A compulsory 'Broadcast tax' next on the list for homes in Ireland

listermint

alastair wrote: »

Oh please - not this nonsense. What's your local authority and we'll review the list of services they provide on their website.

Guards and hospitals have nothing to do with local authority funding btw.

SDCC

And who said local authority funding pays for guards or hospitals, because i certainly didnt.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

Begrudgery isn't a particularly compelling case against the merits of public service broadcasting. Some of ye wear that badge with pride. And there are precious few people in this country who don't make use of RTE services in some form - quite possibly none.

You work for RTE im guessing ?

alastair

listermint wrote: »

SDCC

And who said local authority funding pays for guards or hospitals, because i certainly didnt.

You didn't?

Hospitals, well.... il leave the HSI for the moment.

Guards ? try waiting in a station for service / phoning for a squad car. Station closures left right and centre.

All this in the context of you 'not getting services' for your property tax?

http://www.sdcc.ie/
Feel free to review the full list of services provided.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

You work for RTE im guessing ?

You guess wrong. I'm just not blinded to the value of public broadcasting because I reckon some broadcasters are overpaid.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

You didn't?



All this in the context of you 'not getting services' for your property tax?

http://www.sdcc.ie/
Feel free to review the full list of services provided.

Im pretty sure you understand you are being pedantic. As i also referenced water tax there. I was talking general taxation and also specifically responding to your property tax 'slur' about the general populace

listermint

alastair wrote: »

You guess wrong. I'm just not blinded to the value of public broadcasting because I reckon some broadcasters are overpaid.

Public broadcasting is it, So does that entail being hogtied to the pension supplements of all ex staff and broadcasters that have gone through that organisation.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

your property tax 'slur' about the general populace

The general populace paid their property taxes without the kind of whinging that the scabby feckers I'm referring to engaged in. It's a 'slur' on scabby feckers - no-one else.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

Public broadcasting is it, So does that entail being hogtied to the pension supplements of all ex staff and broadcasters that have gone through that organisation.

When you say 'hogtied' - you actually mean the legal responsibility to pay people pensions they are entitled to under contracts of employment? If so - yes - I generally expect state-funded bodies to act within the law.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

When you say 'hogtied' - you actually mean the legal responsibility to pay people pensions they are entitled to under contracts of employment? If so - yes - I generally expect state-funded bodies to act within the law.

Ah i see, so how does that work with people with private pension plans such as myself. That arent worth anything close to what they were when the contracts were 'signed up to' ?

Do we just increase taxes and charges on an already loss making might aswell be bankrupt RTE to pay for it?

Is that your general expectation, or should they be wiped out just like lets say... the people that are paying for this sort of gold lined luxury?

alastair

listermint wrote: »

Ah i see, so how does that work with people with private pension plans such as myself. That arent worth anything close to what they were when the contracts were 'signed up to' ?

Has anyone attempted to undermine your contract of employment? No they have not - you want to screw someone else's legal contract because your defined contribution plan isn't all you expected it would be? Nice.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

Has anyone attempted to undermine your contract of employment? No they have not - you want to screw someone else's legal contract because your defined benefit plan isn't all you expected it would be? Nice.

Fixed defined benefit plans should never be paid by the state should the organisation in question be unable to pay of it out of their funding.

So explain in detail how that is screwing other peoples 'legal' as you say contract. Specifically when the state in question is under the control of the IMF and taking extensive loans out to pay for these 'luxuries'


My kids be paying for these fixed defined benefit plans.... nice....

listermint

Oh and dont get me started on these parachute payments, Id imagine most of them arent even written into these so called contracts you speak of.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

So explain in detail how that is screwing other peoples 'legal' as you say contract. Specifically when the state in question is under the control of the IMF and taking extensive loans out to pay for these 'luxuries'

There's that begrudgery again. The legal situation is simple enough - anyone with a contract of employment that includes a specified pension deal is entitled to their (ex)employer following through on that contract - if anyone attempts to undermine that legal contract, then they're free to go to court to ensure their contract is upheld - which it will be - stack court costs onto that, and lets see how much of saving you'll make there.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

Oh and dont get me started on these parachute payments, Id imagine most of them arent even written into these so called contracts you speak of.

I really can't comment on your imagined scenarios.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

There's that begrudgery again. The legal situation is simple enough - anyone with a contract of employment that includes a specified pension deal is entitled to their (ex)employer following through on that contract - if anyone attempts to undermine that legal contract, then they're free to go to court to ensure their contract is upheld - which it will be - stack court costs onto that, and lets see how much of saving you'll make there.

levies.

The state could get a claw back.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

There's that begrudgery again. The legal situation is simple enough - anyone with a contract of employment that includes a specified pension deal is entitled to their (ex)employer following through on that contract - if anyone attempts to undermine that legal contract, then they're free to go to court to ensure their contract is upheld - which it will be - stack court costs onto that, and lets see how much of saving you'll make there.

If someone uses the term begrudgery again il explode. Its such a cop out phrase.


Due to the mess of the place we SHOULD be and HAVE to claw back some of these entitlements. However, as usual and i am confident that you know this. No government will tackle this at all. Leaving me and everyone in the middle paying for it.

Its laughable that you think its okay to subject the rest of the population to to prop up a very select few in what im sure you'll agree are excessive pension entitlements at the top. What would be wrong with clawing back some of these monies from outrageously high supplements ?

alastair

listermint wrote: »

If someone uses the term begrudgery again il explode. Its such a cop out phrase.


Due to the mess of the place we SHOULD be and HAVE to claw back some of these entitlements. However, as usual and i am confident that you know this. No government will tackle this at all. Leaving me and everyone in the middle paying for it.

Its laughable that you think its okay to subject the rest of the population to to prop up a very select few in what im sure you'll agree are excessive pension entitlements at the top. What would be wrong with clawing back some of these monies from outrageously high supplements ?

Again - for clarity:

We spend less than most european states on supporting public service broadcasting, and we have a strong percentage of audience for public broadcasting, given the range of alternatives on offer, when compared to most of Europe. Whatever your feelings about Tubridy's take home pay etc, those are the facts.

It's kinda hard to get excited about the 'mess' when it seems to come down to selectively plonking a special pension levy on Pat Kenny to make you feel better about funding public service broadcasting. Smacks of begrudgery to me.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

It's kinda hard to get excited about the 'mess' when it seems to come down to selectively plonking a special pension levy on Pat Kenny to make you feel better about funding public service broadcasting. Smacks of begrudgery to me.

It's no bother slapping one on Joe Bloggs, retired printer (private pension) though?

nesf

SamHall wrote: »

It's no bother slapping one on Joe Bloggs, retired printer (private pension) though?

As far as I know (I could be wrong), Pat Kenny is one of the people hired as a contractor by RTE, so his company handles his pay and pensions and as a contractor he's not entitled to a pension from RTE. So, he'd have gotten hit in his pension the same as other self-employed people if he was part of a pension fund.

listermint

Pat Kenny is an extreme example here.

What about upper and middle management receiving 65K plus pensions and being already handed parachute payments on retirement. These are not exceptions to the norm as alaistair well knows.

Defending it as just derserves is completely insane. Its a clear example of the Rot that there is in irish society when the masses and the youth are seen as a calf to milk to pay for these historical and completely disgraceful luxuries.

Making second class citizens out of the average worker is all this serves as the gap is widened from top to bottom. These are the faceless former employees that get to have a second holiday home and retire early and have the cash to spend on multiple holidays. Care free pushed into an upper class lifestyle off the back of everyone else. We all know them, ive got some in my own family and know them well as first person friends and aquaintances. These arent anecdotal tales they are a fact of how this country has been run since the 70's and is utter muck.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

Pat Kenny is an extreme example here.

What about upper and middle management receiving 65K plus pensions and being already handed parachute payments on retirement. These are not exceptions to the norm as alaistair well knows.

Defending it as just derserves is completely insane. Its a clear example of the Rot that there is in irish society when the masses and the youth are seen as a calf to milk to pay for these historical and completely disgraceful luxuries.

Making second class citizens out of the average worker is all this serves as the gap is widened from top to bottom. These are the faceless former employees that get to have a second holiday home and retire early and have the cash to spend on multiple holidays. Care free pushed into an upper class lifestyle off the back of everyone else. We all know them, ive got some in my own family and know them well as first person friends and aquaintances. These arent anecdotal tales they are a fact of how this country has been run since the 70's and is utter muck.

RTE haven't had defined benefit pension schemes since the 80's. And you can't retrospectively take away a legally contracted pension from those who had them before that point - you'll only end up losing more money in the courts. Quite how you see all of this 'widening a divide' and making you a 'second class citizen' is something of a mystery.

Banjo String

nesf wrote: »

As far as I know (I could be wrong), Pat Kenny is one of the people hired as a contractor by RTE, so his company handles his pay and pensions and as a contractor he's not entitled to a pension from RTE. So, he'd have gotten hit in his pension the same as other self-employed people if he was part of a pension fund.

I never mentioned Pat Kenny.

My levy suggestion applied to all the rte staff on exorbitant salaries aand pensions.

interesting that pat is hired as a contractor though.

They'd avail of corporation tax I presume?

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

interesting that pat is hired as a contractor though.

Pretty much all the big earner broadcasters are private contractors.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

RTE haven't had defined benefit pension schemes since the 80's. And you can't retrospectively take away a legally contracted pension from those who had them before that point - you'll only end up losing more money in the courts. Quite how you see all of this 'widening a divide' and making you a 'second class citizen' is something of a mystery.

You find it a mystery that current tax payers are paying way over the odds to keep people in exorbitant fixed pension entitlements as making the current workforce second class citizens, You find that a mystery?

Governments can do what they want but they dont want to rock their close personal boat. Circle of trust and all that.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

You find it a mystery that current tax payers are paying way over the odds to keep people in exorbitant fixed pension entitlements as making the current workforce second class citizens, You find that a mystery?

Governments can do what they want but they dont want to rock their close personal boat. Circle of trust and all that.

You've made claims for 'exorbitant fixed pension entitlements' despite there not having been any fixed pensions attached to contracts in RTE for 23 years, you 'imagine' golden parachute deals are offered, but present no evidence to support this contention, and you conveniently ignore the fact that you've paid pretty much exactly the same amount of tax money to support RTE for years - so all the rhetoric of widening divides, and second class citizens, seems like a nice opportunity to rant without taking the facts into account.

listermint

alastair wrote: »

You've made claims for 'exorbitant fixed pension entitlements' despite there not having been any fixed pensions attached to contracts in RTE for 23 years, you 'imagine' golden parachute deals are offered, but present no evidence to support this contention, and you conveniently ignore the fact that you've paid pretty much exactly the same amount of tax money to support RTE for years - so all the rhetoric of widening divides, and second class citizens, seems like a nice opportunity to rant without taking the facts into account.

Okay so, Since your in the full loop then. What is the average Pension Entitlements for Permanent Staff in RTE with lets say i dont know 10 years service and what payment do they receive on retirement for example.

for full facts for instance.

alastair

listermint wrote: »

Okay so, Since your in the full loop then. What is the average Pension Entitlements for Permanent Staff in RTE with lets say i dont know 10 years service and what payment do they receive on retirement for example.

for full facts for instance.

How would I know that? The difference here is that I'm not 'imagining' scenarios and then ranting off the back of that supposition. Someone on 10 years service will be on a defined contribution pension, so there's no way of knowing what their end pension entitlement would be - they'd be in the same pension fund and annuity lottery as anyone else.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Pretty much all the big earner broadcasters are private contractors.

Yeah and as such their enormous salaries are paid to the 'companies' they are 'employees' of.

Which technically means pat and Co pay relatively little into the revenue coffers compared to average Joe the paye worker.

and the govt want to criminalise tax payers who don't want to fund their lifestyles?

You're actually defending this?

listermint

alastair wrote: »

How would I know that? The difference here is that I'm not 'imagining' scenarios and then ranting off the back of that supposition. Someone on 10 years service will be on a defined contribution pension, so there's no way of knowing what their end pension entitlement would be - they'd be in the same pension fund and annuity lottery as anyone else.

The simple facts are we shouldnt be guaranteeing exchequer funds to these schemes that are in turmoil. And we are doing that. Its a two tier system making me pay for the mismanagement of your scheme. So yes i feel entirely second class.

bumper234

SamHall wrote: »

Yeah and as such their enormous salaries are paid to the 'companies' they are 'employees' of.

Which technically means pat and Co pay relatively little into the revenue coffers compared to average Joe the paye worker.

and the govt want to criminalise tax payers who don't want to fund their lifestyles?

You're actually defending this?

This,

Sack them all and bring in new talent or let them renegotiate their contracts to a much lower paying one.