Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FG's plans for the public service
Options
Comments
-
It's better to have thousands of people on the dole than to have to borrow so much money to pay them that you bankrupt the country. The argument for keeping the public sector as it can not be an economic one. Economically the ideal size of the public sector is zero.
as a quick example the people that pay the dole are public sector workers. if there are zero people issuing dole money i can foresee a small problem
the laughable thing about it all is that offices such as revenue and social welfare are crying out for staff and then theres offices such as opw are swimming in staff that are mostly doing sweet f**k all0 -
It's better to have thousands of people on the dole than to have to borrow so much money to pay them that you bankrupt the country. The argument for keeping the public sector as it can not be an economic one. Economically the ideal size of the public sector is zero.
Get people to do something productive and pay them wages, or get people to do nothing and pay them the dole plus redundancy payments... both scenarios involve having to pay people and possibly borrow money to do so. If they do productive work and make more than they would on the dole they'll have more disposable income, good for business. Should policing, education, armed forces, etc. all be privatised?0 -
sierra117x wrote: »as a quick example the people that pay the dole are public sector workers. if there are zero people issuing dole money i can foresee a small problem
the laughable thing about it all is that offices such as revenue and social welfare are crying out for staff and then theres offices such as opw are swimming in staff that are mostly doing sweet f**k all
You misunderstand me. Not having public sector workers issuing dole money does not mean that dole money cannot possibly be issued. The issuing of dole money could be privatised and the staff could be private sector workers.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good idea, I'm saying that there are reasons why it's good to have some things done by public sector workers but these reasons are not economic. Economically it's better for everything to be privatised0 -
Get people to do something productive and pay them wages, or get people to do nothing and pay them the dole plus redundancy payments... both scenarios involve having to pay people and possibly borrow money to do so. If they do productive work and make more than they would on the dole they'll have more disposable income, good for business. Should policing, education, armed forces, etc. all be privatised?
both scenarios involve borrowing money but the latter involves borrowing much less money in the long run. The "disposable income" argument is nonsense tbh. Why should the government borrow all this money and give it to one small sub section of society? Why should they get it and not the private sector or dole claimants? The public sector are the ones always going on about fairness and the fair way for the government to pump disposable income into the economy is to lower tax.....which they can't do because they're trying to pay public sector wages that they can't afford. If they let some of the public sector go they can lower tax and everyone will benefit, including those former public sector employees who got jobs in the private sector and the ones still on the dole because dole claimants could share in the extra disposable income too, since we're no longer giving it all to the public sector. But of course we can't do any of this because borrowing to the point of bankrupting the country so that people will have disposable income is not good economic policy, whether you spread the money evenly or give it all to the public sector.
Also, as I said above I'm not saying that policing, education etc should be privatised, I'm saying that the argument for keeping them public cannot be an economic one0 -
If people are working in the public sector rather than on the dole it has a positive knock on effect for the private sector. Are there private sector jobs waiting for the 18000 public sector workers that FG want to make redundant? No there isn't. If tax is lowered but people are on the dole they're still not going to be spending enough. The country would be better off if people were doing productive work and spending.
If tax is lowered then companies can hire more people so there won't be as many people on the dole. This is the point:
1. Every euro that is spent on the public sector is a euro that has either been taken out of the economy or borrowed.
2. If the money has been taken out of the economy then at best the same amount will be put back but in reality less will. It would have been better not to take it out in the first place.
3. If the money was borrowed then it brings us one euro closer to the bankruptcy of the country, and as I said above there is no economic reason why this money should be given to the public sector when it could be given to everyone.
There is no economic argument against redundancies/cuts in the public sector. There are other arguments but the ideal size of the public sector from an economic perspective is zero.0 -
Advertisement
-
there is a huge difference between the private and the public sector . but on a job by job basis (ie CO compared to say same level worker in a bank) the private sector has always been a much higher paid area to work in . one of the major pulls of the public sector wasnt the high wages (because its only a percentage that recieve these wages) but the job security . now you propose that an entire sector should be replaced by the private one simply because recently (and still only in areas of the private sector) its become cheaper to hire such staff ? where as people who have been on consistantly lower wages should now have to suffer for something that the majority had not only no control over but absolutely nothing to do with i.e. government policy (i know people harp on about its all bankers or its all the construction industry but at the end of the day these people where allowed do this by the people in charge who should have stepped in long ago to stop such dealings).You misunderstand me. Not having public sector workers issuing dole money does not mean that dole money cannot possibly be issued. The issuing of dole money could be privatised and the staff could be private sector workers.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good idea, I'm saying that there are reasons why it's good to have some things done by public sector workers but these reasons are not economic. Economically it's better for everything to be privatised0 -
OK, I'll bite....
This is nothing like burning money, its saving money, simple economics. The only loss is the job that person was doing.
Handing out money to someone on the dole is burning money at least your average PS worker is paying tax dont forget the rule you gotta spend money to make money.
Employee of any sector pays tax and pays VAT on purchases and goes to the movies and the zoo and drinks and/or smokes it all goes back to the exchequer one way or the otherHardly if you're not getting value for money. You should be paying for something worthwhile and there's too many in the PS who:
1) Aren't working hard enough
2) Doing a job that doesn't really need to be done
3) Doing a job as part of team which could be done by less people
Im full aware that a good portion arnt working hard enough there are some that infact dont work at all but will 30000 jobs to go you'll loose people who do work with the people that dont and OUR country IE we cant afford that we are all in this not just public vs private sectors, also i said something for your money i never said value.
We need massive scale reform not just 30000 layoffs
30000 less jobs makes things worse not better!0 -
If tax is lowered then companies can hire more people so there won't be as many people on the dole. This is the point:
1. Every euro that is spent on the public sector is a euro that has either been taken out of the economy or borrowed.
2. If the money has been taken out of the economy then at best the same amount will be put back but in reality less will. It would have been better not to take it out in the first place.
3. If the money was borrowed then it brings us one euro closer to the bankruptcy of the country, and as I said above there is no economic reason why this money should be given to the public sector when it could be given to everyone.
There is no economic argument against redundancies/cuts in the public sector. There are other arguments but the ideal size of the public sector from an economic perspective is zero.
What tax would you lower?
The country needs cash flowing amongst workers, if they're on the dole doing nothing productive and not spending then the private sector is going to struggle.
Realistically taxes aren't going to be lowered by a significant amount as a sort of compensation for making 18000 people unproductive, getting money for doing nothing.
The government would be better off stopping the likes of the FÁS WPP and IBEC Gradlink programmes, where private companies are getting free labour at the expense of the taxpayer.0 -
It's better to have thousands of people on the dole than to have to borrow so much money to pay them that you bankrupt the country. The argument for keeping the public sector as it can not be an economic one. Economically the ideal size of the public sector is zero.
And how do you intend to run the country??
who'll empty your bins?
make sure you have water running too and from you house?
who'll clean the streets?
Most importantly who'll pull you out of your car and take you to hospital if you ( touch wood you dont) crash?
who'll arrest the junkie trying to pick your pocket?If tax is lowered then companies can hire more people so there won't be as many people on the dole. This is the point:
1. Every euro that is spent on the public sector is a euro that has either been taken out of the economy or borrowed.
2. If the money has been taken out of the economy then at best the same amount will be put back but in reality less will. It would have been better not to take it out in the first place.
3. If the money was borrowed then it brings us one euro closer to the bankruptcy of the country, and as I said above there is no economic reason why this money should be given to the public sector when it could be given to everyone.
There is no economic argument against redundancies/cuts in the public sector. There are other arguments but the ideal size of the public sector from an economic perspective is zero.
Id love to know where your getting your facts they sound a bit wishy washy to me much like enda kenny's campain !0 -
sierra117x wrote: »there is a huge difference between the private and the public sector . but on a job by job basis (ie CO compared to say same level worker in a bank) the private sector has always been a much higher paid area to work in . one of the major pulls of the public sector wasnt the high wages (because its only a percentage that recieve these wages) but the job security . now you propose that an entire sector should be replaced by the private one simply because recently (and still only in areas of the private sector) its become cheaper to hire such staff ? where as people who have been on consistantly lower wages should now have to suffer for something that the majority had not only no control over but absolutely nothing to do with i.e. government policy (i know people harp on about its all bankers or its all the construction industry but at the end of the day these people where allowed do this by the people in charge who should have stepped in long ago to stop such dealings).
Firstly, if the employees are private they're not "cheaper", they're not paid by the state so they're free and they contribute to the tax take where public sector tax means they just cost less
And no, I'm not saying this should happen, I'm pointing out the silliness of trying to make economic arguments against cuts and redundancies in the public sector, when economically the best thing to do is sack them all. People need to make other arguments for the public sector0 -
Advertisement
-
My bins are collected by a private company and it's a cheaper and more frequent service then the councilAnd how do you intend to run the country??
who'll empty your bins?
make sure you have water running too and from you house?
who'll clean the streets?
Most importantly who'll pull you out of your car and take you to hospital if you ( touch wood you dont) crash?
who'll arrest the junkie trying to pick your pocket?
Id love to know where your getting your facts they sound a bit wishy washy to me much like enda kenny's campain might i add!
In the north the water is provided by a private company
In many areas management companies clean the streets etc
But you're still missing the point. I'm not saying all of these things should be privatised. But these things are a cost to the state and the economy which needs to be justified and people need to stop acting as if taking money out of the economy or borrowing massive sums of money to pay the public sector is good for the economy0 -
What tax would you lower?
The country needs cash flowing amongst workers, if they're on the dole doing nothing productive and not spending then the private sector is going to struggle.
Realistically taxes aren't going to be lowered by a significant amount as a sort of compensation for making 18000 people unproductive, getting money for doing nothing.
The government would be better off stopping the likes of the FÁS WPP and IBEC Gradlink programmes, where private companies are getting free labour at the expense of the taxpayer.
Asking which tax I would lower misses the point. Sse above0 -
Handing out money to someone on the dole is burning money at least your average PS worker is paying tax dont forget the rule you gotta spend money to make money.
Employee of any sector pays tax and pays VAT on purchases and goes to the movies and the zoo and drinks and/or smokes it all goes back to the exchequer one way or the other
Im full aware that a good portion arnt working hard enough there are some that infact dont work at all but will 30000 jobs to go you'll loose people who do work with the people that dont and OUR country IE we cant afford that we are all in this not just public vs private sectors, also i said something for your money i never said value.
We need massive scale reform not just 30000 layoffs
30000 less jobs makes things worse not better!
A Public sector salary contributes 0% to the exchequer...
If you work in the public sector (which I assume you do) and you are paid 40k, 100% of your salary comes from the public coffers, its not possible for the state to recoup all that money... even if you spend all your salary on "Smokes" and "Drink"... it was the states money to begin with.
30000 Public sector layoff's save the economy a fortune, albeit at the expense of the service's provided. But in the context of this discussion, we're talking purely about the ecomonic effect.
You can burn some of the money we save if it makes you feel better :rolleyes:
p.s. Spend money to make money does not apply to a sector that isnt in business to make money.0
Advertisement