Why was Peter Sutherland given a platform on the RTE news?

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Weasel and others seemed to be suggesting .

Pure comedy gold there mate.. I hope you patted yourself on the back.. I'll respond to the economic points in a couple of years when hopefully you will have advanced past your junior infants level of interaction..

God I'm still laughing....

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Pure comedy gold there mate.. I hope you patted yourself on the back.. I'll respond to the economic points in a couple of years when hopefully you will have advanced past your junior infants level of interaction..

God I'm still laughing....

So you don't believe we need to reduce the deficit at a much faster pace than the govt has set out, i.e. 3% of GDP by 2014.

If you go back to page 4 of this thread you will see that I said this:

We don't have to get the deficit down to zero. The target is to get it down to about 5bn of 3% of GDP by 2014. Nearly all other eurozone countries are running large deficits at the moment as well. We just have to reduce ours to a level where we don't stand out and become a target for speculators.

And you said this:

No.. we need to wipe it out.. so we don't have to continue to service a rediculous debt..

You also said this:

We are broke.. broke beyond belief.. and cuts.. huge cuts will have to be made.. 5% here and 5% there won't make a dent.. we need major cuts everywhere.. It's has to be painful for everyone

Indicating that you believe that the govt should just slash and burn the budget. You can't seem to grasp the fact that each austerity budget takes billions out of our economy which is shrinking our GDP/GNP and increasing debt/GDP/GNP ratios making it even harder for us to pay off our debts. Hence why the govt has to reduce the deficit gradually.

You have been saying people are unwilling to take cuts despite the fact that people all over the country have been taking them.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Pure comedy gold there mate.. I hope you patted yourself on the back.. I'll respond to the economic points in a couple of years when hopefully you will have advanced past your junior infants level of interaction..

God I'm still laughing....

Take a look in the mirror maybe?

Maybe you could be clear about exactly what point you trying to make on this thread.

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

So you don't believe we need to reduce the deficit at a much faster pace than the govt has set out, i.e. 3% of GDP by 2014.

If you go back to page 4 of this thread you will see that I said this:



And you said this:



You also said this:



Indicating that you believe that the govt should just slash and burn the budget. You can't seem to grasp the fact that each austerity budget takes billions out of our economy which is shrinking our GDP/GNP and increasing debt/GDP/GNP ratios making it even harder for us to pay off our debts. Hence why the govt has to reduce the deficit gradually.

You have been saying people are unwilling to take cuts despite the fact that people all over the country have been taking them.

No I am pointing out that your and others in this thread cheapen your arguements by constant childish name calling.. Are you unable to discuss the topic at hand?

I have never said the defecit needs to be wiped out in a single budget, I am howver pointing out that the cuts that have been made so far have still left us with a defecit of 20billion, and therefore further deeper cuts need to be made.. As pointed out by other posters subsiding public transport so we can pay bus drivers far more than a true market salary is rediculous, same for the ESB, slush funds for unions etc. Borrowing to do so, if even more rediculous.

What's laughable is, you complain about these bankers lecturing us on what should be done, yet you can't see the irony of PS workers telling us we need to keep borrow for stimulus.. The only stimulus you are interested in, if the continuance of your PS gravy train via your CP agreement.. If we don't keep borrowing, then the CP agreement would need to go into the bin, and swathes of pointless overpaid roles would be gotten rid of... and we couldn't have that could we?


You have no interest beyond your own personal gain and that put you and Suds in exactly the same category..

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

No I am pointing out that your and others in this thread cheapen your arguements by constant childish name calling.. Are you unable to discuss the topic at hand?

I actually genuinely misspelt your name. Sorry about that. Didn't know what you were talking about there!

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

What's laughable is, you complain about these bankers lecturing us on what should be done, yet you can't see the irony of PS workers telling us we need to keep borrow for stimulus.. The only stimulus you are interested in, if the continuance of your PS gravy train via your CP agreement.. If we don't keep borrowing, then the CP agreement would need to go into the bin, and swathes of pointless overpaid roles would be gotten rid of... and we couldn't have that could we?


You have no interest beyond your own personal gain and that put you and Suds in exactly the same category..

Where are you getting this stuff?

Where did I say I want a stimulus for public sector gravy train?

Citizen_Cutback

Welease wrote: »

Blue-Steel wanted figures.. I have one pension account that I paid 12.5% of my salary into for the last 18 years (with my company paying 9.75%).. I now earn a six figure compensation.. and that pension as per my last statement will provide me with 1,800 per year (17+ buy in per year rate)... before moving to this DB package.. which I am desperate to keep.. so anyone who wishes to dump it, i have to wonder how much they actually understand about what they are talking about..

Thanks for giving us some information about you pension.

You indicate that you and your employer paid 22% of your salary into a Pension fund for 18 years; this Pension is now worthless and only capable of providing you with €1,800 pa in your retirement.
(Please introduce more information if my conclusions are incorrect).

What happened to your Pension Fund? Was it decimated by poor fund managers or by corruption?

You regularly introduce the Public Service Pension provision into most threads you subscribe to and mention the fact that the cost of providing pensions for Public Servants for the next sixty years is between €110-€128 billion.

You need to take the following on board:

Public Sector Pension funds have never been lost as they are paid directly from the contributions from current serving members plus a Government employer element of approximately 23-24%.

When you allow that everybody in the country without means is entitled to a Non-Contributory Pension of €230 per week the Government employer contribution falls to 8%.

Fiscal crisis aside, the Banking crisis is costing us somewhere between €40-€80 billion immediately. This is the real problem for our economy. Our Budget deficit is severe but if we have to pay 6% interest on borrowings to rescue the banks, then in effect this is costing us €2.4-€4.8 billion per annum.

Your Public Sector: bad; Private Sector: good, contention is both tedious and unsustainable.

Private Pension funds were always dodgy. I worked in the Private Sector for 10 years. I began paying Pension Contributions on my 25th birthday, presumably to allow for a fully subscribed pension at 65 into a Defined Benefit Fund. When I resigned from the company, I was given the option or cashing-in or remaining paid-up; Needless to say, I cashed-in and I am happy to have done so considering that this company has been merged, taken over and has has many management payoffs in the interim with the company Pension Fund regularly taking a hit.

AIB Brand and Suds
Peter Sutherland was at one time chairman of AIB.
Remember that this is the second time we have been forced to rescue Allied Irish Bank in the last 30 years. Then we have the former Trinity Bank which was renamed the Anglo Irish Bank by Seanie, who actually hates the Anglo-Irish, and this seems to be the reason Fianna Fail gave him his way. The AIB brand has been destroyed for ever. Ironic that!

ei.sdraob

@GeorgeOrwell

1. i said it before and i say it again,

you speak as if the county has a choice and constantly refer to US (and Krugmans theories of printy printy) who are the worlds largest economy + military and can print own currency which is also a global reserve currency and/or borrow to hearts content, its disingenuous to compare Irish economy to US, hell they actually make alot of stuff there still and the people i met last month are very hardworking

also our attempts at "austerity" are wholly laughable especially now that across the irish sea the conservatives are leading by example



2. you avoided my question

what sort of stimulus policies exactly are worth borrowing at 6% and will produce a return within a decade that will pay for this borrowing + 6% interest, hell even at 3-4% i be interested to hear what STIMULUS POLICIES exactly will pay itself off in this short time and payback the debt


im sure there are many investment companies and business who would love to hear what exactly can provide a guaranteed return of 6% in this time!

blue_steel

Sand wrote: »

Id prefer such cuts fall upon wages as opposed to services. If someone is unwilling to drive a bus for anything less than 54K per year, Id argue lets go find someone on a dole queue who is.

So you basically want a solution found that doesn't affect you in any way? Cut public sector wages for the 4th time and that'll solve the problem? Just don't tax me. The noble right speaks again. NIMBY.

Sand

@blue_steel

So you basically want a solution found that doesn't affect you in any way? Cut public sector wages for the 4th time and that'll solve the problem? Just don't tax me. The noble right speaks again. NIMBY.

Seeing as I am a taxpayer, I believe the solution to our fiscal crisis will affect me in someway.

Id rather wages were cut other than services be closed. Ive never had to take advantage of an A&E thankfully, so them being closed wouldnt affect me directly, but I think it would be the best solution for the widest number of people if services like A&E were maintained as much as possible and the silly wage levels in the public sector were addressed.

I certainly cant see any argument for cutting services before cutting wages when those wages are massively inflated. Afterall, we are paying the wages to get a service. Not for their own sake alone.

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Thanks for giving us some information about you pension.

You indicate that you and your employer paid 22% of your salary into a Pension fund for 18 years; this Pension is now worthless and only capable of providing you with €1,800 pa in your retirement.
(Please introduce more information if my conclusions are incorrect).

One pension.. not my only pension.. thankfully. It's not worthless, the equities have been purchased, so if the market grown again, so will the pot.. The number were being used to illustrate why people complaining about a DB pension (like the PS pension) might not understand the true value of their pensions.

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

What happened to your Pension Fund? Was it decimated by poor fund managers or by corruption?

There was a small matter of a global recessions.. Equity funds lost around 36% in 2008 alone.. Thats how DC pension funds work..

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

You regularly introduce the Public Service Pension provision into most threads you subscribe to and mention the fact that the cost of providing pensions for Public Servants for the next sixty years is between €110-€128 billion.

You need to take the following on board:

Public Sector Pension funds have never been lost as they are paid directly from the contributions from current serving members plus a Government employer element of approximately 23-24%.

Currently yes.. Most believe the as PS numbers have increased drastically that will be unsustainable in the future.. even the government have acknowledged this.
DB pensions are pretty much gone in the private sector because they require about 30% of salary to fund..
You figures show a employer element amounting to 23-24%.. Do you know of any private companies who can and do fund to that level?
If not, why not? Because that level of funding is rediculous..
If even the banks pre crash had to stop offering DB pensions, why do you think our government can afford to do so?

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

When you allow that everybody in the country without means is entitled to a Non-Contributory Pension of €230 per week the Government employer contribution falls to 8%.

Very average figures being presented there..

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Fiscal crisis aside, the Banking crisis is costing us somewhere between €40-€80 billion immediately. This is the real problem for our economy. Our Budget deficit is severe but if we have to pay 6% interest on borrowings to rescue the banks, then in effect this is costing us €2.4-€4.8 billion per annum.

I don't think we have spend 40-80b immediately... If we had our defecit would be much larger that 20b. It would be over 100b which it isnt.
Our SW and PS bill is larger than our tax take.. financial crisis aside.. we cant afford even that.

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Your Public Sector: bad; Private Sector: good, contention is both tedious and unsustainable.

Private Pension funds were always dodgy. I worked in the Private Sector for 10 years. I began paying Pension Contributions on my 25th birthday, presumably to allow for a fully subscribed pension at 65 into a Defined Benefit Fund. When I resigned from the company, I was given the option or cashing-in or remaining paid-up; Needless to say, I cashed-in and I am happy to have done so considering that this company has been merged, taken over and has has many management payoffs in the interim with the company Pension Fund regularly taking a hit.

You mean the funds that everyone else has to work with are dodgy? Yes, they probably are if you get to have a gold plated pension. Would you be so quick to drop out of the government DB scheme, as the other poster was suggesting would be the wiser course of action? If not, then you are actually agreeing with me.

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

AIB Brand and Suds
Peter Sutherland was at one time chairman of AIB.
Remember that this is the second time we have been forced to rescue Allied Irish Bank in the last 30 years. Then we have the former Trinity Bank which was renamed the Anglo Irish Bank by Seanie, who actually hates the Anglo-Irish, and this seems to be the reason Fianna Fail gave him his way. The AIB brand has been destroyed for ever. Ironic that!

Your point?
Begg was a director of the central bank.. Does that make him talking about the need not to drop wages any more correct?

George Orwell 1982

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@GeorgeOrwell

1. i said it before and i say it again,

you speak as if the county has a choice and constantly refer to US (and Krugmans theories of printy printy) who are the worlds largest economy + military and can print own currency which is also a global reserve currency and/or borrow to hearts content, its disingenuous to compare Irish economy to US, hell they actually make alot of stuff there still and the people i met last month are very hardworking

also our attempts at "austerity" are wholly laughable especially now that across the irish sea the conservatives are leading by example

I didn't compare Ireland to the US. At one point I compared Ireland to Spain.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

2. you avoided my question

what sort of stimulus policies exactly are worth borrowing at 6% and will produce a return within a decade that will pay for this borrowing + 6% interest, hell even at 3-4% i be interested to hear what STIMULUS POLICIES exactly will pay itself off in this short time and payback the debt


im sure there are many investment companies and business who would love to hear what exactly can provide a guaranteed return of 6% in this time!

I'm not advocating stimulus! The debts of the banks have made that impossible! I was trying to explain to Welease why the govt has to strike a delicate balance between reducing the deficit and preserving some kind of economic activity in the country. If the cutbacks are too deep and sudden our economy will shrink and our debt/GDP/GNP ratio will rise and become quickly unsustainable.

If we didn't have the banks liabilities we could do stimulus but now we can't. So the country will sink.

Got that?

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

I don't think we have spend 40-80b immediately... If we had our defecit would be much larger that 20b. It would be over 100b which it isnt.
Our SW and PS bill is larger than our tax take.. financial crisis aside.. we cant afford even that.

You are forgetting the money on public services and social welfare is money into the economy and money into the banks is money into a black hole.

I'm posted this again because its relevant here. This is what Morgan Kelly said about the bank bailout in his most recent Irish Times article:

Because of the economic collapse here, the Government is adding to this debt quite quickly. However, in contrast to its inept handling of the banking crisis, the Government has taken reasonable steps to bring the deficit under control. If all goes to plan we should be looking at a debt of 85 to 90 per cent of GDP by the end of 2012.

This is quite large for a small economy, but it is manageable. Just about. What will sink us, unfortunately but inevitably, are the huge costs of the bank bailout.

We can gain a sobering perspective on the impossible disproportion between the bailout and our economic resources by looking at the US. The government there set aside $700 billion (€557 billion) to buy troubled bank assets, and the final cost to the American taxpayer is about $150 billion. These sound like, and are, astronomical numbers.

But when you translate from the leviathan that is America to the minnow that is Ireland, it would be equivalent to the Irish Government spending €7 billion on Nama, and eventually losing €1.5 billion in the process. Pocket change by our standards.

Instead, our Government has already committed itself to spend €70 billion (€40 billion on the National Asset Management Agency – Nama – and €30 billion on recapitalising banks), or half of the national income. That is 10 times per head of population the amount the US spent to rescue itself from its worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

Having received such a staggering transfusion of taxpayer funds, you might expect that the Irish banks would now be as fit as fleas. Instead, they are still in intensive care, and will require even larger transfusions before they can fend for themselves again.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0522/1224270888132.html

blue_steel

Sand wrote: »

@blue_steel


Seeing as I am a taxpayer, I believe the solution to our fiscal crisis will affect me in someway.

Id rather wages were cut other than services be closed. Ive never had to take advantage of an A&E thankfully, so them being closed wouldnt affect me directly, but I think it would be the best solution for the widest number of people if services like A&E were maintained as much as possible and the silly wage levels in the public sector were addressed.

I certainly cant see any argument for cutting services before cutting wages when those wages are massively inflated. Afterall, we are paying the wages to get a service. Not for their own sake alone.

But as a subscriber to Sutherlands philosophy are you prepared to take a paycut through higher taxes? Or are you just prepared to see nurses and firemen take a paycut on your behalf?

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

You are forgetting the money on public services and social welfare is money into the economy and money into the banks is money into a black hole.

I'm posted this again because its relevant here. This is what Morgan Kelly said about the bank bailout in his most recent Irish Times article:



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0522/1224270888132.html

And if you can point to anyone in this thread that has stated the bailing out the banks was a good idea, then you can post that at them, pat yourself on the back and you have won that particular point..

But noone has said that..

The fact is.. the banks are being bailed out, and we have a very large PS and SW bill.. our current defecit runs into billions. so further cuts have to be made.

Is there any part of that statement that is untrue?

Welease

blue_steel wrote: »

But as a subscriber to Sutherlands philosophy are you prepared to take a paycut through higher taxes? Or are you just prepared to see nurses and firemen take a paycut on your behalf?

Ahh the old nurses and firemen arguement. Surprised it has taken this long..

The only people who got to decide on the fate of our dear old firemen and nurses were a) the government and b) the PS workers and their unions..

You voted for and got the CP agreement, which meant we kept 1000's of unneccessary overpaid middle management in place (McCarthy alone identified 5-6,000 in the HSE) at the expense of temporary front line staff and services.. If nurses and firemen take a hit becuase there are no funds available, and if lives are put at risk due to lack of equipment etc. then have a look at the status quo you voted for.

Don't try and blame everyone else, we never got asked our opinion..

George Orwell 1982

blue_steel wrote: »

But as a subscriber to Sutherlands philosophy are you prepared to take a paycut through higher taxes? Or are you just prepared to see nurses and firemen take a paycut on your behalf?

Exactly. Garrett Fitzgerald's article in the IT this week highlighted the fact that Ireland has the lowest burden of taxation in the OECD with the single exception of Mexico. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0925/1224279657421.html

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

And if you can point to anyone in this thread that has stated the bailing out the banks was a good idea, then you can post that at them, pat yourself on the back and you have won that particular point..

But noone has said that..

The fact is.. the banks are being bailed out, and we have a very large PS and SW bill.. our current defecit runs into billions. so further cuts have to be made.

Is there any part of that statement that is untrue?

My point was that our deficit is manageable. The bank bail out is not.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Ahh the old nurses and firemen arguement. Surprised it has taken this long..

The only people who got to decide on the fate of our dear old firemen and nurses were a) the government and b) the PS workers and their unions..

You voted for and got the CP agreement, which meant we kept 1000's of unneccessary overpaid middle management in place (McCarthy alone identified 5-6,000 in the HSE) at the expense of temporary front line staff and services.. If nurses and firemen take a hit becuase there are no funds available, and if lives are put at risk due to lack of equipment etc. then have a look at the status quo you voted for.

Don't try and blame everyone else, we never got asked our opinion..

No the CP deal allows for people to be moved to where they are needed. Its up to govt and senior management to implement it. Thats what PS workers voted for. Also numbers are being reduced through natural wastage.

Camdec

Why was Peter Sutherland given a platform on the RTE news?
Good question that. Watch this space!!

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

My point was that our deficit is manageable. The bank bail out is not.

/sigh...

the bank bailout IS part of our defecit...

unless you are in a position to build a time machine then it is something that has to be dealt with.. unplatable as it is.. the liability now exists and as per my posts, the previous round of cuts have still left us with a 20b defecit. Further and deeper cuts will be required (in the absence of incredible growth in our economy which is not forecasted anytime soon).

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

No the CP deal allows for people to be moved to where they are needed. Its up to govt and senior management to implement it. Thats what PS workers voted for. Also numbers are being reduced through natural wastage.

Moved .. not removed..

Are thousands of unnecessary middle management in the HSE suddenly going to fill the shortfall of psychiaric nurses?

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

/sigh...

the bank bailout IS part of our defecit...

unless you are in a position to build a time machine then it is something that has to be dealt with.. unplatable as it is.. the liability now exists and as per my posts, the previous round of cuts have still left us with a 20b defecit. Further and deeper cuts will be required (in the absence of incredible growth in our economy which is not forecasted anytime soon).

Its possible to seperate the money for the bank bailout from the rest of government spending. Its the bank bailout that is unmanageable. There is no way we can manage that much debt and efforts to reduce the deficit through cut backs in public services are deflating the domestic economy more making our debt/GNP ratio even greater. We are going to go to the EU/IMF stablisation fund. What we need to do then is negotiate a serious haircut on the bondholders. The liabilities of the banks does exist, as you say, but it will definitely have to be restructured at some stage, just like it will be in Greece.

George Orwell 1982

Welease wrote: »

Moved .. not removed..

Are thousands of unnecessary middle management in the HSE suddenly going to fill the shortfall of psychiaric nurses?

I don't know the details of the HSE. But I do know a new CEO has been appointed to introduce cutbacks and reform. I presume this will be done through voluntary redundancies.

Why don't you stop spouting the SINDO propaganda that Sir Anthony O'Reilly would like to believe and instead acknowledge the fact that it is the banks that are raping this country.

blue_steel

Welease wrote: »

Ahh the old nurses and firemen arguement. Surprised it has taken this long..

The only people who got to decide on the fate of our dear old firemen and nurses were a) the government and b) the PS workers and their unions..

You voted for and got the CP agreement, which meant we kept 1000's of unneccessary overpaid middle management in place (McCarthy alone identified 5-6,000 in the HSE) at the expense of temporary front line staff and services.. If nurses and firemen take a hit becuase there are no funds available, and if lives are put at risk due to lack of equipment etc. then have a look at the status quo you voted for.

Don't try and blame everyone else, we never got asked our opinion..

You have no idea what I did or didn't vote for. All I know is I would rather you took a paycut than a nurse working in A&E. He or she makes a greater contribution to society than you ever have (see I can make assumptions too).

This idea of the private sector being an engine of innovation and wealth creation is a nonsense. I worked in the private sector for 15 years and most big companies are as bloated and self-serving as any ps dept.

Do you want normal workers to pay for this mess or just normal workers outside the private sector? Because the hole will never be filled by taking 5% off 300,000 workers every year or two. Or will it just make you feel better?

Sand

@blue_steel

But as a subscriber to Sutherlands philosophy are you prepared to take a paycut through higher taxes? Or are you just prepared to see nurses and firemen take a paycut on your behalf?

Im not a subscriber to Sutherlands philosophy. I would have let the banks burn in September 2008, and there bondholders along with them, and I would have only exerted the states coffers to relieve the average small depositor as much as was *possible* given the fiscal demands of the state. If the ECB wanted to intervene to protect Anglo Irish, then Id let them but I wouldnt have thrown Irish taxpayers into that particular mess. Ive been told that would be crazy, the sun would fall from the sky, the seas would rise up and swamp Ireland - but the Irish banks have always been too big for the Irish state to save when its also trying to save itself. The grim reality of that is creaking and grinding over the horizon, no matter how much people want to wish it away.

I think the decision to save the bondholders has made it all the harder to achieve austerity at home because people, quite justifiably, wonder why they must take the pain to spare the bondholders? At least public sector workers can comfort themselves that its supposedly to allow the government to borrow the money to pay their wages. I dont have that comfort.

But to return to your point I have three reactions. The first two are minor and you can disagree if you like, the third is just reality:

Firstly, its funny when people talk about dealing with the crazy wages in the public sector, its the poor old nurses and firemen that get dragged out to act as some sort of human shield to protect the crazy abuses. "NO, NO!" they cry "Dont touch Neary's pension, or our expenses tab! Think of the nurses!"

Its funny how last time out, the nurses and firemen were dragged out and marched up and down the hill by their unions...they took a pay cut, but guess who managed to get out of it? The civil service, where the most scope for reform lies.

Secondly, you seem to assume theres some sort of equivalence between the average public sector worker and the average Irish worker in the private sector.

There isnt. Studies have demonstrated a clear and significant wage premium in the public sector. Private sector workers not only have far worse pension terms than public sector workers, they have to pay for them as well as trying to cover their own. The terms and conditions on which the public sector operate are incredible versus conditions in the real world, where I can walk into work tommorrow and be told my company has decided my job can be done cheaper in Poland (which has already happened).

Where redeployment to a new job or role is often not a matter of negotiation but a choice between that and the dole queue. Where I dont get pay increments or bonuses based on some broad based agreement by the "social partners", but earned only on my own performance. Where I dont get overtime, but am expected to do it when needed.

So, yes, if you can give me all the conditions enjoyed by public sector workers then we can talk about equivalent pay cuts. I didnt get the gravy train over the past 10 years, so youll forgive me if I fail to see why I should ensure Neary (and Sutherland for that matter) keep getting their incredible pension terms.

Thirdly: You might disagree with everything I say above. And you know what, you might be totally right, and I might be totally wrong. But theres one essential truth...We are earning roughly 33 billion per year, and we are spending 60 billion per year, the majority of that being on public sector wages and social transfers.

We simply cannot afford you. No matter how great you are, we cannot afford you. We do not have the money. No money.

George Orwell 1982

Sand wrote: »

@blue_steel

We simply cannot afford you. No matter how great you are, we cannot afford you. We do not have the money. No money.

Then we have to go to the EU/IMF stabilisation fund and negotiate a restructuring of the debt. We cannot destroy our society and economy to satisfy bondholders.

In fact this is exactly what is happening. The govt. is doing all it can in terms of cuts. There is very little resistance in Ireland. It can't cut too deep too quickly without driving the economy further into recession. Despite the govts best efforts (and in fairness to them, apart from the bank bailout, they a have made good efforts) Ireland is still going bust.

What Suds is advocating is that we keep on reducing public services so that we will all be paying higher taxes for less services while the bondholders continue to be paid in full + interest. Its doubtful if such a deflationary strategy could even work - it would mean a smaller economy therefore an even higher debt/GDP ratio. It probably won't be possible to implement such a strategy from a political point of view anyway. And rightly so. The bondholders need to share the pain. Even the FT recently wrote an editorial saying we needed to cut the banks lose.

Sand

Then we have to go to the EU/IMF stabilisation fund and negotiate a restructuring of the debt. We cannot destroy our society and economy to satisfy bondholders.

Unfortunately, the IMF are not a charity. They will lend us money, but only if they are satisfied that we are repairing the fiscal situation.

So we will still have to cut silly wages and social transfers. Its utterly inescapable.

And its practically too late to choose between our economy and the bondholders - all the money shoved into the banks so far has been used to help cash out the existing bondholders who morally ( both ethically and in investment terms) deserved to lose out. The Central Bank is a significant bondholder in Irish banks, and some Irish banks have literally been issuing bonds to themselves on the back of the guarantee.

I think we will have to default - its pretty clear the markets are already pricing in the large probability that we will default into the interest rates theyre willing to lend to us at, so were not gaining anything by keeping up the pretence. We might as well default, deal with the shock, and then return to growth unburdened by the debt mountain, as opposed to struggling on as were ground down to our knees by it. The markets already expect us to do it. Its the only thing that makes sense from their point of view, and they are incredulous of the belief that "<insertanylevelofdebthere> is manageable".

But again, remember - a default would still be a shock: It would mean a sudden sharp adjustment in public spending, possibly smoothed by IMF lending on stern conditions, but a sharp adjustment all the same.

Theres no easy answers.

Welease

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

I don't know the details of the HSE. But I do know a new CEO has been appointed to introduce cutbacks and reform. I presume this will be done through voluntary redundancies.

Why don't you stop spouting the SINDO propaganda that Sir Anthony O'Reilly would like to believe and instead acknowledge the fact that it is the banks that are raping this country.

Was the McCarthy report SINDO propaganda? Tell me more...

Citizen_Cutback

Camdec wrote: »

Why was Peter Sutherland given a platform on the RTE news?
Good question that. Watch this space!!

Touche!

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

You regularly introduce the Public Service Pension provision into most threads you subscribe to and mention the fact that the cost of providing pensions for Public Servants for the next sixty years is between €110-€128 billion.

You need to take the following on board:

Public Sector Pension funds have never been lost as they are paid directly from the contributions from current serving members plus a Government employer element of approximately 23-24%.

Welease wrote: »

Currently yes.. Most believe the as PS numbers have increased drastically that will be unsustainable in the future.. even the government have acknowledged this.

I think that your figure of €128 billion for Public Sector Pensions in the next sixty years plans for up to 600,000 Public Servants.

Welease wrote: »

DB pensions are pretty much gone in the private sector because they require about 30% of salary to fund..
You figures show a employer element amounting to 23-24%.. Do you know of any private companies who can and do fund to that level?
If not, why not? Because that level of funding is rediculous..

The Government only contributes to a Public Servants Pension when that person is retired, not for up to 40 years prior to retirement as you would like to see. No fancy futures trading here.

Welease wrote: »

If even the banks pre crash had to stop offering DB pensions, why do you think our government can afford to do so?

The Banks are a great example for how to screw up and then get others to pay.
The Banks blew all their assets; they even sold their Bank Buildings in order to free up capital for lending. They are now leasing most of those buildings back at Celtic Tiger rental rates.

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

When you allow that everybody in the country without means is entitled to a Non-Contributory Pension of €230 per week the Government employer contribution falls to 8%.

Welease wrote: »

Very average figures being presented there..

This is the real conundrum. Fail to provide for yourself in your retirement and the State will provide you with a Pension of €12,000 pa provided you have no other income. A Public Servant Pension is on average supplemented above this level by 8%.

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

AIB Brand and Suds
Peter Sutherland was at one time chairman of AIB.
Remember that this is the second time we have been forced to rescue Allied Irish Bank in the last 30 years. Then we have the former Trinity Bank which was renamed the Anglo Irish Bank by Seanie, who actually hates the Anglo-Irish, and this seems to be the reason Fianna Fail gave him his way. The AIB brand has been destroyed for ever. Ironic that!

Welease wrote: »

Your point?

Begg was a director of the central bank.. Does that make him talking about the need not to drop wages any more correct?

I was making a reference the topic title and highlighting the fact that Sutherland and FitzPatrick have more in common than we might think. Seanie was on Marion Finucane's program in October 2008 saying that Old Age Pensions and Medical Cards for Pensioners should be cut.

What happened to Medical Cards in the Budget in December 2008?

Sutherland has been tarnished internationally in the eyes of those who can not differentiate between Anglo Irish Bank and Allied Irish Bank. How embarrassing! The last thing Suds wants is for Anglo to default on Bondholders.

David Begg is totally off topic.