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

George Orwell 1982

Tipp Man wrote: »

Now what are the 2 biggest items in government expenditure, you got it the public sector and the social welfare

both need to be slashed

Are you incapable of understanding that there is only so much money the govt can take out of the economy at any one time?

As it is govt cutbacks are retarding growth. This means a higher debt/GDP/GNP ratio. The govt has to steer a delicate course between reducing the deficit and not doing too much violence to the domestic economy.

Citizen_Cutback

Welease wrote: »

Are you serious???????

Read your own graph... and read the full line of text by McCarthy not just the part of current expenditure..

Your graph.. read the note - THE PORTION OF THE ANNUAL PAYMENT ABOVE THE CONTRIBUTION LINE REPRESENTS THE EXCESS OF BENEFIT OUTGOINGS OVER CONTRIBUTIONS

then read the McCarthy line again.. and not just the bit on current expenditure...

"The cost implications of public service pensions, both in the shorter and longer terms, are an area of concern to BS. The real annual cost of providing public service pensions is some €7.7bn each year, made up of an annual accrual cost of €5.4bn each year over and above the €2.3bn cash cost of existing pensions in 2009 (on the assumption of an accruing pension cost of, on average, 30% of nominal salary)."
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancen..._1017193.shtml

What part of those facts that even you brought to the table do you continually fail to understand?

(if it helps, you seem to believe that because current expenditure is only 2.3b it will remain that low.. the PS has not been funding its pensions till recently, it has grown considerably, and more and more will start drawing down this pension with less contributing as the PS get smaller.. that is why the problem will get worse)...

And when the penny drops, feel welcome to come back an apologise for another one of your misinformation insults..

McCarthy is the spin meister for the 2 Brians. He is a paid shill!

The accrual cost of €5.4 billion per annum is how we would put money aside now to invest in equities so that we can lose them like your Pension Fund lost 38% in 2008 if using the Private Sector Pension model. The Public Service Pension is mainly funded on a pay-as-you go basis, with a designated 33% of the NPRF as a subsidy in future. No money is lost! The Government only make a contribution to Public Servant pension when they retire not for 40 years before they retire.

You are not so worried about your own "other" Pension: your PRSI Pension. You might like to run the numbers on this. In relation to State Pensions this is the real elephant in the room. Go investigate!

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

McCarthy is the spin meister for the 2 Brians. He is a paid shill!

The accrual cost of €5.4 billion per annum is how we would put money aside now to invest in equities so that we can lose them like your Pension Fund lost 38% in 2008 if using the Private Sector Pension model. The Public Service Pension is mainly funded on a pay-as-you go basis, with a designated 33% of the NPRF as a subsidy in future. No money is lost! The Government only make a contribution to Public Servant pension when they retire not for 40 years before they retire.

You are not so worried about your own "other" Pension: your PRSI Pension. You might like to run the numbers on this. In relation to State Pensions this is the real elephant in the room. Go investigate!

Oh of course he's a shill, anyone who disagree with your unfactual position is obviously being paid off.. I'm sure Maloney and Whelan and all the other reports were paid off the same..

Funnily enough, I haven't seen one report that demonstrates there isn't a funding shortfall.. I'm sure you'll post one to back up your position..

Lets look at the one you did post.. I noticed you failed to comment on that, even though others have pointed out that even your table shows a massive funding shortfall to the tune of billions..

And what did your precious Auditor General conclude in 2009 (after all you were quiet happy to comment on a report from 2000)???

"The Comptroller and Auditor General, John Buckley, said in a report published on Thursday that the State’s accrued liability in respect of public pensions for serving staff and pensioners was estimated at €108 billion at December 31, 2008.
The pension payments to discharge the current liabilities will be spread over the next 60 years or more.
The report says taking a 50 year horizon, gross outflows between 2009 to 2058 will amount to €367 billion at 2008 prices. However, after taking account of inflows in the form of standard pension contributions and the recently introduced pensions related deduction the net outflow is estimated at €157 billion over the same period."

Care to comment? Everyone else in the world know a massive shortfall exists, yet you seem intent on walking around calling those who mention it liars and spreading misinformation yourself..

Tipp Man

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Are you incapable of understanding that there is only so much money the govt can take out of the economy at any one time?

As it is govt cutbacks are retarding growth. This means a higher debt/GDP/GNP ratio. The govt has to steer a delicate course between reducing the deficit and not doing too much violence to the domestic economy.

Are you incapable of understanding that the government is having to borrow huge amounts of money for this expenditure?

Are you incapable of understanding the fact that this borrowing is increasing the debt/GDP/GNP ratio far faster than any huge cuts in spending would ever ever do?

Are you incapable of understanding that these huge borrowings are incurring penal rates of interest which will have to be paid back? Billions of euros a year will be needed to meet interest payments on borrowings that we are making to pay a hugely overpaid and bloated public sector along with the highest social welfare rates in the world

A country that is stone broke, one of the worst in the developed world for borrowing in the last 3 years, has the highest paid public sector in the world and the highest paying social welfare system in the world. Does that not seem odd to you? Do you not think that that is completely out of sync with how the country should be? Are this country's public sector workers and social welfare recipients so special that they deserve to be the highest paid in the world?

Or should we just keep spending on these huge wages and huge welfare payments? Ah sure the EU will bail us out if needs be, sur its more money for the government to spend.

Turnstyle

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Are you incapable of understanding that there is only so much money the govt can take out of the economy at any one time?

As it is govt cutbacks are retarding growth. This means a higher debt/GDP/GNP ratio. The govt has to steer a delicate course between reducing the deficit and not doing too much violence to the domestic economy.

are you incapable of understanding that when Ireland defaults (any day soon by my watch...) the government will not have much of a choice of how much it cuts back... in my opinion higher cut backs should have been introduced two years ago but they don’t have the political will or bottle. The single biggest retardant on our growth must be the lack of credit being offered by our banks...?

George Orwell 1982

Tipp Man wrote: »

Are you incapable of understanding that the government is having to borrow huge amounts of money for this expenditure?

Are you incapable of understanding the fact that this borrowing is increasing the debt/GDP/GNP ratio far faster than any huge cuts in spending would ever ever do?

Are you incapable of understanding that these huge borrowings are incurring penal rates of interest which will have to be paid back? Billions of euros a year will be needed to meet interest payments on borrowings that we are making to pay a hugely overpaid and bloated public sector along with the highest social welfare rates in the world

Maybe go back and read my posts again.

I had two main points:

1) The bank bailout and not the deficit is what will sink the country.

2) The govt has to steer a delicate course between reducing the deficit and not tipping the economy back into recession. Reducing govt spending too quickly shrinks the domestic economy leads to a higher debt/GDP/GNP ratio, falling tax revenue, higher unemployment and may even defeat the purpose of reducing the deficit.

Tipp Man

George Orwell 1982 wrote: »

Maybe go back and read my posts again.

I had two main points:

1) The bank bailout and not the deficit is what will sink the country.

2) The govt has to steer a delicate course between reducing the deficit and not tipping the economy back into recession. Reducing govt spending too quickly shrinks the domestic economy leads to a higher debt/GDP/GNP ratio, falling tax revenue, higher unemployment and may even defeat the purpose of reducing the deficit.

1) The current budget deficit this year is probably going to be the total amount of the bank bailout costs. Thats 1 years deficit, 2 at the very most. This deficit is going to be going for years to come unless drastic actions are urgently taken. The banks won't break this country, the huge budget deficits for years to come will

2) What the hell do you mean back into recession?? We are still in recession, unemployment is over 450k, after a slight rise GDP has again falling in the last quarter. Can you not see the simple fact that while we continue to borrow such huge sums then that is what is leading to higher GDP/Debt ratios. We are an export driven economy not a domestic driven one. Can you not see that simple fact?? Its the borrowing that is the problem

George Orwell 1982

Tipp Man wrote: »

1) The current budget deficit this year is probably going to be the total amount of the bank bailout costs. Thats 1 years deficit, 2 at the very most. This deficit is going to be going for years to come unless drastic actions are urgently taken. The banks won't break this country, the huge budget deficits for years to come will

No it isn't. If you look at that Morgan Kelly article again you will see that under his optimistic scenario the total cost of the bank bailout will be 50bn and 70 bn in his more realistic scenario.

And as I explained above the money borrowed for the bank bailout is different from money spent on the deficit in one very important way. The deficit money is spent in the Irish economy, it supports Irish businesses and emloyment and much of the money comes back into govt coffers in the form of tax revenue. Money spent on the bank bailout is gone. It has to be paid back with interest. In other words, the opportunity cost of the money spent on the bank bailout is far far greater than the opportunity cost of the money spent through deficit.

Tipp Man wrote: »

2) What the hell do you mean back into recession?? We are still in recession, unemployment is over 450k, after a slight rise GDP has again falling in the last quarter.

Our economy grew in the first quarter of this year. Therefore we technically came out of recession. It shrank in the second quarter. You need two consequetive quarters of contraction for it be a recession. If we shrink in the third quarter we will be back in recession.

Tipp Man wrote: »

Can you not see the simple fact that while we continue to borrow such huge sums then that is what is leading to higher GDP/Debt ratios. We are an export driven economy not a domestic driven one. Can you not see that simple fact?? Its the borrowing that is the problem

And where have I disputed this? I know the govt has to reduce the deficit. My point all along (which you cannot seem to grasp) is that the govt. has to strike a delicate balance between reducing the deficit and not tipping the economy back into recession. If the govt takes too much money out of the economy too quickly the economy will shrink, debt to GDP ratios will rise, as will unemployment etc, tax revenues will fall and the efforts to reduce the deficit could be self defeating. The govt. is currently sticking to the target of reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014.

Is that clear?

20Cent

Check out this article to see why anyone from Goldman Sachs talking about the public having to "take the pain" is so offensive.

Matt Taibbi
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64868

Babooshka

Welease wrote: »

and I suppose that is the crux of the issue for me.. While we wait for those who played a larger part to take their equal share (which won't happen), the debt continues to rack up, we fall even further behind in competitiveness and more people end up losing their jobs... At some stage, we need to start making huge cuts to rectify the situation.. This could and should have started a couple of years ago, but little continues to be done (on the scale required).

Pinning Seanie (and others) to the wall (while justified and should be done), won't actually solve any issues we are currently experiencing... that seems to be lost on a lot of people.

But is that not the whole point of the OP's post originally? Someone like him telling us (in your words from a previous post here) to "wake up" and take the pain when he could have tried to do so from within the banking system which was serving the rich by aiding them to avoid taxes because he was either too afraid or too stupid (and I doubt the latter) or too mixed up with it himself to do so, gets to smugly announce to everyone that pain will have to come... you keep referring to it as getting over his personality, it is a much bigger issue than that, it is beyond personality, it is impertinance and a perfect example of what, as a nation, we are willing to put up with.

I will take whatever pain is thrown as the rest of them but I think what most people want now is to see that they are willing to come with us and do this as a country with equality for all and not just "us" i.e. the ones who didn't get to avoid taxes by having a jet but still living here.

Citizen_Cutback

Welease wrote: »

Oh of course he's a shill, anyone who disagree with your unfactual position is obviously being paid off.. I'm sure Maloney and Whelan and all the other reports were paid off the same..

Funnily enough, I haven't seen one report that demonstrates there isn't a funding shortfall.. I'm sure you'll post one to back up your position..

Lets look at the one you did post.. I noticed you failed to comment on that, even though others have pointed out that even your table shows a massive funding shortfall to the tune of billions..

And what did your precious Auditor General conclude in 2009 (after all you were quiet happy to comment on a report from 2000)???

"The Comptroller and Auditor General, John Buckley, said in a report published on Thursday that the State’s accrued liability in respect of public pensions for serving staff and pensioners was estimated at €108 billion at December 31, 2008.
The pension payments to discharge the current liabilities will be spread over the next 60 years or more.
The report says taking a 50 year horizon, gross outflows between 2009 to 2058 will amount to €367 billion at 2008 prices. However, after taking account of inflows in the form of standard pension contributions and the recently introduced pensions related deduction the net outflow is estimated at €157 billion over the same period."

Care to comment? Everyone else in the world know a massive shortfall exists, yet you seem intent on walking around calling those who mention it liars and spreading misinformation yourself..

Care to provide a link to your quote?

There are approximately 100,000 Public Service Pensioners at the moment. Over the next 50 years the number of Pensioners will rise towards 400,000. €157 billion net outflow over 50 years seems like good value to me.

Could you also provide the net outgoings for the PRSI pension for the next 50 years since you seem to only provide these sort of statistics that support the argument that Public Servants should exist only in Penury.

I am sure you will be glad to know that I am currently busy setting up a small business to use and add value to Irish raw materials and labour. I think this is what we all need to do to turn this country around.

Your consistent Public Service bashing continues unabated. Maybe you have a little business going on the side yourself?

Welease

Citizen_Cutback wrote: »

Care to provide a link to your quote?

There are approximately 100,000 Public Service Pensioners at the moment. Over the next 50 years the number of Pensioners will rise towards 400,000. €157 billion net outflow over 50 years seems like good value to me.

Could you also provide the net outgoings for the PRSI pension for the next 50 years since you seem to only provide these sort of statistics that support the argument that Public Servants should exist only in Penury.

I am sure you will be glad to know that I am currently busy setting up a small business to use and add value to Irish raw materials and labour. I think this is what we all need to do to turn this country around.

Your consistent Public Service bashing continues unabated. Maybe you have a little business going on the side yourself?

The links are in the previous posts which you quoted (and sub links when you go to that link)..
Your own graph"! shows a massive defecit.. you just want to ignore that now because your own data doesn't support your own rediculous position that the pensions are funded adequately..
€157 billion NET outgoing is the defecit.. ergo.. there is a DEFECIT.. so the PS doesn't cover the cost of their own pensions as you continually claim..

I'm not bashing anyone cupcake.. I have provided the facts.. you have provided BS.. and when you did come up with a single graph.. it actually proved my point.. there is a massive defecit in pensions..

Why don't you read some of the data provided, then you might get a basic understanding of the issues..