Reducing public sector numbers

MagicSean

How beneficial would it actually be in the short term to make public sector workers redundant? First there is the cost of the redundancy. Then there is the cost of the dole payments they will get. Add to that the other benefits they will now most likely be eligible for such as medical cards and rent allowance. Then look at the reduction in income tax receipts, USC, PRSI and Pension levy payments. Over 40% of their salaries go straight back to the government anyway. Would it really be that beneficial to reduce the numbers? If so, why?

swampgas

k_mac wrote: »

How beneficial would it actually be in the short term to make public sector workers redundant? First there is the cost of the redundancy. Then there is the cost of the dole payments they will get. Add to that the other benefits they will now most likely be eligible for such as medical cards and rent allowance. Then look at the reduction in income tax receipts, USC, PRSI and Pension levy payments. Over 40% of their salaries go straight back to the government anyway. Would it really be that beneficial to reduce the numbers? If so, why?

If:

Net Redundancy + (Net Salary * some_number_ of_ years) > (Total benefits p.a.) * (same number of years)

- then there is a net saving to the government. The question is how many years before the savings are seen.

Also, not everyone who took redundancy would go on the dole - some would get other employment and some would emigrate.

angelfire9

The only benefit I would see would be as a PR stunt for the government

As you say the loss of PAYE, PRSI & USC Contributions PLUS the cost of Social Welfare, Mortgage Interest payments, Medical cards et al it would end up costing more than it would save

swampgas

The higher the salary, the bigger the potential saving.

I imagine someone on 100k, netting (say) 50k, would cost more to employ than they would to support on the dole. Unless the dole & associated benefits works out at 50k, which would surprise me.

RichardAnd

I don't think mas redundancies would be a good thing at all. It might save money per say but it would only mean more unemployment which isn't what we need right now or ever.

Head The Wall

There is also the capital costs associated with this, if you shut down a dept with 10 staff you save 10 wages but there could also be legal, rent, insurance, It, power, marketing and a whole load of other costs to be saved also.

Don't forget the govt is broke and should only pay statutory redundancy, the same as most unemployed people got if they were lucky. I don't see why there should be big payouts when we can't afford it.

This is what is ridiculous about the early retirement scheme, it saves nothing in the short term as the retiree receives an 18 month lump sum straight off and a pension as well. This means it will be two and a half years before there will be any tangible savings, more short sighted planning from the old govt

MagicSean

Head The Wall wrote: »

There is also the capital costs associated with this, if you shut down a dept with 10 staff you save 10 wages but there could also be legal, rent, insurance, It, power, marketing and a whole load of other costs to be saved also.

Don't forget the govt is broke and should only pay statutory redundancy, the same as most unemployed people got if they were lucky. I don't see why there should be big payouts when we can't afford it.

This is what is ridiculous about the early retirement scheme, it saves nothing in the short term as the retiree receives an 18 month lump sum straight off and a pension as well. This means it will be two and a half years before there will be any tangible savings, more short sighted planning from the old govt

But they won't be shutting down whole departments will they? It's more of an all round reduction that is planned.

Firblog

Going by the most of the posts on this thread the way to solve the unemployment problem is to give all a job in the civil service. Folks I'm not an advocate of making people in the public service redundant - unless there is no real work for them to do - much better to reduce the wages being paid, instead of reducing the number employed by 10%, reduce the wages by that amount.

RichardAnd

Firblog wrote: »

Going by the most of the posts on this thread the way to solve the unemployment problem is to give all a job in the civil service. Folks I'm not an advocate of making people in the public service redundant - unless there is no real work for them to do - much better to reduce the wages being paid, instead of reducing the number employed by 10%, reduce the wages by that amount.

Pretty much my take too. Wage reductions are a more gentle way of bringing down the costs without the knock on effects of putting more people out of work. When (let's be positive and not say if) things improve and jobs are more common, the public sector could be reduced in size but when there are already hundreds of thousands out of work, I don't think tossing petrol on the fire will do much good.

Gumbo

Firblog wrote: »

Going by the most of the posts on this thread the way to solve the unemployment problem is to give all a job in the civil service. Folks I'm not an advocate of making people in the public service redundant - unless there is no real work for them to do - much better to reduce the wages being paid, instead of reducing the number employed by 10%, reduce the wages by that amount.

havent they already been reduced by circa 14%?

Sleepy

Given that any couple with 2 children in the Dublin area have a welfare entitlement (including rent allowance on a 1,000 per month property but excluding medical cards, back-to-school entitlements etc.) of €30,012.80, it probably only makes sense to make redundancies for those earning above 40k per annum.

From a purely utilitarian point of view however, the best way to enact any redundancies would be to choose those who's spouses are still in employment to be let go as they'd have limited, if any, entitlements to welfare. Not sure how ethical such a move would be though.

Jaysoose

There needs to be a reduction in wages + increased efficiencies in all departments + a reduction in numbers. It shouldnt be as simple as just cutting X amnount of staff as this would mean that the same mentatlity and work practices would remain as before.

The public and civil service needs to be brought into the present day as regards work practices, increased accountability and salary expectations. The current approach of hiding behind the CPA as a stalling tactic needs to be sorted out. We are still talking about the same things a few years down the line and anytime anything is mentioned we get the emotive arguments about front line staff thrown around and terms terms like "low paid workers" etc. Changes need to happen and they are needed fast somehow the previous goverment decided that doing nothing to tackle the outdated and overpaid public sector was a valid strategy.

Nobody is saying cut 20% or 30% indiscriminately but if people wont even acknowledge the problems and address them what choices will be left?

MagicSean

Sleepy wrote: »

Given that any couple with 2 children in the Dublin area have a welfare entitlement (including rent allowance on a 1,000 per month property but excluding medical cards, back-to-school entitlements etc.) of €30,012.80, it probably only makes sense to make redundancies for those earning above 40k per annum.

Not really. As about 40% of gross pay goes straight back to the state in various deductions the person would have to be earning 50k+ for it to to make an anuual saving on welfare payments.

Sleepy wrote: »

From a purely utilitarian point of view however, the best way to enact any redundancies would be to choose those who's spouses are still in employment to be let go as they'd have limited, if any, entitlements to welfare. Not sure how ethical such a move would be though.

It would be contrary to the equality act and the constitution.

stargazer 68

kceire wrote: »

havent they already been reduced by circa 14%?

The HSE has just before Christmas - and we now have contractors in doing the jobs because the places are so short staffed!!

Contra Proferentem

The Unfair Dismissals legislation will be getting plenty of use in the coming months me thinks.

Jaysoose

k_mac wrote: »

Not really. As about 40% of gross pay goes straight back to the state in various deductions the person would have to be earning 50k+ for it to to make an anuual saving on welfare payments.



It would be contrary to the equality act and the constitution.

I like the way pensions and benefits are left out of the calculations to skew the numbers in this argument. You cant just base the comparisons between the dole and the basic salary as when the employees allowances are included the actual real cost of a permanent employee is much higher.

Leaving these out is providing a very poor example and is not giving a true comparison.

Pharaoh1

To be honest I doubt that many people will take voluntary redundancy to go on social welfare.
Many will be in their fifties/sixties and heading towards pension in any case.
Most of these will not have full prsi paid anyway so claiming Jobseekers Benefit would not be an issue.

I know a few younger PS who will leave to follow a partner/husband/wife to Australia or Canada.
Of course if compulsory redundancy happens that would be a different matter.

Tipp Man

k_mac wrote: »

Not really. As about 40% of gross pay goes straight back to the state in various deductions the person would have to be earning 50k+ for it to to make an anuual saving on welfare payments.

And here we have in a nutshell exactly why this country is in the mess its in

We have an overstaffed and overpaid public sector who don't want paycuts or redundancies as then they would be closer to the even more overpaid welfare sector

That just highlights the huge mess this country is in

also if a public sector worker on 40k is paying 40% in deductions then he needs to ring the revenue commissioners. A single ps worker on 40k is paying 30% deductions and not 40%. A 50k worker is paying about 36%. You need to get to 60k before your magical 40% is seen

Jaysoose

Tipp Man wrote: »

And here we have in a nutshell exactly why this country is in the mess its in

We have an overstaffed and overpaid public sector who don't want paycuts or redundancies as then they would be closer to the even more overpaid welfare sector

That just highlights the huge mess this country is in

also if a public sector worker on 40k is paying 40% in deductions then he needs to ring the revenue commissioners. A single ps worker on 40k is paying 30% deductions and not 40%. A 50k worker is paying about 36%. You need to get to 60k before your magical 40% is seen

All this shows is that the numbers being used by certain posters are wildly inaccurate and are designed to mislead the argument.

Gumbo

Jaysoose wrote: »

All this shows is that the numbers being used by certain posters are wildly inaccurate and are designed to mislead the argument.

which happens time and time again on this forum, figures are used for each posters agenda, the title is a classic example.

Tipp Man

kceire wrote: »

havent they already been reduced by circa 14%?

And what %age current budget deficit is the employer of PS workers currently running??

MagicSean

Jaysoose wrote: »

I like the way pensions and benefits are left out of the calculations to skew the numbers in this argument. You cant just base the comparisons between the dole and the basic salary as when the employees allowances are included the actual real cost of a permanent employee is much higher.

Leaving these out is providing a very poor example and is not giving a true comparison.

If you look at the opening post you will note I asked what benefit would it have in the short term, as in to address the deficit.

Tipp Man wrote: »

And here we have in a nutshell exactly why this country is in the mess its in

We have an overstaffed and overpaid public sector who don't want paycuts or redundancies as then they would be closer to the even more overpaid welfare sector

That just highlights the huge mess this country is in

also if a public sector worker on 40k is paying 40% in deductions then he needs to ring the revenue commissioners. A single ps worker on 40k is paying 30% deductions and not 40%. A 50k worker is paying about 36%. You need to get to 60k before your magical 40% is seen

Pension deduction 5%
Paye 20%
PRSI 4%
USC 4% going up to 7%
Pension Levy 5% going up to 10%

Tipp Man

k_mac wrote: »

If you look at the opening post you will note I asked what benefit would it have in the short term, as in to address the deficit.



Pension deduction 5%
Paye 20%
PRSI 4%
USC 4% going up to 7%
Pension Levy 5% going up to 10%

Have you ever heard of tax credits for instance?? Do you think you pay USC on every penny you earn??

Look go onto this website and check it out for real, and not just back of the envelope calculations

by the way i have and if you look at my above calculations they will back up what i wrote

www.taxcalc.eu

Sleepy

k_mac wrote: »

Not really. As about 40% of gross pay goes straight back to the state in various deductions the person would have to be earning 50k+ for it to to make an anuual saving on welfare payments.

At 40k gross, the average person takes home about 30k.

It would be contrary to the equality act and the constitution.

While it should, I'm not so sure it actually would unless you were to state that it only applied to men who had wives who were working or vice versa. After all, our current tax system discriminates against the married and unmarried quite easily and has withstood previous challenges to it's legality.

Of course, I never suggested it was something that should be done in the first place, just that from a purely logical point of view, it would best achieve a reduction in the states out-goings.

MagicSean

Tipp Man wrote: »

Have you ever heard of tax credits for instance?? Do you think you pay USC on every penny you earn??

Look go onto this website and check it out for real, and not just back of the envelope calculations

by the way i have and if you look at my above calculations they will back up what i wrote

www.taxcalc.eu

I am looking at one of my payslips right now and the net pay is 59% of the gross after PAYE, PRSI. Pension levy, Pension deductions and USC. This is based on a Gross annual pay of about 45k.

EDIT: My mistake. That included back pay so it would have been based on 60K a year. I'll try find a regular payslip to compare.

MagicSean

Sleepy wrote: »

At 40k gross, the average person takes home about 30k.


While it should, I'm not so sure it actually would unless you were to state that it only applied to men who had wives who were working or vice versa. After all, our current tax system discriminates against the married and unmarried quite easily and has withstood previous challenges to it's legality.

Of course, I never suggested it was something that should be done in the first place, just that from a purely logical point of view, it would best achieve a reduction in the states out-goings.

Actual the tax system did not survive challenges whenever it discriminated against married couples. A policy which discriminates against someone beacause based on their marital status would never survive. If someone where to be fired based on the fact that they were married to another working person this would most likely be considered an attack on the institution of marraige.

Frowzy

Tipp Man wrote: »

We have an overstaffed and overpaid public sector who don't want paycuts or redundancies as then they would be closer to the even more overpaid welfare sector

seen

I normally try to stay out of these debates, as i am a PS and don't want to leave myself in a position where I have to defend myself and my job. Simple fact is that I applied for an advertised job some years ago. lt was open for anyone to apply, which I did and I got it.

At the time the country was booming, and huge salaries were being paid in the private sector, as well as big bonuses (which you don't get in the PS). Lots of my colleagues resigned during that time as they were lured away by more attractive packages in the private sector. Ya I could have left, for personal reasons it suited me to stay where I am.

Now years down the line lots of areas in the private sector have collapsed and we find ourselves being held up as a carrot to people looking for someone to pay. Fair enough I still have a job! And I'm grateful. I have taken a 14% pay cut and now the USC and pension levy etc on top. We also have a ban on recruitment so as people leave or contracts expire we don't get replacements. So at the moment I find myself alone in. Department which was previously staffed by 5. The work is still there and I have to come in early and work late to try to keep up, there's no overtime payments in PS! I'm stressed out to the last and yet day after day have to listen to people say that we're under worked and overpaid. I understand that people who have no work now may be angry that we do, but is it possible that you might understand that although what we're earning now, and I meN the lower grades like myself not the big boys, was considered a low wage during the boom, but we stuck with it.

F

Tipp Man

Frowzy wrote: »

I normally try to stay out of these debates, as i am a PS and don't want to leave myself in a position where I have to defend myself and my job. Simple fact is that I applied for an advertised job some years ago. lt was open for anyone to apply, which I did and I got it.

At the time the country was booming, and huge salaries were being paid in the private sector, as well as big bonuses (which you don't get in the PS). Lots of my colleagues resigned during that time as they were lured away by more attractive packages in the private sector. Ya I could have left, for personal reasons it suited me to stay where I am.

Now years down the line lots of areas in the private sector have collapsed and we find ourselves being held up as a carrot to people looking for someone to pay. Fair enough I still have a job! And I'm grateful. I have taken a 14% pay cut and now the USC and pension levy etc on top. We also have a ban on recruitment so as people leave or contracts expire we don't get replacements. So at the moment I find myself alone in. Department which was previously staffed by 5. The work is still there and I have to come in early and work late to try to keep up, there's no overtime payments in PS! I'm stressed out to the last and yet day after day have to listen to people say that we're under worked and overpaid. I understand that people who have no work now may be angry that we do, but is it possible that you might understand that although what we're earning now, and I meN the lower grades like myself not the big boys, was considered a low wage during the boom, but we stuck with it.

F

I don't mean to be heartless but most of that is completly irrelevant. If you are on a salary in the private sector then you are probably not getting overtime either and are still expected to work the long hours, i know i do.

but the single most important factor in any of these discussions is that the government simply cannot afford anything like the payments it is making to Public Sector workers and to welfare recipients. This is an undeniable fact. Linking the public sector to the private sector was a futile exercise in benchmarking and it is still a futile exercise. My company can afford to pay me, our government cannot afford its wage bill

MagicSean

Tipp Man wrote: »

I don't mean to be heartless but most of that is completly irrelevant. If you are on a salary in the private sector then you are probably not getting overtime either and are still expected to work the long hours, i know i do.

but the single most important factor in any of these discussions is that the government simply cannot afford anything like the payments it is making to Public Sector workers and to welfare recipients. This is an undeniable fact. Linking the public sector to the private sector was a futile exercise in benchmarking and it is still a futile exercise. My company can afford to pay me, our government cannot afford its wage bill

But the question is can the government make savings by firing people or will they be just moving the problem from the PS to welfare. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the PS needs reform and needs to be more cost effective.

Frowzy

I wonder Tipp Man if you're referring to the top grades or the lower grades. You make it sound like we are getting "payments" from the government as opposed to a wage.

It's a fair opinion though that you think our numbers should be cut. I'm wondering though what area of the public sector in particular you think Ireland can do without? Garda? Education? Social Welfare Offices? With the staff numbers the way they are across all departments at the moment soon we'll be looking at doing without a service somewhere.is that preferable.

Tipp Man

k_mac wrote: »

But the question is can the government make savings by firing people or will they be just moving the problem from the PS to welfare. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the PS needs reform and needs to be more cost effective.

Welfare and wages need to be cut by a lot. You are comparing wages with current welfare rates - if welfare rates was halved (which they probably need to be) then the savings would be large

Of course savings can be made - the will isn't there though

MagicSean

Tipp Man wrote: »

Welfare and wages need to be cut by a lot. You are comparing wages with current welfare rates - if welfare rates was halved (which they probably need to be) then the savings would be large

Of course savings can be made - the will isn't there though

But welfare rates haven't been halved. So redundancies at the moment would be counter productive unless they target the higher earners.

Sleepy

k_mac wrote: »

Actual the tax system did not survive challenges whenever it discriminated against married couples. A policy which discriminates against someone beacause based on their marital status would never survive. If someone where to be fired based on the fact that they were married to another working person this would most likely be considered an attack on the institution of marraige.

It's held any time it's been challenged for discriminating in favour of married couples though.

Otherwise, please explain to me how the "Married Person" tax credit is legal.

MagicSean

Sleepy wrote: »

It's held any time it's been challenged for discriminating in favour of married couples though.

Otherwise, please explain to me how the "Married Person" tax credit is legal.

The particular suggestion you made was not in favour of married couples. And if it was used as an excuse to fire someone then it could be challenged.

Sleepy

k_mac wrote: »

I am looking at one of my payslips right now and the net pay is 59% of the gross after PAYE, PRSI. Pension levy, Pension deductions and USC. This is based on a Gross annual pay of about 45k.

EDIT: My mistake. That included back pay so it would have been based on 60K a year. I'll try find a regular payslip to compare.

Taken from http://www.irishtaxcalculator.com/:

Employment Income|40,000.00
Tax @ Lower 20%|7,280.00
Tax @ Higher 41%|1,476.00
Tax Credits|3,660.00
Net Tax Due|5,096.00
Income Levy|800.00
PRSI|1,335.84
Health Levy|1,600.00
Total Deductions|8,831.84
Net Pay|31,168.16

Tipp Man

Frowzy wrote: »

I wonder Tipp Man if you're referring to the top grades or the lower grades. You make it sound like we are getting "payments" from the government as opposed to a wage.

It's a fair opinion though that you think our numbers should be cut. I'm wondering though what area of the public sector in particular you think Ireland can do without? Garda? Education? Social Welfare Offices? With the staff numbers the way they are across all departments at the moment soon we'll be looking at doing without a service somewhere.is that preferable.

As a society we need to reduce our standard of living and get better value for our money.

Take education for example, our teachers are better paid then nearly every other country in the world's teacher (highly ironic seen as though our government is one of the most indebted in the world). According to CSO in 2008 the average secondary school teachers salary was €1,078 per week or €53k per year. Now if the average teachers salary was still a very respectable €45k a year then considering we have in excess of 26,000 secondary school teachers (includes part timers) then that is a saving of 208m a year on secondary teachers alone - that is not including primary teachers, university lecturers or other education employees.

We still have the same number of teachers, the same number of students, the same curriculum, the same attention for each student, the same exam results

angelfire9

Right lets see who is right & wrong here

Take a salary of €45k per annum
Single person
PAYE Tax Credit
No funky credits or allowances
Pension Contribution of 2000 per annum

Lets see what the state gets off them

Gross Pay 45,000
Pension 2,000
Pension Levy 3250
Taxable Income 39,750
Standard Rate Cut off point 36,400
Taxable @ 20% 36,400
Taxable @ 41% 3350
20% Tax = 7280
41% Tax =1373.5
Total Tax = 8653.5
Less Single Persons Tax Credit 1650
Less PAYE Tax Credit 1650

Tax Deductible in 2011 = 5353.5

PRSI
Class A Contributions
Total Earnings 45,000
Exempt on first €127 per week or 6604 per annum
Wages subject to PRSI = 38396
PRSI @ 4% = 1535.84
Health Levy @ 4% (of total pay)= 1800.00

Deductions for PRSI & Health Levy = 3335.84

Next the wonderful USC
The rates of Universal Social Charge are:

2% on the first €10,036 = €200.72
4% on the next €5,980 = €119.60
7% on €28,984 = €2,028.88

Total for USC = €2,349.20

Income Levy
2% on income up to circa 75k
45,000 x 2% = €900


Pension Levy
First 15k @ 3% = 450
Next 5k @ 6% = 300
Balance (25k) @ 10% = 2500

Total Deductions for Pension levy = 3250


So To summarise
PAYE 5353.50
PRSI 3335.84
USC 2349.2
Income Levy 900
Pension Levy 3250

Total Of Deductions = €15,188.54

as a percentage of gross salary this is 33.75%

Right so the person is made redundant
I used the following criteria to get a ballpark redundancy figure:

Date of Birth:01/01/1976
Date of Commencement of Employment:01/01/1996
Date of Notice of Redundancy:01/12/2011
Date of Termination of Employment:01/01/2012
Gross Weekly Pay:€865.40
Wage ceiling prevailing at the time:€600.00 This is the Wage Ceiling value
Calculation of Service
Years:16
Days:5
Weeks Due: 32.02
Plus Bonus Week: 1
Total Weeks:33.02
Redundancy Entitlements
Lump sum due to Employee:33.02 x €600.00 = €19812.00
Rebate due to Employer:€19812.00 x 60.0% = €11887.20

Net Cost of Redundancy = €7924.80

Job seeker's Benefit Payments for 1 year
Single person no dependants
196*52 = 10,192

Total Cost to Government for Redundancy for the 1st year of unemployment
Loss of Payroll Deductions €15,188.54
Cost of Statutory Redundancy €7924.80
Job Seeker's Benefit €10,192

Total - €33,305.34

Anyone want to query those calculations?

angelfire9

Tipp Man wrote: »

Have you ever heard of tax credits for instance?? Do you think you pay USC on every penny you earn??

Look go onto this website and check it out for real, and not just back of the envelope calculations

by the way i have and if you look at my above calculations they will back up what i wrote

www.taxcalc.eu

As a matter of interest you do pay USC on every cent you earn to the best of my knowledge

Tipp Man

angelfire9 wrote: »

Right lets see who is right & wrong here

Take a salary of €45k per annum
Single person
PAYE Tax Credit
No funky credits or allowances
Pension Contribution of 2000 per annum

Lets see what the state gets off them

Gross Pay 45,000
Pension 2,000
Pension Levy 3250
Taxable Income 39,750
Standard Rate Cut off point 36,400
Taxable @ 20% 36,400
Taxable @ 41% 3350
20% Tax = 7280
41% Tax =1373.5
Total Tax = 8653.5
Less Single Persons Tax Credit 1650
Less PAYE Tax Credit 1650

Tax Deductible in 2011 = 5353.5

PRSI
Class A Contributions
Total Earnings 45,000
Exempt on first €127 per week or 6604 per annum
Wages subject to PRSI = 38396
PRSI @ 4% = 1535.84
Health Levy @ 4% (of total pay)= 1800.00

Deductions for PRSI & Health Levy = 3335.84

Next the wonderful USC
The rates of Universal Social Charge are:

2% on the first €10,036 = €200.72
4% on the next €5,980 = €119.60
7% on €28,984 = €2,028.88

Total for USC = €2,349.20

Income Levy
2% on income up to circa 75k
45,000 x 2% = €900


Pension Levy
First 15k @ 3% = 450
Next 5k @ 6% = 300
Balance (25k) @ 10% = 2500

Total Deductions for Pension levy = 3250


So To summarise
PAYE 5353.50
PRSI 3335.84
USC 2349.2
Income Levy 900
Pension Levy 3250

Total Of Deductions = €15,188.54

as a percentage of gross salary this is 33.75%

Right so the person is made redundant
I used the following criteria to get a ballpark redundancy figure:



Net Cost of Redundancy = €7924.80

Job seeker's Benefit Payments for 1 year
Single person no dependants
196*52 = 10,192

Total Cost to Government for Redundancy for the 1st year of unemployment
Loss of Payroll Deductions €15,188.54
Cost of Statutory Redundancy €7924.80
Job Seeker's Benefit €10,192

Total - €33,305.34

Anyone want to query those calculations?

Ah yes

You are putting the loss of payroll deductions into the cost of the person being made unemployed. That doesn't go in there

Think about it

MagicSean

Did you include the 5.5% taken from the pay for mandatory pension deductions.

Pensin SU 1.5%
Pension LS 1.5%
Pension PE 2.5%

Tipp Man

k_mac wrote: »

But welfare rates haven't been halved. So redundancies at the moment would be counter productive unless they target the higher earners.

Which is why i have said in most post that the huge welfare payments are just as big a problem

Jaysoose

k_mac wrote: »

If you look at the opening post you will note I asked what benefit would it have in the short term, as in to address the deficit.



Pension deduction 5%
Paye 20%
PRSI 4%
USC 4% going up to 7%
Pension Levy 5% going up to 10%

I did read the first post and people cant ignore the point i made that the calculations need to include the cost of all perks and any pension contributions before comparing with being on the dole, you cannot simply say that someone gets paid 40K and the dole is 30K so they are better off on the dole. When calculating the true cost of an employee everything needs to be included which includes allowances, perks and any pension contributions made by the employer.

The true cost of permanent employees are much higher than the basic pay, you can ignore this and continue on with this flawed argument but at the end of the day any figures and calculations coming out of this thread are Bogus.

Jaysoose

Tipp Man wrote: »

Welfare and wages need to be cut by a lot. You are comparing wages with current welfare rates - if welfare rates was halved (which they probably need to be) then the savings would be large

Of course savings can be made - the will isn't there though

This is correct, but logical arguments like this have no place in this thread.

MagicSean

Jaysoose wrote: »

I did read the first post and people cant ignore the point i made that the calculations need to include the cost of all perks and any pension contributions before comparing with being on the dole, you cannot simply say that someone gets paid 40K and the dole is 30K so they are better off on the dole. When calculating the true cost of an employee everything needs to be included which includes allowances, perks and any pension contributions made by the employer.

The true cost of permanent employees are much higher than the basic pay, you can ignore this and continue on with this flawed argument but at the end of the day any figures and calculations coming out of this thread are Bogus.

I'm not talking about the benefit to the person. I'm referring entirely to the benefit to the state in the short term in overturning the deficit. In the short term pension costs don't come into it, unless they can be backdated to include those that have already retired.

Jaysoose

k_mac wrote: »

I'm not talking about the benefit to the person. I'm referring entirely to the benefit to the state in the short term in overturning the deficit. In the short term pension costs don't come into it, unless they can be backdated to include those that have already retired.

Define short term? one week? one year?

Its simple maths and the maths being applied here are flawed to make the arguments appear credible when they are not.

At the end of the day its being applied that the cost of reducing employees in the public sector will be mostly offset by the social welfare they will need to be paid. The maths being that its a straight swap of salary for welfare when this is completly innacurate.

If somebody could show how this is not the case im happy to accept it but we all know its the truth.

MagicSean

Jaysoose wrote: »

Define short term? one week? one year?

Its simple maths and the maths being applied here are flawed to make the arguments appear credible when they are not.

By short term I mean the length of the bailout. I think it's 2017 isn't it?

Jaysoose

k_mac wrote: »

By short term I mean the length of the bailout. I think it's 2017 isn't it?

Then taking its 6 years there would be a huge saving to the goverment if they reduced numbers.

MagicSean

Jaysoose wrote: »

Then taking its 6 years there would be a huge saving to the goverment if they reduced numbers.

Well if you say so. No need for an explanation.

Jaysoose

k_mac wrote: »

Well if you say so. No need for an explanation.

Show me how there wouldnt be a huge saving, remember to include all the figures when doing the calculations though.

MagicSean

Jaysoose wrote: »

Show me how there wouldnt be a huge saving, remember to include all the figures when doing the calculations though.

Angel already did it. You are disputing her findings but not saying how they are wrong.

Jaysoose

k_mac wrote: »

Angel already did it. You are disputing her findings but not saying how they are wrong.

Lol i suppose one way to debate a point is to completely ignore the other sides argument. Anybody can see the figures are completely wrong and dont include all the elements but then considering this is yet abother "poor public servants" thread im not surprised at the backslapping and refusal to face reality.