Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

Someone will have to explain this to me. How are we to save €2bn through a 10% cut in payments?

We pay out almost €21 billion in welfare payments.
10% of €21 billion is €2.1 billion.

sock puppet

opti0nal wrote: »

It's up to those advocating out-sourcing to demonstrate the benefits.

in this case, there is no apparent benefit to the consumer or the taxpayer.

The fact that work has been outsourced is itself a demonstration of its perceived benefits.

ardmacha

to get another long term pay deal set in stone before the IMF/Next government have a chance to implement real change

Yeah, right, the IMF would need to get their skates on.

woodoo

hmmm wrote: »

7. Last minute negotiations conclude at 2am with an agreement

You have them finishing early.. they will be there till 5am or 6am this year for extra effect.

Good loser

hmmm wrote: »

I'm sick of these charades. It will be the same old routine

1. Government announces all these major changes that will revolutionise "the delivery of public services"
2. Government announces that none of this will happen without union agreement
3. The newspapers go wild celebrating that the PS will finally be brought into the 21st century
4. The union leaders adopt their grim-faced look and, sensing the public mood, agree that things will be tough for their members
5. Unions and government meet for endless meetings
6. A "breakdown" of talks is announced because of the terrible things the government is asking for
7. Last minute negotiations conclude at 2am with an agreement
8. The government announces that major changes have been agreed.
9. Weeks later the public finds out it was all a con, no major changes have been agreed and what changes were announced are watered down when actually implemented.

The government said they were going to tackle the allowances issue with great fanfare and delivered very little. Now they're parading around telling us how they're going to address the issues in the PS. I hold out slim hope - to me it sounds more like an exercise by the PS to get another long term pay deal set in stone before the IMF/Next government have a chance to implement real change.

Perceptive and very wise hmmm. Most of the savings to date, I believe, came from the pay and pension adjustments made by Fianna Fail - before the CPA was signed.

Would favour all the proposals suggested by Govt. Of those I think increments should be the first to go. And not be reintroduced until there's a budget surplus. Mind you I got a lot of juicy increments in my day!

On VB tonight it appears the Govt stick is a 7% pay cut. If that isn't across the board the higher paid will be cut deeper.

Like you hmmm I expect another stitch up with phoney 'savings'.

Scofflaw

sock puppet wrote: »

The fact that work has been outsourced is itself a demonstration of its perceived benefits.

That doesn't follow at all - the fact that the HSE exists is hardly a demonstration of its benefits. Both are certainly a demonstration that there are perceived or expected benefits, to some party or other. It remains to be demonstrated that the expected benefits are possible, are actually realised, and are benefits to the taxpayer as opposed to anyone else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

fliball123

daveyeh wrote: »

"Sorry love, can't make it up to that rape/murder thats going on up your way, we've got a smashed window emergency to get to asap."

well considering that there were 2 children in the back seat covered and cut with glass it was very serious...so have we only 1 guard on duty per day. You can take out what you want from what I have said . Anytime I have had dealings with the guards or going publicly to the hospital the experience has not been good. Now am I saying these people dont do a good job, No I am not saying that. I believe they work very hard, I also said that when in James the nurses where ran off their feet. In fact I hope that the front line workers are left alone when the CPA 2 comes into place. But the kicker is if they were to have the wage reduced we may actually be able to hire more people.

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Everybody is arguing it..

Sorry the last 2/3 debates I have seen on the likes of VB and on PK the union lads never once questioned this 116 billion over the next 30 years for pensions.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Maybe in your day-to-day dealings with the public service you reflect that attitude that you take up on these threads.

It is a natural reaction for people to be less than fully helpful to those who are rude and insulting to them. Before you jump at me, I am not justifying their behaviour to you, only offering a possible explanation:).

Godge I have said I think the front line do a good job, they are under severe pressure do to the cuts in numbers being forced on them. This is because a fairly high % of all budgets throughout the public sector is used for pay and this is ring fenced. When dealing with the PS I have always been courteous, never blown my top. If things like my experience in James got too much I just moved on and went private. So your argument is nonsense

fliball123

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

You've got several people arguing with it right here on this thread.

Yeah I am talking about the so called experts who have all agreed on this figure. Surely they no more than Godge and the rest on here. Sure this is just a talking shop

fliball123

sean200 wrote: »

so you get no Tax relief on your VHI ?????????????
do you claim Tax relief on you medical costs???????

yes I claim tax relief on it and no I didnt claim for my medical costs..What has this got to do with CPA II

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

You do realise that having VHI makes no difference if you turn up at A&E in Temple Street or Crumlin, don't you? You still get the same service.

I don't think that Blackrock A&E accept kids, just pass them on to the children's hospital once stabilised.

Yes I appreciate that but if my son has anything badly wrong with him under our VHI he will be entitled to a private room with out having to be lying on a trolley.

fliball123

Celticfire wrote: »

How did you get to the hospital when you were unconscious?

Ambulance, and to be fair they were about half an hour to get there which is quite good..Your point being?

fliball123

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

You have to hand it to Liam Doran ,he is a hell of a representative ,every time I hear his voice I grind my teeth in frustration ,yet by the end of the interview he has convinced me that nurses are the most put upon people in creation and deserve a pay rise. With his articulate level of lobbying and pushover Howlin across the table nurses definately have nothing to fear from CP2.

Yeah I agree is a smooth operator and as I say I cant see any cuts when you have unions and Public servants on both sides of the table but like I say the gun is too their head so it will be interesting to see how things go

squod

spikethedog wrote: »

We pay out almost €21 billion in welfare payments.
10% of €21 billion is €2.1 billion.

The welfare budget is €21bn. You do understand that that's a departmental budget? About €3.7bn goes to job-seekers benefit and job-seekers allowance.

Slightly higher than the figure of €3bn per year spent on PS pensions.

antoobrien

squod wrote: »

The welfare budget is €21bn. You do understand that that's a departmental budget?

Did you even read the post you commented on:

spikethedog wrote: »

10% cut on all welfare payments

The poster didn't specify one payment it was all of them. That means (approx) €200m off SW, €400m off enemployment etc etc totalling 2.1bn in cuts.

Interestingly DSP are redesigning their website, so the stats are no longer available.

sock puppet

Scofflaw wrote: »

That doesn't follow at all - the fact that the HSE exists is hardly a demonstration of its benefits. Both are certainly a demonstration that there are perceived or expected benefits, to some party or other. It remains to be demonstrated that the expected benefits are possible, are actually realised, and are benefits to the taxpayer as opposed to anyone else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

From what I've seen there's practically no publicly available information on this other than the increase in cost for consumers. So perceived benefits are pretty much all there is to go on.

Geuze

squod wrote: »

The welfare budget is €21bn. You do understand that that's a departmental budget? About €3.7bn goes to job-seekers benefit and job-seekers allowance.

Slightly higher than the figure of €3bn per year spent on PS pensions.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report---2011.aspx

Link to the 2011 DSP stats.

Pensions = 6bn.

JSA = 3bn, JSB = 927m, total un about 3.9bn.

daveyeh

fliball123 wrote: »

Anytime I have had dealings with the guards or going publicly to the hospital the experience has not been good. Now am I saying these people dont do a good job, No I am not saying that. I believe they work very hard, I also said that when in James the nurses where ran off their feet. In fact I hope that the front line workers are left alone when the CPA 2 comes into place. But the kicker is if they were to have the wage reduced we may actually be able to hire more people.

Ok, so you're saying these guards and hospital employees who do a good job and work very hard should be left alone in the cpa2, but also should have their wages cut to hire more of them??? :rolleyes: Some reward for their efforts.

daveyeh

fliball123 wrote: »

yes I claim tax relief on it and no I didnt claim for my medical costs..What has this got to do with CPA II

Its automatic. You don't claim it.

daveyeh

fliball123 wrote: »

Yes I appreciate that but if my son has anything badly wrong with him under our VHI he will be entitled to a private room with out having to be lying on a trolley.

Not true. There is no entitlement.

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

The welfare budget is €21bn. You do understand that that's a departmental budget? About €3.7bn goes to job-seekers benefit and job-seekers allowance.

Slightly higher than the figure of €3bn per year spent on PS pensions.

I said a 10% cut in all welfare payments, not just jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance.

squod

spikethedog wrote: »

I said a 10% cut in all welfare payments, not just jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance.

Still doesn't add up. Care to explain?

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

Still doesn't add up. Care to explain?

The dept. of social protection pays out €21 billion per annum, doesn't it?

Godge

squod wrote: »

Still doesn't add up. Care to explain?

The €21bn covers:

Child Benefit,
Family Income Supplement,
Maternity and Adoption Benefit,
One Parent Families Benefit
Payments to Guardians
Carer's Allowance
Carer's Benefit
Respite Care Grant
Domiciliary Care Allowance
Workplace supports
Partial Capacity Benefit
Illness Benefit
Invalidity Pension and other supports
State Pensions
Free Travel
Household Benefits and other supports
Widows
Widowers and Surviving Civil Partners
Death and Bereavement grants
Supplementary Welfare Allowance
Rent Supplement
Mortgage Interest Supplement
Fuel Allowance and other supports


The poster was suggesting a cut of 10% in all to achieve a saving of €2.1 billion. Maybe I have missed a few smaller payments but I would guess that a cut of 11% in all of the above would definitely get the €2.1 billion.

P.S. Before you attack me, I am not saying that this should happen, I am just saying that his figures do add up.

squod

spikethedog wrote: »

The dept. of social protection pays out €21 billion per annum, doesn't it?

No

spikethedog

Godge wrote: »

The €21bn covers:

Child Benefit,
Family Income Supplement,
Maternity and Adoption Benefit,
One Parent Families Benefit
Payments to Guardians
Carer's Allowance
Carer's Benefit
Respite Care Grant
Domiciliary Care Allowance
Workplace supports
Partial Capacity Benefit
Illness Benefit
Invalidity Pension and other supports
State Pensions
Free Travel
Household Benefits and other supports
Widows
Widowers and Surviving Civil Partners
Death and Bereavement grants
Supplementary Welfare Allowance
Rent Supplement
Mortgage Interest Supplement
Fuel Allowance and other supports


The poster was suggesting a cut of 10% in all to achieve a saving of €2.1 billion. Maybe I have missed a few smaller payments but I would guess that a cut of 11% in all of the above would definitely get the €2.1 billion.

P.S. Before you attack me, I am not saying that this should happen, I am just saying that his figures do add up.

For 2011 the figures are as follows;

Total expenditure €20,967,841,000
- Admin of € 629,831,000

---

Total paid out by
dept. social protection €20,338,010,000

10% of that is €2,033,801,000

spikethedog

squod wrote: »

No

Maybe you should have a look at the official figures posted by Geuze, post no. 140.
After administration the budget is just over €20 billion.

squod

Godge wrote: »

The €21bn covers:

Child Benefit,
Family Income Supplement,
Maternity and Adoption Benefit,
One Parent Families Benefit
Payments to Guardians
Carer's Allowance
Carer's Benefit
Respite Care Grant
Domiciliary Care Allowance
Workplace supports
Partial Capacity Benefit
Illness Benefit
Invalidity Pension and other supports
State Pensions
Free Travel
Household Benefits and other supports
Widows
Widowers and Surviving Civil Partners
Death and Bereavement grants
Supplementary Welfare Allowance
Rent Supplement
Mortgage Interest Supplement
Fuel Allowance and other supports


The poster was suggesting a cut of 10% in all to achieve a saving of €2.1 billion. Maybe I have missed a few smaller payments but I would guess that a cut of 11% in all of the above would definitely get the €2.1 billion.

P.S. Before you attack me, I am not saying that this should happen, I am just saying that his figures do add up.

Better link here. A 10% cut in the administration budget would of course cause ''uproar'' and ''mass strike action''. An 11% cut in administration might cause some kind of stroke among union leaders.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/2010stats.pdf

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Yeah I am talking about the so called experts who have all agreed on this figure. Surely they no more than Godge and the rest on here. Sure this is just a talking shop

You are talking about a few talking heads on tv and radio (the constantins and mcwilliams type economists, and others who know even less) as so-called experts. If you want to be a sheep following them, go ahead. Otherwise, read my post again below.

It takes the important parts of the out-of-date 2009 report and shows and explains in simple language how the assumptions and calculations are wrong. You do not need to be an expert to follow my reasoning, you just need to have a bit of common sense.

I mean really. The report is based on an assumption that public service numbers will increase by 23% over 2008 figures by 2018. That means it assumes an increase to 392,370. The current target for the Government is 282,000 by 2015 plus another chunk taken out by Croke Park 2 by 2018, let us say, 270,000. At the very least that means the numbers will be 31% less and the cost as well so any figure in that report for the cost of pensions in 30, 40 years time is grossly overexaggerated. If you want to argue the point, please show how my analysis is wrong.

Godge wrote: »

Here is the report published in 2009.

http://audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Net present value of liabilities as of December 2008 is €101 billion not €116 billion.

First interesting quote:

"Overall, the examination found that, based on the cost of one year’s additional service, the pension provision for an average public servant will cost around 9% of pay after account is taken of contributions made including the new pension related deduction introduced in 2009."

So in this case, the cost to the employer is 9% of pay. I have been in private sector jobs where the cost to the employer of contributions to my private pension scheme has been higher.

In relation to the early retirement schemes in planning in 2009, it states:

"The impact of the scheme will be to increase pension outflows in the short term and to reduce them in the longer term due to the lower number of years’ service achieved by those taking early retirement."

A clear signal that the early retirement schemes would reduce the long-term liability.

"2.21

Annual gross cash outflows are projected to increase by over 500% from €2.4 billion in 2009 to €14.7 billion in 2058 in constant 2008 price terms. Contribution income, including PRD, is also projected to increase by over 300% from €1.7 billion to €7.4 billion. The introduction of the PRD would significantly offset the cost of meeting pension obligations if it is maintained at 2009 rates rising from €1.0 billion in 2009 to €4.6 billion in 2058."

This paragraph 2.21 is very interesting. It shows that in 2009 gross outflow is €2.4 billion and contributions and PRD total €2.7 billion. Wow, current public servants paid for their predecessors pensions in 2009. by 2058 the gross outflow will be €14.7 billion but the total contributions will be €12 bn leaving a net annual cash flow of €2.7 billion. Hardly the oncoming train that will bankrupt the country. And this is before we look at the assumptions.

"Between 2038 and 2058 gross benefit expenditure is projected to increase from 2.5% to 3.6% of GNP. This increase also results from the projected growth in the number of pensioners and the related pensions outflow over this period exceeding the growth in GNP. The projected growth in the number of pensioners results from an increase in size of the public service which is forecast to increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018."

Another interesting quote. Does anyone really believe that the public service will increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018 when it is already down 10% on 2008. That (23% plus 10%) suggests you could shave one-third off the projected cost even before you look at Howlin's latest cuts in numbers.

A.18

The value of the accrued pension liability is calculated assuming that future pension increases are awarded at the same rate as general salary inflation i.e. 1.75% p.a. above price inflation (pay parity).

Here is another flaw that overestimates the cost. General salary increases of 1.75% plus inflation. That has not happened since 2008, salaries have gone down. As anyone who understands net present value would tell you, changes in the near future have a big effect because of the compound effect. Therefore if a 2008 calculation envisages 1.75% plus inflation as a pay increase every year and pay is lower four years later than 2008, the effect is that the figure of €116 billion is grossly overestimated. In the sensitivity analysis they only looked at the situation where the salary increases were greater (rather than lesser which is how it turned out) and they concluded that

"C.10 The impact is an increase in the net cost by between 1.4% and 7.2%. This demonstrates that the cost is very sensitive to this assumption."


I haven't time to point out other multiple flaws in the report as it relates to events that actually happened since 2008 but enough in the above to state with certainty that the cost is nowhere near as dear as they make out.