Long term effect of bad debts on taxpayer

Slideshowbob

All things being equal, with bank debt becoming sovereign debt, how many years of additional taxation will it take to get back the levels we were at previously?

My guess is 50 years

Icepick

levels of what?

Geuze

Levels of public debt.

Yes, the banking crisis has added 62-64bn to our public net liabilities. That is huge. So painful.

Our public debt is also rising due to running "regular" fiscal deficits, (i.e. not linked to banking crisis).

The annual debt interest bill is rising fast as a result.

What does all this mean:

permanently higher taxes
less public exp on non-interest
much more interest exp

Sad. Sickening.

Icepick

Geuze wrote: »

Levels of public debt.

Yes, the banking crisis has added 62-64bn to our public net liabilities. That is huge. So painful.

Our public debt is also rising due to running "regular" fiscal deficits, (i.e. not linked to banking crisis).

The annual debt interest bill is rising fast as a result.

What does all this mean:

permanently higher taxes
less public exp on non-interest
much more interest exp

Sad. Sickening.

And yet the Labour Party are coming up with new welfare schemes while not reducing the old ones, not even by the amount required by the bailout plan.
And the public sector is actually getting salary increases.
Only bankruptcy can stop this madness, but European politicians decided to burden their tax payers to make sure Ireland won't go bankrupt despite the dire situation.
If the basket case that is Greece is being saved, that madness probably won't stop either.

ardmacha

And the public sector is actually getting salary increases.

False. The public sector are getting salary cuts.
It is remarkable how people come on here criticising politicians, which should be easy enough, but then find it acceptable to engage in the same falsehoods that politicians use, it is no wonder the country is in the state it is in.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

False. The public sector are getting salary cuts.
It is remarkable how people come on here criticising politicians, which should be easy enough, but then find it acceptable to engage in the same falsehoods that politicians use, it is no wonder the country is in the state it is in.

Except it is true. Wages in Q2 2013 are up to their highest since 2009. You are the one in the wrong.
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2013/earnlabcosts_q22013.pdf

ardmacha

Except it is true. Wages in Q2 2013 are up to their highest since 2009. You are the one in the wrong.

You know very well that PS payscales have not increased in this period and the CSO report specifically states that changes are due to compositional effects. But then you are not really interested in the information value of the report, only in the scope for point scoring based on trite interpretations of the data. If the PS reduces the number of cleaners, but keeps the same number of surgeons, the Evening Herald and the likes of many of the posters here would be ranting that the average pay in the PS had gone up!

It is notable that when I argued that the country was in a mess because of misrepresentation and that those "critics" of politicians themselves had similarly low standards, someone came forward to prove my point.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

You know very well that PS payscales have not increased in this period and the CSO report specifically states that changes are due to compositional effects. But then you are not really interested in the information value of the report, only in the scope for point scoring based on trite interpretations of the data. If the PS reduces the number of cleaners, but keeps the same number of surgeons, the Evening Herald and the likes of many of the posters here would be ranting that the average pay in the PS had gone up!

It is notable that when I argued that the country was in a mess because of misrepresentation and that those "critics" of politicians themselves had similarly low standards, someone came forward to prove my point.

You made a stupid statement that is not backed up by facts. You were insulting to the previous poster and now you are being insulting to me. The facts just don't suit your argument. Yes PS workers have had pay cuts but many have also had rises. When you take the cuts and the rises together average pay is going up.

Your argument about surgeons is just total bull. Surgeons unlike many PS workers on lower pay have not had increments to offset their payouts. They have also had payouts way above the average for public sector workers. So the reality is changes to surgeons pay is bringing the average down not bringing it up.

The only one misrepresenting facts is you.

Taxburden carrier

All this will not matter when we eventually run out of money with our Ponzi style economy

ardmacha

You were insulting to the previous poster and now you are being insulting to me.

The repeated misuse of data in this forum is an insult to the intelligence of all those who read it.

Yes PS workers have had pay cuts but many have also had rises.

Of course individuals have progressed in their careers, and in some cases received a pay rise, which does not mean a pay rise for the public service.

When you take the cuts and the rises together average pay is going up.

Really? So PS pay in aggregate in 2013 Q3 is higher than 2013 Q2?

So the reality is changes to surgeons pay is bringing the average down not bringing it up.

I didn't say that surgeon's pay had increased, I said that if more lower paid work staff left, so that surgeons became a greater proportion of the staff, then the average wage would increase. This is the "changes in the composition of employees in a given sector or group" in the explanatory note in the CSO report.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

The repeated misuse of data in this forum is an insult to the intelligence of all those who read it.

The previous poster said public sector workers are getting pay rises. I agreed and gave proof. You call that misrepresenting data

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course individuals have progressed in their careers, and in some cases received a pay rise, which does not mean a pay rise for the public service.

No one said the public service is getting a pay rise. Once again you are trying to misrepresent what was said. Once again. Some people have had pay rises. All have had cuts. However some rises were so large that they not only negated the pay cuts for that individual but for the entire public sector. Now you can argue those people deserve those rises but it is stupid to argue those rises did not occur especially in the face of the facts.

ardmacha wrote: »

Really? So PS pay in aggregate in 2013 Q3 is higher than 2013 Q2?

Again no one said that and you are the one misrepresenting things here. Average pay, Q2to Q2 is rising. Only someone trying to misrepresent the facts would compare quarters in the way you are. Compare yearly quarters. Seasonal factors can affect one quarter to the next.

ardmacha wrote: »

I didn't say that surgeon's pay had increased, I said that if more lower paid work staff left, so that surgeons became a greater proportion of the staff, then the average wage would increase. This is the "changes in the composition of employees in a given sector or group" in the explanatory note in the CSO report.

I never said you said surgeons pay had increased. Again you misrepresent the facts. There are about 380,000 people employed in public sector. About 1200 of them are surgeons. Do I really need to analyse the rest of your statement or can you see how ridiculous it is. Especially when surgeons pay has been cut far more than the others. Maths is obviously not your strong point.
Are you really saying that the workers who left were generally so low paid that their leaving pushes the average up so much it wipes out the pay rises? Especially when early retirement (ie workers on the highest point of their pay scale) made up a large amount of the reduction in numbers.

You made a stupid comment. You may have misunderstood what ice pick or I said but we are not the ones misrepresenting facts. So why not give use your facts. Not your opinion but facts, properly represented.

ardmacha

OMD wrote:

No one said the public service is getting a pay rise.

Icepick said "And the public sector is actually getting salary increases."

OMD wrote:

Originally Posted by ardmacha
Really? So PS pay in aggregate in 2013 Q3 is higher than 2013 Q2?
Again no one said that and you are the one misrepresenting things here.

If Icepick said that the public sector were getting pay increases, then pay would indeed be higher. Yet apparently you are saying that it isn't.

OMD wrote:

Maths is obviously not your strong point.

I think this requires some example of an invalid calculation on my part. To illustrate that concept of compositional change I used the example of surgeons are they are well paid. I did not produce calculations for the entire PS of this compositional change.

OMD wrote:

Are you really saying that the workers who left were generally so low paid that their leaving pushes the average up so much it wipes out the pay cuts?

No, I am not saying this. The pay cuts have not been wiped out, so it would be pointless for anyone to claim such a thing. You claim that some rises were so large that they not only negated the pay cuts for that individual but for the entire public sector, perhaps you'd like to show your mathematical prowess by illustrating this.

I may have misunderstood what you or Icepick meant, but I can only go on what you wrote.

jimmycrackcorm

ardmacha wrote: »

You know very well that PS payscales have not increased in this period and the CSO report specifically states that changes are due to compositional effects. But then you are not really interested in the information value of the report, only in the scope for point scoring based on trite interpretations of the data. If the PS reduces the number of cleaners, but keeps the same number of surgeons, the Evening Herald and the likes of many of the posters here would be ranting that the average pay in the PS had gone up!

It is notable that when I argued that the country was in a mess because of misrepresentation and that those "critics" of politicians themselves had similarly low standards, someone came forward to prove my point.

Everyone in the PS on a scale increment got their increments. This is why PS pay has increased

ardmacha

If the banks got a bailout then where is hers? She said she made a business decision to buy that buy to let but it went wrong. PBH said it was an unwise investment and the lady blasting that she demands help here.

The banks were bailed out, largely to save the depositors, but also the bondholders. However, the bank shareholders lost their money for the most part, so the owners of the banks lost their money. The owners of buy to let properties should be treated in similar way.

Everyone in the PS on a scale increment got their increments.

Increments in themselves do not increase PS pay. In a steady state situation, people at the top end retire, others shuffle up the scale and others join at the bottom. Unless there is a compositional change there would not be any effect.

Icepick

ardmacha wrote: »

Increments in themselves do not increase PS pay. In a steady state situation, people at the top end retire, others shuffle up the scale and others join at the bottom. Unless there is a compositional change there would not be any effect.

Increments is a flawed rewards system as it does not look at individual performance, skills, etc. That it was not scrapped years ago just shows how badly run PS still is.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

Icepick said "And the public sector is actually getting salary increases."



If Icepick said that the public sector were getting pay increases, then pay would indeed be higher. Yet apparently you are saying that it isn't.



I think this requires some example of an invalid calculation on my part. To illustrate that concept of compositional change I used the example of surgeons are they are well paid. I did not produce calculations for the entire PS of this compositional change.



No, I am not saying this. The pay cuts have not been wiped out, so it would be pointless for anyone to claim such a thing. You claim that some rises were so large that they not only negated the pay cuts for that individual but for the entire public sector, perhaps you'd like to show your mathematical prowess by illustrating this.

I may have misunderstood what you or Icepick meant, but I can only go on what you wrote.

Average public sector pay is rising. It has risen between Q22012 and Q2 2013. It has also risen between Q1 and Q2 2013. I showed you proof of that. You now want proof that between Q2 and Q3 this year pay has gone up despite knowing full well that as we are still in Q3 these figures are not available. You have still shown no proof that pay is not rising yet continue to criticise me. You continue to deny the evidence "pay cuts have not been wiped out, so it would be pointless for anyone to claim such a thing" but offer no evidence yourself.

Your comment about surgeons was just so ridiculous. That was your invalid calculation. So any chance of you giving us some proof of what you say rather than just complain that others are manipulating the evidence? So for example, if surgeons (and other high paid in public sector) increase as a proportion of overall numbers, yet have their pay decreased by more than others (and decreased by more than their proportional increase in numbers), how does this push up the overall average?

srsly78

Stop using the wrong statistics!! Average pay could increase, but the total wages bill could fall! Simple mathematics! Instead why not look at the total spend? Stop talking about averages.

ardmacha

OMD wrote:

Average public sector pay is rising. It has risen between Q22012 and Q2 2013. It has also risen between Q1 and Q2 2013. I showed you proof of that. You now want proof that between Q2 and Q3 this year pay has gone up despite knowing full well that as we are still in Q3 these figures are not available

Average public sector pay did rise in Q1 and Q2, owing to compositional changes, although pay scales did not rise. As the previous poster said average pay might rise slightly in a scenario where costs were being reduced. Average pay is not the point and concentration on average pay might lead to dysfunctional decisions, but who cares about dysfunctional measures as long as you can rant.

However, I mentioned Q3 as these rants are the usual example of the misuse of the present tense for events in the past. The rants go on as if the third round of paycuts this summer had not happened. Both Icepick and you have said that pay is increasing, rather than pay did increase. It is a bit like saying that the weather is warmer than usual, because it was last week, even though you know it is changed.

I stated that pay cuts had not been wiped out. Are you stating that your favourite average wage measure shows that pay cuts have been wiped out? If you are, then perhaps you better look again at the data.

OMD wrote:

Your comment about surgeons was just so ridiculous. That was your invalid calculation. So any chance of you giving us some proof of what you say rather than just complain that others are manipulating the evidence? So for example, if surgeons (and other high paid in public sector) increase as a proportion of overall numbers, yet have their pay decreased by more than others (and decreased by more than their proportional increase in numbers), how does this push up the overall average?

My comment about surgeons was a perfectly good example. You now bring in the issue of the relative level of pay cuts for higher paid staff. This could be a valid point, but all of the previous discussion was about periods Q1 and Q2 when there were no such pay cuts, so it is an irrelevant point in this context. You seem unclear as to whether you are talking about a period when pay wasn't cut, but average pay increased slightly owing to compositional changes, or periods when pay was cut.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

Average public sector pay did rise in Q1 and Q2, owing to compositional changes, although pay scales did not rise. As the previous poster said average pay might rise slightly in a scenario where costs were being reduced. Average pay is not the point and concentration on average pay might lead to dysfunctional decisions, but who cares about dysfunctional measures as long as you can rant.

However, I mentioned Q3 as these rants are the usual example of the misuse of the present tense for events in the past. The rants go on as if the third round of paycuts this summer had not happened. Both Icepick and you have said that pay is increasing, rather than pay did increase. It is a bit like saying that the weather is warmer than usual, because it was last week, even though you know it is changed.

I stated that pay cuts had not been wiped out. Are you stating that your favourite average wage measure shows that pay cuts have been wiped out? If you are, then perhaps you better look again at the data.



My comment about surgeons was a perfectly good example. You now bring in the issue of the relative level of pay cuts for higher paid staff. This could be a valid point, but all of the previous discussion was about periods Q1 and Q2 when there were no such pay cuts, so it is an irrelevant point in this context. You seem unclear as to whether you are talking about a period when pay wasn't cut, but average pay increased slightly owing to compositional changes, or periods when pay was cut.

So no evidence of anything. Just because something is your opinion does not make it correct. Rant on Ardmacha.