Value For Money From Government

turbot

I think it's worth looking at situations from as many perspectives as possible.

One that is worthy of merit is that, due to factors related to banks, bonds and bad decisions, the value for money Irish tax payers are getting from the Irish Government is about to drastically change.

We'll end up paying more and getting less.... which in the long run will only compromise the competitiveness of the Irish economy, and reduce the return people living in Ireland get for paying more taxes.

later12

Comeptitiveness will be reduced

Irish manufacturing and exports competitiveness is only going one way, and that is the way we want it to. Our labour costs are decreasing and that is forecasted to continue over the next two years (at least). We probably haven't been so competitive to foreign companies in the last five or six years as we are now.

cyclopath2001

The more you tax people and the less services you provide to them, the more wages they will demand.

later12

Demand? This is a recession and we're seeing huge unemployment - workers tend to settle for what they can get, not make demands.

They are in no position to make demands, that's one reason why labour costs have fallen here.

cyclopath2001

Sweatshop rules?

The country has to compete with others to attract and retain talented people, driving down wages and imposing high taxes will only apply to people who cannot escape.

There is also the uncertainty of what new taxes and cuts lie ahead.

goat2

two simple little letters differ us from iceland, C and R,

ART6

turbot wrote: »

I think it's worth looking at situations from as many perspectives as possible.

One that is worthy of merit is that, due to factors related to banks, bonds and bad decisions, the value for money Irish tax payers are getting from the Irish Government is about to drastically change.

We'll end up paying more and getting less.... which in the long run will only compromise the competitiveness of the Irish economy, and reduce the return people living in Ireland get for paying more taxes.

I have difficulty recalling any time when an Irish government ever really gave value for money. Given the size of our population we have far too many politicians and civil servants, and we have getting on for one quango for every 5,000 people -- see http://ireland.world-countries.net/archives/68822 In fact other sources suggest that there might actually be over 1,000 quangos, but what does not seem to be contested is that whatever the number they cost some €13 billions a year.

The current government is far too large and expensive for what it offers, and its ministers and their rafts of junior ministers seem often to be much more concerned about the interests of their party than they are about the interests of the people they were elected to serve. They are introducing a savage budget that will inevitably damage the economy further, and they are doing it to save €15 billions over four years. If they abolished all of the quangos they would save €54 billions in the same period without any savage budget cuts or tax increases. In fact they could meet the savings target by only abolishing 25% of the quangos.

Are they doing it? The answer to that surely defines the value for money that our government offers?

Red Actor

ART6 wrote: »

I have difficulty recalling any time when an Irish government ever really gave value for money. Given the size of our population we have far too many politicians and civil servants, and we have getting on for one quango for every 5,000 people -- see http://ireland.world-countries.net/archives/68822 In fact other sources suggest that there might actually be over 1,000 quangos, but what does not seem to be contested is that whatever the number they cost some €13 billions a year.

The current government is far too large and expensive for what it offers, and its ministers and their rafts of junior ministers seem often to be much more concerned about the interests of their party than they are about the interests of the people they were elected to serve. They are introducing a savage budget that will inevitably damage the economy further, and they are doing it to save €15 billions over four years. If they abolished all of the quangos they would save €54 billions in the same period without any savage budget cuts or tax increases. In fact they could meet the savings target by only abolishing 25% of the quangos.

Are they doing it? The answer to that surely defines the value for money that our government offers?

the €52bn over four years assumes that quangos such as the HSE will be replaced at no cost - I think it costs about €6bn a year. About €0.5bn of the FAS budget is the social welfare payment for trainees, so even if FAS was shut down in the morning and all staff fired without any redundancy or unemployment benefits there
would not be the total savings that appear at first glance.

Some quangos are purely grant payers and add no value for the tax payer and could be done within the govt department (do quangos pay the same as civil servants get?). That would reduce the cost of 10 cronies on the board but little else. The question has to be, should the grant be paid at all.

ART6

Red Actor wrote: »

the €52bn over four years assumes that quangos such as the HSE will be replaced at no cost - I think it costs about €6bn a year. About €0.5bn of the FAS budget is the social welfare payment for trainees, so even if FAS was shut down in the morning and all staff fired without any redundancy or unemployment benefits there
would not be the total savings that appear at first glance.

Some quangos are purely grant payers and add no value for the tax payer and could be done within the govt department (do quangos pay the same as civil servants get?). That would reduce the cost of 10 cronies on the board but little else. The question has to be, should the grant be paid at all.

The point that I was making was that, mathematically at least, closing 25% of the quangos would save the money that the budget is supposed to save. The thread was government value for money, yet there seems to be no definitive publication that lists just how many quangos there are or what they do. We just know, due to determined journalism, that they cost us around €13 billion a year.

The only conclusion I as a taxpayer can come to is that even the government doesn't know how many there are. That is like my company having no real idea of how many consultants or agents we employ or at what cost. Is that value for money?

Red Actor

ART6 wrote: »

The point that I was making was that, mathematically at least, closing 25% of the quangos would save the money that the budget is supposed to save. The thread was government value for money, yet there seems to be no definitive publication that lists just how many quangos there are or what they do. We just know, due to determined journalism, that they cost us around €13 billion a year.

The only conclusion I as a taxpayer can come to is that even the government doesn't know how many there are. That is like my company having no real idea of how many consultants or agents we employ or at what cost. Is that value for money?

25% of 13bn is not 15bn, so the point of abolishing quangos is not the entire answer to the deficit. It will be part of the solution and I am merely pointing out that a total abolotion will not save the total spend without cutting the services that they deliver. The services could be done within govt depts but would that result in big savings? The two examples I picked of FAS and HSE are possibly the two biggest spending quangos spending about 50% of all the money spent by all of the quangos (using your figures).

Say there are 1,000 quangos costing 13bn, and the "big two" cost 7bn, then the others cost 6m each on average. Some like the NRA and the Road Safety Agency cost much more than 6m so it means that there are 100's of "cheap" quangos - I would say some quangos have not been formally abolished so still exist and cost no money. They need to be got rid of but don't expect that closing 500 quangos will result in 6bn of savings.

I agree that quangos should go if they are not needed or can be delivered better elsewhere (within the public service or private sector). It would be more useful to say which quango should go, how much it would save and what "work" will no longer take place. I never understood why there were so mant VECs as their function apppeared to be hiring teachers and paying grants which could be done centrally rather than have about 30 VECs doing it - this number is being cut back.

ART6

Red Actor wrote: »

25% of 13bn is not 15bn, so the point of abolishing quangos is not the entire answer to the deficit. It will be part of the solution and I am merely pointing out that a total abolotion will not save the total spend without cutting the services that they deliver. The services could be done within govt depts but would that result in big savings? The two examples I picked of FAS and HSE are possibly the two biggest spending quangos spending about 50% of all the money spent by all of the quangos (using your figures).

Say there are 1,000 quangos costing 13bn, and the "big two" cost 7bn, then the others cost 6m each on average. Some like the NRA and the Road Safety Agency cost much more than 6m so it means that there are 100's of "cheap" quangos - I would say some quangos have not been formally abolished so still exist and cost no money. They need to be got rid of but don't expect that closing 500 quangos will result in 6bn of savings.

I agree that quangos should go if they are not needed or can be delivered better elsewhere (within the public service or private sector). It would be more useful to say which quango should go, how much it would save and what "work" will no longer take place. I never understood why there were so mant VECs as their function apppeared to be hiring teachers and paying grants which could be done centrally rather than have about 30 VECs doing it - this number is being cut back.

The point that I was making was that the quangos are reputed to cost €13 billions a year while our government is planning to make savings of €15 billions over the next four years. In that time the quangos will have cost us €52 billions. Therefore, by cutting the costs of those quangos by 25% would just about hit the current target without the taxes and cuts that might well do as much damage as they avoid.

Perhaps a number of those quangos don't actually cost anything, although I sincerely doubt that. If they don't, then what are they there for? Even so, there are, apparently somewhere between 800 and 1,000 of them, although no-one seems to know the true figure, and that is madness.

Even the famously Teflon coated Bertie stated that he appointed people to the boards of quangos because they were friends, not because they paid him. Is that how we came to have so many I wonder? FF jobs for the boys again.:mad:

Red Actor

ART6 wrote: »

The point that I was making was that the quangos are reputed to cost €13 billions a year while our government is planning to make savings of €15 billions over the next four years. In that time the quangos will have cost us €52 billions. Therefore, by cutting the costs of those quangos by 25% would just about hit the current target without the taxes and cuts that might well do as much damage as they avoid.

Perhaps a number of those quangos don't actually cost anything, although I sincerely doubt that. If they don't, then what are they there for? Even so, there are, apparently somewhere between 800 and 1,000 of them, although no-one seems to know the true figure, and that is madness.

Even the famously Teflon coated Bertie stated that he appointed people to the boards of quangos because they were friends, not because they paid him. Is that how we came to have so many I wonder? FF jobs for the boys again.:mad:

The 15bn is an annual figure that will be got to gradually over 4 (or 5) years 6bn in 2011, 3 in 2012, 3 in 2013 and the last 3 in 2014. Cutting 25% of the total costs of quangos (including payments they make to others) would contribute about 20% of the saving target.

Again I'll make the point the quangos do actual work and to close them down will result in less work (services). Many quangos pay grants and the biggest part of their costs are the expenditure rather than the (salary) costs of the quango - the NRA spent several €bn in each of the last few years to pay contractors to build roads. That "wasted" money could have been saved and the roads would not have been built. It is not as straightforward as quango = bad, no quango = good.

I think many quangos could be got rid of af their work done by govt depts. This could result in some savings in IT, accounts etc and ten members of a board on 10k a year.