfare to meet the increased demand there though.

K-9

Riskymove wrote: »

From irish times






for 2010

there is no way welfare budget will be untouched

if you want to go with the current plan, we are down to under €18bn taking the above into account

with government looking for €1.3 more off pay bill moves it to under €17bn


then you will have welfare and other savings of around €3bn I'd say for 2010





from the discussions i have had since I heard about it, it would be far preferable to people than a straight cut

btw, noone mentioned longer, unpaid hours

Irish Times wrote:

They also said that based on existing staffing levels in the public service, the suspension of the payment of the wage increases agreed by the Government under the social partnership deal reached in autumn last year would produce savings of €900 million next year. Officials indicated the moratorium on recruitment would save €300 million in a full year.

That isn't a saving on current expenditure though, all they did was not increase expenditure. Basically they agreed not to make a bad situation worse.

papachango

Someone should suggest that the Private sector wages are 'benchmarked' to the Public sector wages. This might make the PS realise how out of touch they are with reality and that economic realities or the laws of physics cannot be changed or ignored to protect the Public dis-service anymore.

irish_bob

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html



So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

i understand that political parties cant ignore thier base but gilmore really has lost the run of himself when it comes to pandering to the public sector , he is way out left in comparrison to rabbitte who who suceeded and quinn before that , the more i listen to him of late , the more im convinced that unless fine gael can form a single party goverment without labour , the present goverment is a better option and that really says alot about the politcal class in this country

murphaph

irish_bob wrote: »

i understand that political parties cant ignore thier base but gilmore really has lost the run of himself when it comes to pandering to the public sector , he is way out left in comparrison to rabbitte who who suceeded and quinn before that , the more i listen to him of late , the more im convinced that unless fine gael can form a single party goverment without labour , the present goverment is a better option and that really says alot about the politcal class in this country

Been thinking the same the last couple of days. A terrible reality but quite possible....FF reelected! Labour to my mind are untouchable so long as they peddle the line that public sector wage cuts are a no-go. FF are the builders' party, so that leaves FG as the only viable alternative. Need a new leader before the next election though or he'll damage their chances.....FF can't be reelected after causing this mess with their buying of votes through poxy benchmarking!

Nody

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Raising taxes across the board fails. We are still for the most part a low tax economy. The tiger was built on consumption taxes which have dried up.

How many jobs have been lost since the last 2 budgets?? How much has consumer spending dropped??

We need to broaden the tax base. Its too narrow. There are too many people not paying any tax( apart from a 1% levy, Im open to correction on that). We need a third bracket for higher earners. We need to stop tax breaks for landlords, developers etc.

And you started so good and you fell so flat. None of your ideas will really expand the taxation base; reducing the tax credits would; lowering the limits would but adding more tax at the top does not.

The numbers have been shown over and over again; ~80% of the invidiual tax is currently paid by ~10% of the population; ~40% of the population pays no tax at all. Why do you expect the people who actually make a lot of money by hard work (lets face it you don't walk in to a 100k job from University) should pay for the big masses who pay nothing/very limited amount of tax now? If you want more tax revenue remove the tax credits and lower the bracets; don't try to shove more tax on the top that already pays far more of the bill then any one else. Do that and they will leave/set up consultancies to move their salaries out from the Irish system and you'll scream for yet another tax band to be added at the top.

The fact is there are ways to achieve savings without totally screwing middle income earners who always seem to be the worst hit. It just takes a little bit of imagination and creative thinking. Anyone can say cut cut cut. Its cutting in the right place that makes a person a good leader.

Yes and that means cutting down on social wellfare bill (the extras especially; rent allowance? No problem but you better be willing to live cheap etc.).

If you want to cut correctly you tell all unions to go feck themself and make the PS actually have real goals to achieve. Aggresive targets tied directly to their task and measured by customer satisfaction (i.e. public satisfcation of how their service is delivered and priced against private alternatives) and if they fail they get fired/moved to a lower level position and salary. Have the damn government and PS actually be accountable to deliver the service and failure to do so means the boot. That is what's needed but no government in Ireland will ever have the balls to actually take the required action and add some damn accountability to the system. It is far easier to blame it all on someone else and do half measures and pander and hope things will get better in the mean while instead.

Dickerty

Riskymove wrote: »

welfare is the biggest sectoral spend, it cannot be avoided

it encompasses a myriad of items, its not just dole and oap

There are huge opportunities here, thousands of recepients who are not as needy as the system would suggest.

Single mother's allowance + multiple children's allowance + rent relief, etc.?

Knock this on the head. Investigate recepients of multiple benefits and set a cap. Push harder on the single parent's allowance where it is likely that there is a partner also supporting. We did this in the 90's, people used to call to the door unannounced. Clamp down on this and PUNISH people, it is FRAUD.

I am willing to take a cut in children's allowance, and I don't believe it should be paid beyond the third child. If you have 4 or 5 kids, that is your choice, and the costs do not go up equally as you reuse cots, buggies, etc. Feeding 5 is not 5 times as expensive as feeding 1.

Berti Vogts

I think John Drennan summed it up at the weekend:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/open-honest-and-frank-bah-humbugdail-sketchjohn-drennan-1944000.html

It is no fun being Taoiseach when the Labour leader starts behaving like Fianna Fail in opposition.

Quandary

papachango wrote: »

Someone should suggest that the Private sector wages are 'benchmarked' to the Public sector wages. This might make the PS realise how out of touch they are with reality and that economic realities or the laws of physics cannot be changed or ignored to protect the Public dis-service anymore.

+1

Benchmarking needs to be applied to the Public Sector wage bill. It cant be a case of Benchmarking only when it suits them.

Taxipete29

Nody wrote: »

And you started so good and you fell so flat. None of your ideas will really expand the taxation base; reducing the tax credits would; lowering the limits would but adding more tax at the top does not.

The numbers have been shown over and over again; ~80% of the invidiual tax is currently paid by ~10% of the population; ~40% of the population pays no tax at all. Why do you expect the people who actually make a lot of money by hard work (lets face it you don't walk in to a 100k job from University) should pay for the big masses who pay nothing/very limited amount of tax now? If you want more tax revenue remove the tax credits and lower the bracets; don't try to shove more tax on the top that already pays far more of the bill then any one else. Do that and they will leave/set up consultancies to move their salaries out from the Irish system and you'll scream for yet another tax band to be added at the top.

Yes and that means cutting down on social wellfare bill (the extras especially; rent allowance? No problem but you better be willing to live cheap etc.).

If you want to cut correctly you tell all unions to go feck themself and make the PS actually have real goals to achieve. Aggresive targets tied directly to their task and measured by customer satisfaction (i.e. public satisfcation of how their service is delivered and priced against private alternatives) and if they fail they get fired/moved to a lower level position and salary. Have the damn government and PS actually be accountable to deliver the service and failure to do so means the boot. That is what's needed but no government in Ireland will ever have the balls to actually take the required action and add some damn accountability to the system. It is far easier to blame it all on someone else and do half measures and pander and hope things will get better in the mean while instead.

Well to begin I am obviously not a tax expert but I would of thought bringing more people at the lower levels widens the tax base and that was one suggestion I made.

I am totally against rent allowance. I believe it traps people in the system while lining the pockets of landlords and developers. Its a poor solution that needs to abolished as much as is possible as quickly as possible.

I doubt anyone would disagree that the PS need to be more accountable for the services they are supposed to provide. The notion that Unions are somehow the bad guys is a nonsense. They are there to do the best for their members. They will always seek higher wages, better conditions and oppose cuts. Its like dealing with a child. If the child wants something and you say no, but they kick, scream and demand it and you give in, you have lost and you have set the tone. Its the same thing. The Govt have given in so many times its foolish to think the Unions will back down or break when the know this Govt will eventually give in.

A higher tax band of 48% on single incomes over 100k( being proposed by Labour) is hardly punitive. Reducing incomes at the top through this method does not reduce the amount of money in the economy as much as it would if higher tax was applied to low wage earners. Higher wage earners have more disposable income, but dont neccesarily dispose of it. They are more likely to save a portion of it. Raising the tax rate for them reduces the amount they save( which we dont want people doing anyway we need them to spend). Thats the theory anyway, how well it works is another thing but the logic is valid.

Taxipete29

irish_bob wrote: »

i understand that political parties cant ignore thier base but gilmore really has lost the run of himself when it comes to pandering to the public sector , he is way out left in comparrison to rabbitte who who suceeded and quinn before that , the more i listen to him of late , the more im convinced that unless fine gael can form a single party goverment without labour , the present goverment is a better option and that really says alot about the politcal class in this country

The fact that you claim Gilmore is pandering just shows how little you have looked into what he says and what he has proposed. If the savings can be made through reduction of the overall pay bill without across the board cuts where is the problem?? The net effect is the same.

Many private sector firms have not reduced pay for staff. I would suggest they have found alternative methods of savings. Some have tried this and when it failed they went for wages. FF have made no attempt to make savings in the PS outside of core pay.

My point is when you are cutting the cloth you start at the egdes and work in. You dont start cutting at the centre.

gurramok

Yeh but Taxipete29, you do not seem to grasp that those savings on the PS bill has to be applied every year until 2014. (same for social welfare)

There is only so much cloth you can cut before wages are cut hence what Gilmore is saying is ridiculous.

On the point of the rich, it will only happen if every single country in teh world did not have a tx haven to prevent the rich from fleeing with their wealth. This point is been lost on the unions.

FlutterinBantam

gurramok wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1116/1224258921561.html



So where does he propose the €4bn PER YEAR savings to come from until 2014?

He ruled out welfare cuts so maybe he's saying to bring capital spending to ZERO for the next 5 yrs and/or as we know raise taxes sky high for everyone else including the public sector to pay for the public sector & welfare?

Labour is riddled with union membership so elimination of tax relief for landlords is a tax hike for a fair few union members themselves!!

I don't think the man has a clue tbh.

No need to be confused Gurra, he will get it from taxes, or try to.

What he will do is stifle the last bit of entrepreneurship out of the country, end the ambitions of anyone who has the balls and gumption to take a risk and create employment for others.
He will cripple small and medium enterprises and drive anyone with a bit of chutzpa out of the country.

What will be left are the punters who want the safety blanket of a public service/semi state job, in they go and vegitate till pension time.

That's what Gilmore is saying and Ms. Burton, if I am wrong tell me!!

Dickerty

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Many private sector firms have not reduced pay for staff. I would suggest they have found alternative methods of savings. Some have tried this and when it failed they went for wages. FF have made no attempt to make savings in the PS outside of core pay.

I work in the Private Sector, in expense management. Unlike the public sector, you only staff according to your needs. You have normal staff turnover, and you only replace where you still have a need.

Most saves have been achieved by non-replacement of leavers, and migrating of the functions where there was an opportunity. But these are also big saves in re-negotiating vendor costs, rent reduction through better space utilisation, etc.

But once that is all done, if you still need to find saves, then salary is a big target. Unlike public sector, you MUST save or you will not survive. If you bust your budget in the public sector, it just adds to borrowing.

Taxipete29

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No need to be confused Gurra, he will get it from taxes, or try to.

What he will do is stifle the last bit of entrepreneurship out of the country, end the ambitions of anyone who has the balls and gumption to take a risk and create employment for others.
He will cripple small and medium enterprises and drive anyone with a bit of chutzpa out of the country.

What will be left are the punters who want the safety blanket of a public service/semi state job, in they go and vegitate till pension time.

That's what Gilmore is saying and Ms. Burton, if I am wrong tell me!!

You are very wrong.

In june Labour produced a document called Restoring Confidence-Labours proposals for economic recovery. This included such industry destroying ideas as an 18 month exemption on employer PRSI where the employer employs a person unemployed for 6 months and where they demonstrate its a new job being created.

The document can be found through this link

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/1243932820420700.html

Labour are about jobs public and private. That is why Eamon Gimore does not support strike action by the Unions and he has told them as much. Its hardly pandering now is it. It should also be noted that the many of the PS unions have no affiliation to Labour.

Labour have proposed a 3rd tax band. 48% on all Single incomes over 100k. Thats hardly punitive now is it.

Taxipete29

Dickerty wrote: »

I work in the Private Sector, in expense management. Unlike the public sector, you only staff according to your needs. You have normal staff turnover, and you only replace where you still have a need.

Most saves have been achieved by non-replacement of leavers, and migrating of the functions where there was an opportunity. But these are also big saves in re-negotiating vendor costs, rent reduction through better space utilisation, etc.

But once that is all done, if you still need to find saves, then salary is a big target. Unlike public sector, you MUST save or you will not survive. If you bust your budget in the public sector, it just adds to borrowing.

As you say yourself you try everything else first. There are many allowances etc paid to parts of the PS that dont exist in the private sector. Start eliminating those and you will be well on your way to making the necessary savings.

K-9

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Labour have proposed a 3rd tax band. 48% on all Single incomes over 100k. Thats hardly punitive now is it.

But its not that much different to the current system. 45% over 75k and 47% over 150k



Actually when you factor in that the Income levies have no tax credits, there maybe little difference.

ei.sdraob

well

im never voting for Labour again

jebus next election is gonna be all about voting the least bad of a terrible lot

Taxipete29

K-9 wrote: »

But its not that much different to the current system. 45% over 75k and 47% over 150k



Actually when you factor in that the Income levies have no tax credits, there maybe little difference.

I dont earn that much so really dont know for sure but I cant find any mention of the rates you are talking about on the revenue website.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

well

im never voting for Labour again

jebus next election is gonna be all about voting the least bad of a terrible lot

Isn't it always?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

Taxipete29 wrote: »

You are very wrong.

In june Labour produced a document called Restoring Confidence-Labours proposals for economic recovery. This included such industry destroying ideas as an 18 month exemption on employer PRSI where the employer employs a person unemployed for 6 months and where they demonstrate its a new job being created.

The document can be found through this link

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/1243932820420700.html

Labour are about jobs public and private. That is why Eamon Gimore does not support strike action by the Unions and he has told them as much. Its hardly pandering now is it. It should also be noted that the many of the PS unions have no affiliation to Labour.

Labour have proposed a 3rd tax band. 48% on all Single incomes over 100k. Thats hardly punitive now is it.

I'm only going on several interviews on radio with himself and Ms Burton.

Every time they are asked about pay cuts in the PS they dodge the issue.

They seem to want engagement with Govt. to agree work practice changes.

Now Pete, I don't know what that means to you, but I'm frikken sure what it means to me.

Endless turgid never ending talks about talks and and a morass of of conclusions that mean what after years?

Nowt Pete, Zilch,nada .

I'm too long in the game not to spot that one Pete.

Taxipete29

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm only going on several interviews on radio with himself and Ms Burton.

Every time they are asked about pay cuts in the PS they dodge the issue.

They seem to want engagement with Govt. to agree work practice changes.

Now Pete, I don't know what that means to you, but I'm frikken sure what it means to me.

Endless turgid never ending talks about talks and and a morass of of conclusions that mean what after years?

Nowt Pete, Zilch,nada .

I'm too long in the game not to spot that one Pete.

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

Nody

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore has continually stated that he is in favour of a 5% reduction in the overall public sector pay bill. Thats what he wants to do. Where is your problem with that.

That it is a) not enough and b) it has to be reduced every year for the next four years which is not what he's putting on the table.

Honestly you're starting to sound more and more like the person who was apologisng for FF earlier over NAMA and saying that Cowen was doing his best so we should vote for him again.

You like so many posters on here pick up the parts of the argument that suit but fail to listen to the whole thing. Reducing core pay and reducing the overall pay bill are not the same thing but have the same net effect for the economy. We save the money we need to save. Where is your problem with that?? Why are people so dead set against viable alternatives??

Because it is NOT an alternative as it is NOT aggressive enough, it DOES NOT save enough AND it will not keep on saving the money required! But beyond these "minor" issues it also don't address the core issue which is the glaring ineffefiencies in the PS which needs to be fixed by headcount reduction. We do NOT need so many people in administration etc.

How many times does the above line have to be repeated for you to get it? Let me repeat it; not enough saved, not addressing the core problem and hence not solving the damn problem.

Now can you please stop harping Gillmore lines as the message from God?