what is a good wage these days?

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I go further. Someone who is not contributing to society in a way that the society deems to constitute 'constructive participation' should be taxed above 50% effective.

I find it strange how people tend to respond to social policies which are not focused on the generation of private profits with the alarm call that private profits may suffer, which is what I suspect is emerging from that point.

Private profits may well suffer - but incentives to economic participation already suffer because of inaction on this point.

Problem is, as I pointed out, that what you propose would likely harm not only private profits but society too.

Economies are like donkeys; slap one on the rump and it should move forward, but slap it too hard and it'll probably kick you in the face.

Cody Pomeray

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is, as I pointed out, that what you propose would likely harm not only private profits but society too.

Selection bias.

Society is already being harmed through disincentives. Capitalism's or corporatism's interests do not run totally parallel to those of the wider society, who sometimes place higher values on social functions than the economic system can ever answer by itself.

Off the top of their heads, most people only focus on those disincentives that are in danger of affecting us or our immediate social circle, or the organization we work for.

I'm alright Jack.

OMD wrote: »

What jobs are constructive and what jobs are not?

It doesn't matter. It only matters that some roles are generally and adequately constructive to social welfare at any one point in time, and others are less constructive.

From my own point of view I would add working parents with dependents in education, college students during the course of their education, charitable donors, innovators, and those who create employment in the production of environmentally friendly resources or green energy, and those emerging from reliance on social transfers for a period. I wouldn't be opposed to going further and incentivizing socially important work like law enforcement, social care, nursing and education.

Individuals working in tax arbitrage, accountancy, and property would find it hard to get on the list.

Opponents argue that would complicate the income tax system. Of course it would. But Revenue make Vat determinations on every product and service subject to Vat in the Irish economy without much heartache, I don't feel this is a major obstacle.

djpbarry

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Look at what djpbarry is suggesting - he suggests that it is discriminatory to reward individuals for raising a family. This is ridiculous.

Only if you believe that there is some sort of moral obligation for people to have children.

Interesting that you've decided I'm a "he", by the way.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What is it we want from this society? What I am sure most people do not want is a society where those workers performing important social roles are excluded from a comfortable life, or personal dignity, because they answer a basic human instinct to gather a family, which subsequently supports their, or other's old age and contributes to the common good more generally.

Or we can let migrants plug the gap. Why not offer tax breaks to (young) immigrants?

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Society is already being harmed through disincentives. Capitalism's or corporatism's interests do not run totally parallel to those of the wider society, who sometimes place higher values on social functions than the economic system can ever answer by itself.

Logical fallacy. Just because Capitalism's (not corporatism because that's actually a political system associated with Fascism) interests do not run totally parallel to those of the wider society, does not mean that they never do. So if you penalize self-interest sufficiently, then you end up penalizing those areas of overlap and thus society suffers.

As such, I see your point, but you're adopting an extreme application of such policies, which ultimately is harmful overall.

Cody Pomeray

djpbarry wrote: »

Only if you believe that there is some sort of moral obligation for people to have children.

No. I believe there is a natural instinctive desire to raise a family for very many individuals of our species. I think constraining that in an absolute way, by outright financial disincentives, is ineffective. People are just going to raise families and then not be able to rear them in a way society would like to see its children brought up.

I think children add to the common good in more than just the skills they bring to the economy. I think young people have a cohesive effect on society generally, not just on the families who raise them, and I don't think this is adequately replaced by migrants.

wolfpawnat

It would depend on the job, hours, location of employment, family or single etc. National Industrial Wage is now circa 37,000 a year. (€36,179.00 according to the journal.ie business section) I personally would run at that with open arms and no questions asked for a 40 hour week, but to others thats a pittence.

It also depends on the job stresses. It was recently reported some hospital doctors do 72 hour shifts and lets face it, the responsibility they carry is beyond pressure IMO, so there is not enough money on the planet for me to want to do that job. I know a doc personally that is 7am-10pm 5 days a week and at least 2 weekends a month, who is high up and I have seen the payslips, not worth it, good money, but not for the hours worked and pressure.

OMD

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

.

It doesn't matter. It only matters that some roles are generally and adequately constructive to social welfare at any one point in time, and others are less constructive.

From my own point of view I would add working parents with dependents in education, college students during the course of their education, charitable donors, innovators, and those who create employment in the production of environmentally friendly resources or green energy, and those emerging from reliance on social transfers for a period. I wouldn't be opposed to going further and incentivizing socially important work like law enforcement, social care, nursing and education.

That is just about everyone. How about accountants with children in education who employ a secretary and give to charity?

Cody Pomeray

OMD wrote: »

That is just about everyone. How about accountants with children in education who employ a secretary and give to charity?

Actually, I think I left out just about everyone. The test is that the role be adequately constructive in the public mind, not that it bear any remote constructive element.

I know accountants and tax advisers, and even some barristers who occasionally pet a waiting dog or smile at an elderly person in a non-sinister way.

The simple fact of having a remotely useful aspect to your role in society isn't enough. It has to be some overarching feature of your focus, like raising a child and holding down a job, or caring for a parent in the family home, for example.

jesus_thats_gre

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

52% of income earned after €32,800 is lost
Vat rate of 23%,
DIRT rate of 33%
stealth taxes - water, property, motor tax etc.

Essentially so much our income after the SRCOP is taken that it kind of becomes an equaliser of sorts.

Net income from €32.8k is €26,613.20
But a person earning €40k gross gets to keep €30k net
And a person earning €50k gross gets to keep €34.8k net


So for all the extra responsibility and pressure which that €50k job demands, you're not even 8k per year better off than the person earning €32k.

This is why I personally don't see the point in worker harder or taking on more responsibility or pressure once you reach the SRCOP.
There is insignificant financial incentive to work harder past that point.

I would prefer the 8k a year in my hand. I would prefer to have the option to get a reasonable mortgage too.

Finally, if you can reach 50k, there is feck all stopping you from reaching 75k down the line once sufficiently motivated.

jesus_thats_gre

El Gato wrote: »

I really love when the CSO comes out with these figures.

Independent studies show that over 60% of the population are below the 'national average'

If you take the average hourly earnings, the average annual salary is €46,404.80 (based on a 40 hour week) but if you take the average weekly rate, the figure is €36,244. (which would make the average hourly rate 17.43)

Just goes to show number may be manipulated to suit.

Would be interesting to see, in reality, how many PAYE earners are getting almost €700 per week

Do they list 40 hours as the average contracted working week?

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, I think I left out just about everyone. The test is that the role be adequately constructive in the public mind, not that it bear any remote constructive element. .

There's a bit of the 'college debating society' to this concept; all very interesting but not at all practicable.

Take for instance the nurse (who you suggest should benefit from a tax break on the basis of constructivism). That's all well and good. But what about the risk manager (administrator) who develops policies to reduce risk to patients? And then what about the hr manager who ensures that staffing levels of nurses are kept at appropriate levels? And then what about the CEO who runs the hospital and makes sure healthcare is delivered efficiently? And then what about the accountant who manages the hospitals accounts and tax affairs in a way which allows the hospital to deliver more resources to patient care? And then what about the business consultant who develops ways in which the hospital can deliver care more effectively? And then what about the lawyer who advise the hospital on how to mitigate and reduce risk thus allowing the hospital to spend more money delivering healthcare.

So who gets the tax break and why? And if they all do, well then, what's the point?

Cody Pomeray

drkpower wrote: »

There's a bit of the 'college debating society' to this concept; all very interesting but not at all practicable.

Take for instance the nurse (who you suggest should benefit from a tax break on the basis of constructivism). That's all well and good. But what about the risk manager (administrator) who develops policies to reduce risk to patients? And then what about the hr manager who ensures that staffing levels of nurses are kept at appropriate levels? And then what about the CEO who runs the hospital and makes sure healthcare is delivered efficiently?

The principle that I am using is input based, not output based. I don't find myself particularly concerned about HR managers, for example. While their outcomes might be valuable, their inputs are generally less than extraordinary in terms of personal dedication and hardship in executing a public service, and taking salaries into account at the same time.

I knew someone would go down this line though. Which is why I have already said that it doesn't particularly matter to this debate which individuals benefit and which cannot.

Society has already created a reasonably long list of tax rebates or associated reliefs, from the cycle to work scheme to revenue job assist to tax reliefs for tenants who were renting at a certain period in time. The notion that all tax systems have to be cleanly and clinically delineated in machine-decipherable-logic in just nonsense.

The current system certainly is not. There are plenty of situations under the current regime where we can point to lapses of logic. That's an inevitable feature of any human decision making process requiring personal judgement.

Geuze

El Gato wrote: »

I see the figures, I simply don't see how they can be correct IMO.

You seem to be doubting the work of the CSO??

Read the Background Notes at the end to see how they conduct their work.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2013/earnlabcosts_q12013.pdf

Geuze

I am surprised that average annual earnings in FIRE Finance, Insurance and Real Estate has risen by 4.2% between 2009 and 2012, to reach 51,389.

That's an average earning of nearly 1,000 pw in these sectors.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

Geuze

djpbarry wrote: »

Family circumstances should have absolutely no bearing on how much tax an individual pays.

Note that in most modern societies, it is accepted that some amount of horizontal redistribution occurs, so transfers to families with children are the norm.

Be it via paying less tax, getting cash benefits, or getting subsidised services, e.g. childcare.

DellyBelly

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

Geuze

davidholla wrote: »

Top 20% of the country who earn a lot of money will bring those figures way up

Yes, they do.

It would be interesting to see the median hourly wage, as well as the mean.

Geuze

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

First of all, it's not.

Why don't you read the CSO to find out?

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf


Second, PS wages have already been cut three times.

Geuze

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

This is incorrect.

Average earnings are as follows:

Public Admin and Defence = 48,118
Education = 43,664
Human Health and Social Work = 36,737

See here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

spank_inferno

Geuze wrote: »

This is incorrect.

Average earnings are as follows:

Public Admin and Defence = 48,118
Education = 43,664
Human Health and Social Work = 36,737

See here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

The above is for the entire labour market.
It includes both private & public sectors.

Public on its own would be higher.

barneystinson

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

Oh, that's what you believe - I see... and do all the things you believe happen to be so?

If so you wouldn't believe that I'm gonna win the lotto tomorrow night for me, would you? Sound... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, it is outrageous alright, that you'd believe that, given the amount of numbers that have been bandied about as average PS earnings in the last few years, and none of which were anything like 70k.

OMD

Geuze wrote: »

This is incorrect.

Average earnings are as follows:

Public Admin and Defence = 48,118
Education = 43,664
Human Health and Social Work = 36,737

See here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

Average earnings for full time worker, (excluding overtime) in Public Sector is €56,000

srsly78

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, I think I left out just about everyone. The test is that the role be adequately constructive in the public mind, not that it bear any remote constructive element.

I know accountants and tax advisers, and even some barristers who occasionally pet a waiting dog or smile at an elderly person in a non-sinister way.

The simple fact of having a remotely useful aspect to your role in society isn't enough. It has to be some overarching feature of your focus, like raising a child and holding down a job, or caring for a parent in the family home, for example.

Your ideas are incredibly short-sighted. You essentially want to line accountants and others against the proverbial wall. Noone is a fan of accountants but you surely must realise their entire purpose is to facilitate the smooth function of the economy, especially regarding taxation?

"Constructive in the public mind" - so basically you mean let Joe Duffy run the country? Oh dear...

They tried something like this in Cambodia I think, they got rid of everyone except farmers.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The principle that I am using is input based, not output based. I don't find myself particularly concerned about HR managers, for example. While their outcomes might be valuable, their inputs are generally less than extraordinary in terms of personal dedication and hardship in executing a public service, and taking salaries into account at the same time.

I knew someone would go down this line though. Which is why I have already said that it doesn't particularly matter to this debate which individuals benefit and which cannot.

Society has already created a reasonably long list of tax rebates or associated reliefs, from the cycle to work scheme to revenue job assist to tax reliefs for tenants who were renting at a certain period in time. The notion that all tax systems have to be cleanly and clinically delineated in machine-decipherable-logic in just nonsense.

The current system certainly is not. There are plenty of situations under the current regime where we can point to lapses of logic. That's an inevitable feature of any human decision making process requiring personal judgement.

What is it about the nurses input that makes it more extraordinary and demonstrates more personal dedication than the CEO, or the management consultant, or the risk manager, or the cleaner who keeps the ward spic and span?

Jawgap

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

......and leaving aside the cuts already imposed, where can I find the data that backs this belief up?

I believed in Santa Claus for a while, turns out he doesn't exist.

Cody Pomeray

srsly78 wrote: »

Your ideas are incredibly short-sighted. You essentially want to line accountants and others against the proverbial wall. Noone is a fan of accountants but you surely must realise their entire purpose is to facilitate the smooth function of the economy, especially regarding taxation?

If you haven't noticed, my suggestion is a way of closer aligning economic activity with the common good. Capitalist economic activity is already widely facilitated in accordance with how the state organises the affairs of society. We build institutes of technology, offer low tax rates for corporates, offer them limited liability and legal protection, and protect private property in the interests of conforming to capitalist requirements.

However, the economy does not have a way of encouraging altruism and personal dedication in a way that is not easily marketable. e.g. donating to charity, or becoming a nurse instead of a consultant on corporate tax arbitrage, or going to work instead of staying at home because you cannot afford childcare. All I am suggesting is that we occasionally recitify what the economy cannot rectify.

I am not suggesting we dismiss economic requirements. But even the current government are not slaves to economic fortune. Almost everyone recognizes that corporate and economic interests need to be balanced with the common good.

drkpower wrote: »

What is it about the nurses input that makes it more extraordinary and demonstrates more personal dedication than the CEO, or the management consultant, or the risk manager, or the cleaner who keeps the ward spic and span?

It's really not up to me. It;s up to society to decide that. Personally, I don't think they even have to give a reason. They just have to place a higher value on one type of work and there you go. After all, that's part of the basis for determining salaries. Some of it is supply and demand, some of it is recognition for specific work based on social values, i.e. the value society puts on that work.

The really odd thing is that what I am suggesting is just taking the current system of rebates and reliefs and social judgement marginally further than already exists. We already do reward certain work via reliefs. We already do offer tax reliefs for families.

You could say black is black on these boards and someone would jump up and down about it.

AllthingsCP

About 1200-1500 every two weeks Security

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's really not up to me. It;s up to society to decide that. Personally, I don't think they even have to give a reason. They just have to place a higher value on one type of work and there you go. After all, that's part of the basis for determining salaries. Some of it is supply and demand, some of it is recognition for specific work based on social values, i.e. the value society puts on that work.

You were proposing this system earlier so I thought you might be able to provide some kind of argument or rationale for the system. Or at least something beyond 'well, sure, 'society' will decide which occupations gets tax breaks and which won't without any apparent justification.

I have to say its not hugely convincing!

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If you haven't noticed, my suggestion is a way of closer aligning economic activity with the common good.

What you suggested earlier wouldn't actually do that though - quite the opposite.

JohnMearsheimer

Reading this thread has depressed me a little. I make 18,500 euro working 35 hours a week for a multinational insurance company. After deductions I'm left with 1,381 euro a month. Out of that I pay 285 euro in rent plus bills. I'm fortunate I do not have any debt and I do not run a car. I get by month to month, I can't really save a whole lot on my earnings. I note the Morgan McKinley salary survey states the low end of the pay scale for my job is 25,000 euro. I'd love to be making in the region of 25,000 plus.