What would the public sector accept?

average_runner

At the moment tax returns are down a massive amount mainly because people lsot their jobs around 500,000 i think was the figure and then alot of pay cuts which effects the tax return and property mark in bits So cuts have to be made all over.

So which of the following proposals would public and private sector like to see:

1. Pay cut in public sector, maybe 3% for under 30,000, 5% under 50000, 7% under 60000 and 10% for everyone above it?

2. A reduction in the amount the goverment contributes to your pension or the goverment make all the pensions like the private sector, ie you give as much as you want, goverment gives 5% towards it

3. No cuts in anything, but public sector is opened up like the private sector and let the markets adjust everything, ie no more job security, so redundos could happen in years to come.

4 Increase tax rates for all, and lets face it if we do this the goverment wont hit the super rich, its the joe soap that will suffer. Just the way ireland works.



Can only choose one.

ardmacha

So the choices are

1. arbitrary pay cut
2. the government doesn't fund your pension
3. privatisation

3. wouldn't bother me, I might end with more.

But surely there can be a choice where the government imposes pay cuts based on some principle and after normal negotiation.. They can say that inflation is -6% so that you can be cut by this amount, or that comparable private sector wages have gone down (with some actual facts to back this up) and run a benchmarking process.

During the boom pay may well have exceed a reasonable level, but this happened because of particular pay rises or particular deals. These can be revisited, but the government is completely unwilling to address detail in any way.

Sizzler

This is what the unions are proposing, obviously not great at Maths if they think this will save the neccessary €1.3 Billion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1125/1224259396248.html

wrote:

Paying overtime at flat rates rather than time-and-a-half;
Introducing an 8am-8pm core day during which no overtime payments would apply;
Introduction of unpaid leave, perhaps as much as 12 days per year;
The possibility of staff working a small number of additional hours per week;
The elimination of privilege days at Christmas and Easter.

I would estimate the above would be lucky to save €150m :rolleyes:

mikemac

I like the unpaid leave option.
I wish my company had that, handy for exams or if you're a parent they might opt for it too.

If a department has enough staff cover it should be easy enough to introduce.
Ok, not massive savings but it's not a bad idea at all

aidan_mc

A job and be greatful for it

ei.sdraob

Sizzler wrote: »

This is what the unions are proposing, obviously not great at Maths if they think this will save the neccessary €1.3 Billion.

the unions dont care about saving money

they want to borrow more and more for a longer period

to keep the gravy train going

that is their stated plan

someone should explain that money borrowed needs to be paid back + increasing interest, when were spending billions in interest payments alone thats when things get really fun

MaceFace

Seems to unfairly target front line staff leaving the bean counters unaffected.

ei.sdraob

MaceFace wrote: »

Seems to unfairly target front line staff leaving the bean counters unaffected.

havent you learned anything?

its that hardworking that get shafted

this whole "crisis" just exposed how perverse the culture has become

RMDrive

MaceFace wrote: »

Seems to unfairly target front line staff leaving the bean counters unaffected.

True. Hard to believe that the Unions are proposing (or at least considering) this.

OMD

Sizzler wrote: »

This is what the unions are proposing, obviously not great at Maths if they think this will save the neccessary €1.3 Billion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1125/1224259396248.html



I would estimate the above would be lucky to save €150m :rolleyes:

should save enough money. The problem here is it shifts the paycuts onto workers only whereas a straight paycut will come from pay and pensions. If you follow the union way then the average worker will have less pay than if they follow the government plan of a straight pay cut. This is what makes the unions so stupid. They agree to 1.3 billion in cuts yet want to strike to decide exactly how workers pay will be cut.

Sizzler

Dan O'Brien, economist was on Newstalk this morning and said if public expenditure is not addressed NOW then in 12 months Ireland may well be faced with credit clampdown, i.e. nobody will lend to us and public sector workers will get paid in IOU's untill credit was made available again, now theres a prospect :eek:

Dannyboy83

ei.sdraob wrote: »

havent you learned anything?

its that hardworking that get shafted

this whole "crisis" just exposed how perverse the culture has become

I grew up in the 80s, but don't remember them.
I wonder, was it like this back then?

SkepticOne

OMD wrote: »

should save enough money. The problem here is it shifts the paycuts onto workers only whereas a straight paycut will come from pay and pensions. If you follow the union way then the average worker will have less pay than if they follow the government plan of a straight pay cut. This is what makes the unions so stupid. They agree to 1.3 billion in cuts yet want to strike to decide exactly how workers pay will be cut.

However there's a certain logic to holding on to core pay at whatever cost. This seems to have been a principle objective for over a year. Core pay is still the bulk of remuneration and I don't think this has ever been revised downwards and so the unions don't want to create a precedent here. Once it has been breeched then further reductions are much easier.

Rob67

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I grew up in the 80s, but don't remember them.
I wonder, was it like this back then?

Yes, but not as angry, I guess people didn't have as much information readily available to them.

OMD

SkepticOne wrote: »

However there's a certain logic to holding on to core pay at whatever cost. This seems to have been a principle objective for over a year. Core pay is still the bulk of remuneration and I don't think this has ever been revised downwards and so the unions don't want to create a precedent here. Once it has been breeched then further reductions are much easier.

Do workers know that is why they are striking? Do they realise their pay is going to be cut just the same on average. Those workers saying they cannot afford a paycut, do they realise the unions are quite happy to see their pay cut as long as it is not termed "a pay cut". Do they realise they will take an even larger pay cut to protect retired public servants?

P. Breathnach

Rob67 wrote: »

Yes, but not as angry, I guess people didn't have as much information readily available to them.

Or as much misinformation.

And people had not learned to take for granted things that should not be taken for granted.

It was quite a different world then.

SkepticOne

OMD wrote: »

Do workers know that is why they are striking?

Each of them have their own idea of why they are striking. There have been some PS workers on this forum, for example, who support the strike but who are on temporary contracts and have little job security. I don't think they realise that the unions representing them are much more likely to agree to those people being made redundant than the core pay of their fully permanent members being cut.

irish_bob

Sizzler wrote: »

Dan O'Brien, economist was on Newstalk this morning and said if public expenditure is not addressed NOW then in 12 months Ireland may well be faced with credit clampdown, i.e. nobody will lend to us and public sector workers will get paid in IOU's untill credit was made available again, now theres a prospect :eek:

its amazing how many seem to believe thier is no threat whatsoever of the IMF coming in , its as if they think the rules are different because we are irish , most countries in the world are poor and thier are countries like argentina who were once very rich but are now poor , if the figures dont stack up, we will not be given special treatment

the dunnes stores add , WERE DIFFERENT CAUSE WERE IRISH wont wash

Ally Dick

SkepticOne wrote: »

Core pay is still the bulk of remuneration and I don't think this has ever been revised downwards and so the unions don't want to create a precedent here.

Benchmarking of 20% was unprecedented. This is what the government should be clawing back now

meglome

I've been listening to the union leaders for some time now and I have no idea what they'll accept, other than it appears they think no one should have their pay cut. I'm no economist but my maths is perfectly good and I cannot for the life of me figure out how they think we're going to balance the books.

Amhran Nua

irish_bob wrote: »

its amazing how many seem to believe thier is no threat whatsoever of the IMF coming in

It doesn't matter if the IMF come in or not at this stage, whatever measures they would recommend will likely be needed one way or the other before the money runs out. Or after, whichever.

Riskymove

Ally Dick wrote: »

Benchmarking of 20% was unprecedented. This is what the government should be clawing back now

who got 20% in benchmarking?

Paulzx

Eh. Not me.

8% in first round.
0% in second


You can have back all the second round if you want. I've already given back the first round

ssaye

I believe the IMF will come in and cut my respectable PS wage by 27.5 percent over 2 years and Social Welfare by 20% over 3 years looking at people on long term (>10 year). I will then earn under 350 per week for a 35 hour week adding to my 20 hour a week commute. I will have to try to persuade the bank to extend my 35 year mortgage so I don't pay 80% of my salary on repayments. I love to work, I am thankful for my job, I wont starve and if its in the common good I will have no choice but to accept this. My alternatives are to leave the country, I don't think so, I don't run from problems I just accept them and think of the things I have that are more important to me like my health. I hope im wrong, but I doubt it.

ulysses32

How about we privatise the entire public sector and see how much basic services such as education, hospitals, roads, security etc will cost the person?

I would imagine it would be a tad more than current tax contributions. Wouldn't have to worry about my PS pay cut then as I could live and die by the market. Luckily, with the baby boom there will be loads of kids requiring good teaching so there's a guaranteed customer base! Happy days, long live the market!

Amhran Nua

ulysses32 wrote: »

How about we privatise the entire public sector and see how much basic services such as education, hospitals, roads, security etc will cost the person?

I would imagine it would be a tad more than current tax contributions.

You would imagine wrong.

We're spending approximately €14 billion a year on the Dept. of Health and Children at the moment, with a population of 4 million, and another billion for the market in health insurance. This gives a spend to population ratio of 3.75, zeroes excluded.

The Dutch, with their second best value for money and best health service in Europe or thereabouts, by comparison are spending approximately €46 billion a year on health with a population of 16 million.

This gives a spend to population ratio of 2.875, thus they spend about 75% as much on health as we do, and have far better healthcare. They have insurance premiums of around €30 a week to pay at a minimum (actually €22, but they have a few other charges on top of that).

To maintain current levels of healthcare and all the wastage that entails, we'd need to subsidise the insurance premiums (assuming everyone paid bare minimum) by about €8 billion, and with streamlining and efficiency measures to bring health to Dutch standards (0.75 cost) we're looking at a total cost to the exchequer of around €4 billion per annum. If its unsubidised, people might have to pay in the region of €50 to €60 a week in insurance.

Roads, there was a Japanese outfit that wanted to do the port tunnel I think it was for free, if they could keep the tolls for 15 years. Security, again not exactly a big earner outside the guards.

Mad_Max

There were a load of teachers being interviewed on Vincent Browne last night and one, a principle earning 70k, said that what he wanted was a fair and equitable tax system to fix the budget.

"Hear, Hear!".

Browne then pointed out that taxation alone cannot fill the gap, to which the principal replied, but why not start with fixing the tax and from the top down to boot.

"Hear, Hear!".

However, as he had conceded, taxation won't fill the hole. So even if the government did start taxing fairly and equitably (:rolleyes:) they would still need to shave off a few billion. The only way they could do it would be social welfare or public service cuts.

The teachers had already said before that they didn't want the welfare touched, SO... basically they acknowledged that cuts needed to come in their sector.

So why protest?! Whether the government cuts pay now and taxes later or taxes now and cuts later its all the same. They, or any incoming government, is going to have to do it no matter how nice/incompetent they are.

I'm just not sure what they (trying not to use them-vs-us divide) want to happen or what they will accept.

Irish and Proud

ardmacha wrote: »

So the choices are

1. arbitrary pay cut
2. the government doesn't fund your pension
3. privatisation

3. wouldn't bother me, I might end with more.

But surely there can be a choice where the government imposes pay cuts based on some principle and after normal negotiation.. They can say that inflation is -6% so that you can be cut by this amount, or that comparable private sector wages have gone down (with some actual facts to back this up) and run a benchmarking process.

During the boom pay may well have exceed a reasonable level, but this happened because of particular pay rises or particular deals. These can be revisited, but the government is completely unwilling to address detail in any way.

4. Scrap all expenses against income tax, thereby forcing the rich to pay - it's about time those spongers were made to pay their fair share into this country - loads of money then for projects like Metro North and the Interconnector - the Interconnector alone would employ 7000 year on year from 2011 till 2016 - one can only imagine what Metro North would add to that figure, then there's Luas BX, Luas D etc.

Regards!

Amhran Nua

Mad_Max wrote: »

However, as he had conceded, taxation won't fill the hole. So even if the government did start taxing fairly and equitably (:rolleyes:) they would still need to shave off a few billion.

Its a hell of a lot more than a few billion. As far as taxation goes, we pay more income tax than the EU average.

As Finance Minister Brian Lenihan complains about the high numbers not liable for income tax, the figures show taxes on personal income raising 28.4pc of revenue in 2007 -- higher than the EU-15 average.

As the economy slumped in 2008, tax revenues fell to the lowest in more than 30 years, relative to the size of the economy. The report shows the Irish tax "burden" falling below 30pc of output (GDP) for the first time since the 1970s.

When the figures are adjusted for the multinational earnings which leave the country, the tax burden rises to around 34pc of national income (GNP). This compares with an average of around 39pc in the the EU-15 and a tax take of just under 36pc in the UK.

In terms of overall tax take, we're just 2% below the UK. If we had their levels of corporate tax we'd be well within the EU average.

OMD

Irish and Proud wrote: »

4. Scrap all expenses against income tax, thereby forcing the rich to pay - it's about time those spongers were made to pay their fair share into this country - loads of money then for projects like Metro North and the Interconnector - the Interconnector alone would employ 7000 year on year from 2011 till 2016 - one can only imagine what Metro North would add to that figure, then there's Luas BX, Luas D etc.

Regards!

The rich do pay tax. This idea that there are rich people out there who could be taxed more and by doing so get us out of this mess is rubbish. The money is not there.

OMD

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its a hell of a lot more than a few billion. As far as taxation goes, we pay more income tax than the EU average.

In terms of overall tax take, we're just 2% below the UK. If we had their levels of corporate tax we'd be well within the EU average.

That was 2 years ago when things were very, very, very different. Tax take has plummetted since then

Amhran Nua

OMD wrote: »

That was 2 years ago when things were very, very, very different. Tax take has plummetted since then

That news story is from today, and shows figures from 2008, which put us within handshake distance of the EU average. Not to mention the GDP has plummeted as well as the tax take.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its a hell of a lot more than a few billion. As far as taxation goes, we pay more income tax than the EU average.

In terms of overall tax take, we're just 2% below the UK. If we had their levels of corporate tax we'd be well within the EU average.

Did you read what you posted? In particular how can you square

When the figures are adjusted for the multinational earnings which leave the country, the tax burden rises to around 34pc of national income (GNP). This compares with an average of around 39pc in the the EU-15 and a tax take of just under 36pc in the UK.

with your claim?

We pay less tax than the EU average.

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Did you read what you posted? In particular how can you square

with your claim?

We pay less tax than the EU average.

Read it again, total tax take is 34% after you factor in multinational capital flight as of 2008, not personal income taxes. The percentage of those paid hasn't changed enormously since then. As far as total tax take goes, that puts us 2% below the UK, and if we had their corporate tax rates, we'd be well within the EU average.

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Read it again, total tax take is 34% after you factor in multinational capital flight as of 2008, not personal income taxes. The percentage of those paid hasn't changed enormously since then. As far as total tax take goes, that puts us 2% below the UK, and if we had their corporate tax rates, we'd be well within the EU average.

You're pushing a case on the basis of flimsy evidence. How about the following?

The Commission on Taxation report showed that taxes on labour here were 34.2 per cent of total tax revenues in 2007, compared to an average of 45.2 per cent across the EU.

[Source: http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/down-to-brass-tax-45645.html]

Amhran Nua

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're pushing a case on the basis of flimsy evidence. How about the following?

[Source: http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/down-to-brass-tax-45645.html]

What exactly are taxes on labour, PRSI or what? Income taxes in that year were:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As Finance Minister Brian Lenihan complains about the high numbers not liable for income tax, the figures show taxes on personal income raising 28.4pc of revenue in 2007 -- higher than the EU-15 average.

Now perhaps the OECD is flimsy evidence to some, but I'll take their word for it. Its very clear that the income side of the balance sheet has been hit almost as hard as it can be, especially in a recession, and its the expenditure side that needs to be addressed, with a deficit running towards 100% of revenue.

Wishbone Ash

Sizzler wrote:

This is what the unions are proposing, obviously not great at Maths if they think this will save the neccessary €1.3 Billion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...259396248.html

Quote:
Paying overtime at flat rates rather than time-and-a-half;
Introducing an 8am-8pm core day during which no overtime payments would apply;
Introduction of unpaid leave, perhaps as much as 12 days per year;
The possibility of staff working a small number of additional hours per week;
The elimination of privilege days at Christmas and Easter.

I would estimate the above would be lucky to save €150m

I'd be very suspicious of anything McLoone says. He is only interested in the interests of "Monday to Friday -office hours" type of Public Servants and is proposing measures which will not affect them.

Reducing overtime to a flat rate is a joke. I work in a frontline 24/7/365 service and co-ordinate the overtime. I spend a considerable amount of time each day trying to get staff to come in to do overtime. Very few are interested in doing it at 'time + 50%'. Does he seriously believe that they are going to do it at 'flat' rate? :rolleyes:

ardmacha

Its very clear that the income side of the balance sheet has been hit almost as hard as it can be,

No it is not. That article makes clear that Ireland takes in a fraction of the property taxes by the normal standards of advanced countries. You cannot say that there is no scope to introduce a form of taxation that is both usual and recommended by the Commission on Taxation. Marginal income tax rates should not be increased, a broad property tax should be introduced, with relief for those who paid stamp duty in the last 8 years. Stamp duty should be greatly lower or abolished and a government scheme should be introduced to facilitate people in negative equity moving to less expensive houses which would allow them reduce some of the capital on their loans. If we adopt a tax structure closer to the UK then we might be able to make VAT closer to the UK rate thereby reducing revenue leakage.

irish_bob

OMD wrote: »

The rich do pay tax. This idea that there are rich people out there who could be taxed more and by doing so get us out of this mess is rubbish. The money is not there.

and why is it not there some may ask , because the states revenues went over a cliff when the property boom ended , it was the property boom and only the property boom which allowed bertie to make our nurses , teachers , guards , consultants and public servants in general the highest paid in the EU and also to give huge increases in wellfare , everything we now witness from massive unemployment to a huge gap in income - spend ratio can be traced back to the collapse of the property boom , this economy was a one trick pony which is why spending has to be cut back to pre property boom levels and lifestyles must also adjust accordingly , the public sector seem to think the tax payer can fill the void left by the property boom generated taxes , this is impossible to anyone with an ounce of sense or reason

P. Breathnach

Amhran Nua wrote: »

... Now perhaps the OECD is flimsy evidence to some, but I'll take their word for it...

So give me evidence from the OECD.

Amhran Nua

ardmacha wrote: »

No it is not. That article makes clear that Ireland takes in a fraction of the property taxes by the normal standards of advanced countries.

We are within a hair of UK taxation levels without property taxes, which should tell you something. I'm in favour of a tax on non PPR residences, which should be classified as businesses properly, but an ongoing property tax on everything means you are just renting your home from the government.

ardmacha wrote: »

If we adopt a tax structure closer to the UK then we might be able to make VAT closer to the UK rate thereby reducing revenue leakage.

We cannot do that, since we'd lose most of our FDI.

And lets say we did implement all of your taxation reforms, how many billions would that bring in?

Wishbone Ash

irish_bob wrote: »

the property boom which allowed bertie to make our nurses , teachers , guards , consultants and public servants in general the highest paid in the EU

It's a bit strange that, during the boom, thousands of nurses had to be recruited from the Philippines, India and South Africa as very few in Ireland were interested in it and there was so much more easier money to be made elsewhere?

Amhran Nua

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's a bit strange that, during the boom, thousands of nurses had to be recruited from the Philippines, India and South Africa as very few in Ireland were interested in it and there was so much more easier money to be made elsewhere?

Where, exactly?

Wishbone Ash

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Where, exactly?

I've no idea but applications traditionally plummet during a boom and soar during a recession.

Amhran Nua

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I've no idea but applications traditionally plummet during a boom and soar during a recession.

Is this unique to Ireland or in general? Numbers of applicants dropped dramatically in 2005, but this was because an extra year was added to the curriculum so not as many qualified that year. Nursing was one of those professions along with IT that got fast track visas back in 2000, and so attracted a lot of foreign workers, with around 10% of all nurses in Ireland being non nationals, which seemed to be a solution looking for a problem.

The wages bill for public sector nurses accounts for €2.2 billion of the health budget.

The basic pay for a newly qualified staff nurse, before premium shift pay, is €31,233. The average annual nursing salary in 2005 was €56,000.

Figures from the Health Service Executive show that a staff nurse’s salary was €43,430 last year, up from €30,829 in 2000. A clinical nurse manager earned €55,588 last year, up from €37,981 in 2000.

An assistant director of nursing earned €68,797 last year, compared with €45,862 in 2000.

The salary for a director of nursing was €85,419 last year, up from €56,453 in 2000.

irish_bob

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's a bit strange that, during the boom, thousands of nurses had to be recruited from the Philippines, India and South Africa as very few in Ireland were interested in it and there was so much more easier money to be made elsewhere?

do tell us where nurses could have made more in the private sector in the past decade , i cant wait to hear this

sdanseo

average_runner wrote: »

At the moment tax returns are down a massive amount mainly because people lsot their jobs around 500,000 i think was the figure and then alot of pay cuts which effects the tax return and property mark in bits So cuts have to be made all over.

So which of the following proposals would public and private sector like to see:

1. Pay cut in public sector, maybe 3% for under 30,000, 5% under 50000, 7% under 60000 and 10% for everyone above it?

2. A reduction in the amount the goverment contributes to your pension or the goverment make all the pensions like the private sector, ie you give as much as you want, goverment gives 5% towards it

3. No cuts in anything, but public sector is opened up like the private sector and let the markets adjust everything, ie no more job security, so redundos could happen in years to come.

4 Increase tax rates for all, and lets face it if we do this the goverment wont hit the super rich, its the joe soap that will suffer. Just the way ireland works.



Can only choose one.

The public sector isn't the only problem. However to choose one of your hypotheses I would have to go with #4 or (#3 as a backup). There's no excuse for layering the fallout of all of this on public servants. They work an awful lot harder than the pen-=pushing executives of private businesses.

Third tax tier above €100k of 50%; a fundamental reduction in the amount of red tape and bull**** in the public service and people employed who do nothing, like for example the dole office that I pass every day on the way to work (irony not lost on me)there's always at LEAST 2 porters hanging around the door drinking tea. Don't punish all public servants with 17% pay cuts just because there's a pile of people pushing paper and pens that don't need pushing and another pile of jobs that we all know are there because thy won't let the people in them go.

Bringing everyone into the tax net is a good idea to teach responsibility and to prevent as many total scabs leeching money from the government, having 50pc of the workforce outside it is silly but we needn't cripple the lower paid either. a sub-10% tax on 15-25k would be acceptable.

Tax incentives for people who get themselves back into employment might be an idea, a cash bonus of €500 if you find a job for yourself might encourage some of the leeches of society who seem to do nothing but shoot heroin all day to get up off their arise and find something to better themselves. Even instead of funding needle exchanges etc, give them a cash bonus if they can prove they've ditched the drugs and stayed off them. End result is savings in looking after the coonts.
As a slight aside, I read somewhere that a 1c tax on every text sent in Ireland would raise €120m a year. Just throwing it out there.

Wishbone Ash

irish_bob wrote: »

do tell us where nurses could have made more in the private sector in the past decade , i cant wait to hear this

Read my post again (#42). I never mentioned the private sector. I was merely making the point (see post #44) that there were very few application from Irish people during the boom whereas now there are many but there is a moratorium on recruitment.

Wishbone Ash

sdonn wrote: »

Third tax tier above €100k of 50%

The problem with that is that those on variable incomes may adjust their work pattern to avoid falling into that tier and therefore, the tax return may actually reduce.

doc_17

I'd accept 1

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

do tell us where nurses could have made more in the private sector in the past decade , i cant wait to hear this

By signing on with an agency.