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

The Duffy Walsh Report

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    There is an assumption that businesses will automatically hire extra staff
    most of them won't so the government will probably have a reduced tax take.
    It will also put more people back into a position of being better off on the dole than working, and will lengthen the dole queue.


  • Options
    #33
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    the groutch wrote: »
    There is an assumption that businesses will automatically hire extra staff
    most of them won't so the government will probably have a reduced tax take.
    It will also put more people back into a position of being better off on the dole than working, and will lengthen the dole queue.

    Not if the necessary social welfare reform (reductions) is implemented as well


  • Options
    #34
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    dvpower wrote: »
    It would, but I'd be inclined to think that if a full 18% of pay comes from the premium payment for working on one day, theres something askew.

    my longest shift of the week, and double time


  • Options
    #35
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    the groutch wrote: »
    There is an assumption that businesses will automatically hire extra staff
    most of them won't so the government will probably have a reduced tax take.
    I'm not really in a position to agree or disagree with you specifically on that assumption, but it is only an assumption and I don't think you can really be sure of this.

    A business may not necessarily hire staff, but that is not to say that the measure of the benefit to firms of reforming the JLCs will be negligible to tax revenues, particularly whereby firms cut labour costs and inefficiencies and thereby survive where they might otherwise have failed, or where healthier firms expand or pass on benefits to consumers, stimulating the consumer economy.


  • Options
    #36
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,524 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I wonder does anyone still believe Labour is committed to getting the deficit under control when an entirely sensible proposal is attacked with such hysteria by the various vested interests.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Sand wrote: »
    I wonder does anyone still believe Labour is committed to getting the deficit under control when an entirely sensible proposal is attacked with such hysteria by the various vested interests.
    Who are the vested interests, Labour or the report author?

    Or people who think this is an unwise path given that Labour will not allow a serious tackling of the welfare bill?


  • Options
    #38
    brannid3
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭brannid3


    the groutch wrote: »
    There is an assumption that businesses will automatically hire extra staff
    most of them won't so the government will probably have a reduced tax take.
    It will also put more people back into a position of being better off on the dole than working, and will lengthen the dole queue.

    Completely agree with this comment, my employer would not hire anyone else and the business is already running on a skeletal staff like many other businesses in this country.


  • Options
    #39
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Is it not against basic economic theory and commonsense to think that reducing the cost of a service (labour) will not increase the demand for it?

    If the costs of a business are reduced that will increase the profits which will enable the business to survive or expand -potentially hiring more staff.

    If these principles are not applicable (and commensense is a scarce commodity in Irish economic/political debate) increasing JLC wages and premiums should have no economic consequences for firms or employers.

    Logically then these increases should also have no economic consequences for workers/employees!


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Okay so the government might save a few bob on dole payments -IF businesses actually employ new workers. Most places are over-staffed at present, well in retail anyway.

    The likes of Dunnes, Tesco, Penny's, etc. don't recruit full-time workers, most new employees will be on flexible contracts -probably 15-20 hours a week. So employees will still be able to claim certain benefits and possibly even dole if they only get less than 3 days a week.

    What about the wage reduction for employees? This will lower their spending -depressing consumer spending further and subsequently VAT returns.

    I was very disappointed when nothing ever came of the IMF's supposed cull of the public service. It really hasn't happened. Yearly increments ,etc. are still being paid.


Advertisement