Way to go Sinn Fein

NipNip

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sorry but Sinn Féin have a lot of growing up to do before any notions of them being a minority of any government.

People will vote for all sorts in elections that don't matter. A general election is a different kettle of fish. That not only goes for Sinn Féin but also the hodge podge of hard left nuts that were elected to councils up and down the country.

What this country needs is responsible government. And Sinn Féin does not fit that category and won't before the next election. They have maturing to do and changes to make to attract the votes that matter in a general election.

You'd swear there was some sort of graduate programme, the way you're talking! Perhaps we should send them on a job-bridge internship with the labour party?
'Mature' indeed lol.

comongethappy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Social Welfare payments are also spent in the economy yet there is vocal group calling for those to be cut but suggest one cuts the salaries of the upper echelons and people lose their minds.

Imagine if I suggested the minimum wage should be raised to ensure that no one in a full time job should be forced to apply for Family Income Supplement(thereby lowering our SW bill) - there would be howls of protest.

How bizarre.

Aah.... But Banshide..... You said cut "ALL" public sector salaries to the Ind average via a 'national emergency' act.

Seeing as they have already been cut 2 or 3 tines since 2010, what kinda money would this probably illegal gambit save?

Iwasfrozen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Social Welfare payments are also spent in the economy yet there is vocal group calling for those to be cut but suggest one cuts the salaries of the upper echelons and people lose their minds.

Imagine if I suggested the minimum wage should be raised to ensure that no one in a full time job should be forced to apply for Family Income Supplement(thereby lowering our SW bill) - there would be howls of protest.

How bizarre.

People who recieve social welfare are not working. High social welfare payments are a disincentive to work. Do you not see the difference between paying people in exchange for contributing to society and paying people to sit on their asses.

Social welfare is to provide a person with a basic standard of living while they are between jobs. To ensure that they are fed, housed and clothed. It is not a substitute for wages and neither should it be seen as such.

As for minimum wages, making it higher would increase unemployment because employers will be less willing to take on more people. This would actually take money out of the economy and increase our SW bill.

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Social welfare is to provide a person with a basic standard of living while they are between jobs. To ensure that they are fed, housed and clothed. It is not a substitute for wages and neither should it be seen as such.

Sorry for sounding pedantic, but that's unemployment benefit you are thinking of - which is a much smaller percentage of social welfare than people think.

Banjo String

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Don't bother Santa, a lot of these lefty types wouldn't understand the pleasure gotten from hard work.

Lol.

Hardworking, self sufficient here, run my own business as several boardies I have did business with can testify to.

Stereotypical much?

dxhound2005

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Social Welfare payments are also spent in the economy yet there is vocal group calling for those to be cut but suggest one cuts the salaries of the upper echelons and people lose their minds.

Imagine if I suggested the minimum wage should be raised to ensure that no one in a full time job should be forced to apply for Family Income Supplement(thereby lowering our SW bill) - there would be howls of protest.

How bizarre.

FIS is a Social Welfare payment for people on low pay with children. Do you want a separate minimum wage to be calculated for workers with no children and then one child, two children etc?

Who is this vocal group calling for SW cuts? If they exist they should be satisfied already since there have been no increases since 2010, effectively a cut in real terms. But lots of workers have had no wage increases since 2008 so they have also suffered. Gone are the days of an extra €10 on the pension every budget and 2% annual National Wages Agreement increase for every employee. If only we had someone like Bertie and Charlie McCreevy all would be well again.

Iwasfrozen

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Sorry for sounding pedantic, but that's unemployment benefit you are thinking of - which is a much smaller percentage of social welfare than people think.

Rent allowance comes under social welfare, but it's not unemployment benefit. Like I say

"Social welfare is to provide a person with a basic standard of living while they are between jobs. To ensure that they are fed, housed and clothed. It is not a substitute for wages and neither should it be seen as such."

Karl Stein

comongethappy wrote: »

Which would still cause the average Ind wage to fall!

Only temporarily and only for those paid from the public purse and only if it was brought in overnight rather than phased.

Wtf? Are we really witnessing the 'blame the unions/government' crowd defending civil/public servant, public purse funded wages at €~150,000 PA +.

Is this really happening?

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"Social welfare is to provide a person with a basic standard of living while they are between jobs. To ensure that they are fed, housed and clothed. It is not a substitute for wages and neither should it be seen as such."

Child benefit, pensions, disability allowance, etc, has nothing to do with being between jobs though, which is the only point I'm making.

Idbatterim

Who is this vocal group calling for SW cuts? If they exist they should be satisfied already since there have been no increases since 2010

The number of cuts is irrelevant, the whole welfare system here is a joke from start to finish. Say your pay is cut 3 times, from 200 to 199 to 198 to 197, what matters, the amount of cuts or what a "fair" rate actually is in the first place? and this is where the how long is a piece of string argument comes in, how have we gotten to exactly where we are on every bit of state expenditure and is it reasonable, given the rates paid out, circumstances, contribution to society of said individual etc Or was it based on buying off various sectors of society at the time and only ever tinkered with after that? The only ones I have any compassion for on welfare are the GENUINELY vulnerable and those that lost their jobs, the young also to an extent as they arent coming into a great jobs market. Who else deserves compassion, pensioners, the long term wasters? LOL!

Bannasidhe

Karl Stein wrote: »

Only temporarily and only for those paid from the public purse and only if it was brought in overnight rather than phased.

Wtf? Are we really witnessing the 'blame the unions/government' crowd defending civil/public servant, public purse funded wages at €~150,000 PA +.

Is this really happening?

It is

dxhound2005

Idbatterim wrote: »

The number of cuts is irrelevant, the whole welfare system here is a joke from start to finish. Say your pay is cut 3 times, from 200 to 199 to 198 to 197, what matters, the amount of cuts or what a "fair" rate actually is in the first place? and this is where the how long is a piece of string argument comes in, how have we gotten to exactly where we are on every bit of state expenditure and is it reasonable, given the rates paid out, circumstances, contribution to society of said individual etc Or was it based on buying off various sectors of society at the time and only ever tinkered with after that? The only ones I have any compassion for on welfare are the GENUINELY vulnerable and those that lost their jobs, the young also to an extent as they arent coming into a great jobs market. Who else deserves compassion, pensioners, the long term wasters? LOL!

Some figures here for how well pensioners fared under Bertie. It's no wonder he was re-elected three times. People say we should be out protesting against "austerity" but the time for protest was when this unsustainable spending was being used to buy off elections. Just like FF did with abolishing domestic rates in 1977.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2010/11/pension-rates.html

From 2010.
In 1997 the contributory old-age pension was £80.30 per week (€101.96). As of today the contributory old-age pension is €230.30. This represents an increase of 126%.

Like house prices and wages pensions have been re-adjusted since 2010 by not being increased and the Christmas Bonus being done away with. But now we may have the prospect of a FF/SF government in the next couple of years. That would be the mother and father of all stroke merchants and the good times would roll again for everyone on Social Welfare plus no more property tax or water charges. I can see the people going for it like they did for Bertie but what will it do to the country in the long term?

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The central bank takes a rather more optimistic view.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/central-bank-predicts-2-1-growth-in-economy-in-2014-1.1672045

"Gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to grow by 2.1 per cent this year, GDP growth will rise to 3.2 per cent next year."

"Gross national product (GNP), is expected to grow 2.2 per cent this year and 2.5 per cent in 2015."

"The debt-to-GDP ratio has peaked at a slightly lower level than previously expected, the Central Bank’s projections indicate, with latest estimates suggesting the deficit for 2013 will come in below the 7.5 per cent GDP target set under the European Commission’s “excessive deficit procedure” monitoring system"

Given the lack of evidence I don't think it's justified to say our debt is unsustainable and indeed defaulting now would severely damage our reputation on the markets.

Im not advocating that we default I agree with you it would damage our reputation though the part you have highlighted is not an argument in favour of our debt being sustainable. National debt is acculumation of deficits as Im sure you understand so even though we may come in under the target we are still taking on more debt. As long as the government cant balance the books this will continue to be the case. Our economy is dependent on foreign direct investment so growth is dependent on that aswell. Our main trading partners the EU,Britain and the States if their economies contract or dont perform that will have an affect on us. While the projected totals for growth for the next couple of years see an improvement, long term, we cant say with any certainty that this trend will continue as the mechanisms for continued growth are not completely in our hands so to speak. and it isnt just for that reason either there are other factors too. plus we have a certain amount of debt that is due to mature that needs to be factored in aswell. The economic path the government has committed us too (ECB appeasement) has also committed us to a long term battle just to keep our heads above water.

Karl Stein

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nodin

Karl Stein wrote: »

Only temporarily and only for those paid from the public purse and only if it was brought in overnight rather than phased.

Wtf? Are we really witnessing the 'blame the unions/government' crowd defending civil/public servant, public purse funded wages at €~150,000 PA +.

Is this really happening?

'Anything but SF' club.

Bannasidhe

Karl Stein wrote: »

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I knooow like.

Suggest that one measure which could have been taken was public representatives and public sector workers have their wages temporarily capped at the average industrial wage during a time of national emergency (which would affect me too) and people lose their minds.

Lucky I didn't say what I thought could have been done about their pensions..

:pac:

Iwasfrozen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Suggest that one measure which could have been taken was public representatives and public sector workers have their wages temporarily capped at the average industrial wage during a time of national emergency (which would affect me too) and people lose their minds.

Lowering public sector wages lowers aggregate demand in the economy which lowers output which would have compounded our problems.

This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.

You are right, it is made up of half baked ideas conjured up by the political & financial masters of the universe & brown envelopes

Bannasidhe

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Lowering public sector wages lowers aggregate demand in the economy which lowers output which would have compounded our problems.

This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.

We pay certain sections of the public service exorbitant wages and pensions - do you think that is justified?

Karl Stein

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are right, it is made up of half baked ideas conjured up by the political & financial masters of the universe & brown envelopes

And then when their pyramid collapses the public gets lumped with the losses and the profits remain in private hands.

Socialise losses, privatise profits - no loss 'capitalism' at its most vile.

Dan_Solo

Woodville56 wrote: »

That's fine so - cool if you"re happy to have your taxes used to promote political parties or ideologies you don't agree with ! Lesser of two evils I suppose .
And yes, I have thought for a minute or two or more even, thought enough to have an objection in principal to indirectly funding parties that, through their policies, have brought this this country to its knees, others who have kept us there and a few other outfits who just want to get into power !

What do you propose then? Freezing all newly elected TDs' assets, feed and water them three times a day and ban them from having any money in case their use if for party purposes?

Dan_Solo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.

I must admit, I am neither clever enough nor creative enough to think up of any economic policy that would cost us 100 billion pretty much overnight and bankrupt us for generations.
Leave it to the professionals I say.

Idbatterim

Lowering public sector wages lowers aggregate demand in the economy which lowers output which would have compounded our problems.

This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.

the answer is simple then, lets start paying them more or why did we cut them in the first place. Austerity has worked, it was applied across the board, explain how keeping wages at levels they were in the public sector would actually have us in a better position? yes there would be less demand, of course, that is obvious. But you can apply that to any bloody cut or new tax. I have seen that claim, being absolutely destroyed on the irish economy forum before, if I can find the posts, I will post them here.

Let me clarify that I dont for one second think politicians salaries should be reduced to the average industrial. What look like fantastic salaries here, look a hell of a lot different when you look at the figure that actually matters, i.e. your take home pay, i.e. your net pay.

Karl Stein

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes there would be less demand, of course, that is obvious.

Not if the money saved was diverted to building/upgrading infrastructure. Indeed if it was spent correctly it could lead to an increase in economic activity.

It could take former construction workers off the dole and provide them with wages that they'd be spending in the local economy.

Idbatterim

Not if the money saved was diverted to building/upgrading infrastructure.

True if the savings are redistributed to another sector, I agree, thats why that argument to me is so laughable, if we didnt cut one group, another had to be cut, if you cut any groups pay, THEIR aggregate demand will go down... That is the other criminal thing in my opinion, if proper reform and pay across the board had been revisited and cut where found to be out of line, thousands of people who have had to emigrate or are left on the dole, could have gained employment. But unfortunately for them, they were bottom of the heap when it came to government priorities, immoral yes, surprising? not at all

Woodville56

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What do you propose then? Freezing all newly elected TDs' assets, feed and water them three times a day and ban them from having any money in case their use if for party purposes?

Where I say that ??? Can anyone express an opinion around here without getting smart ass hyperbole response in response ?? I know ye SF guys are on a bit of a high these days but ease off on the glib responses !
I note a similar "Way to go FF" was closed down by the moderator because of the standard and tone of the postings - maybe this one has run it's course too - about 1732 posts ago ! Come to think of it is there a Mod on this thread ?? Must be a SF supporter !

Dan_Solo

Woodville56 wrote: »

Where I say that ??? Can anyone express an opinion around here without getting smart ass hyperbole response in response ?? I know ye SF guys are on a bit of a high these days but ease off on the glib responses !
I note a similar "Way to go FF" was closed down by the moderator because of the standard and tone of the postings - maybe this one has run it's course too - about 1732 posts ago ! Come to think of it is there a Mod on this thread ?? Must be a SF supporter !

So you haven't answered, whining "hyperbole" instead. How predictable.
Now, please explain, short of what I outlined above, how you plan to prevent all public employees from "wasting your tax" on voluntary donations from their own salaries to political parties.

Iwasfrozen

Idbatterim wrote: »

the answer is simple then, lets start paying them more or why did we cut them in the first place. Austerity has worked, it was applied across the board, explain how keeping wages at levels they were in the public sector would actually have us in a better position? yes there would be less demand, of course, that is obvious. But you can apply that to any bloody cut or new tax. I have seen that claim, being absolutely destroyed on the irish economy forum before, if I can find the posts, I will post them here.

Let me clarify that I dont for one second think politicians salaries should be reduced to the average industrial. What look like fantastic salaries here, look a hell of a lot different when you look at the figure that actually matters, i.e. your take home pay, i.e. your net pay.

Oh yes, I agree austerity has worked, we were living far beyond our means and wages needed to come down across the board.
My post was in response to a poster who said the public service should be capped at a level equivalent to the average industrial wage.

Idbatterim

My post was in response to a poster who said the public service should be capped at a level equivalent to the average industrial wage.

yeah I thought so, and I agree, as I posted above. In principal comparable jobs should pay less, due to the numerous perks. But talking about reducing politicians salaries down to average industrial wage seems ludicrous to me... I mean they could take more hits and it still wouldnt be enough for people...

Bannasidhe

Idbatterim wrote: »

Let me clarify that I dont for one second think politicians salaries should be reduced to the average industrial. What look like fantastic salaries here, look a hell of a lot different when you look at the figure that actually matters, i.e. your take home pay, i.e. your net pay.

Any hardship they feel due to the imposition of tax rates is mitigated by a highly generous package of allowances no?

We even pay TDs living in Dublin an allowance so they do't suffer any hardship due to travelling to the Dáil and a few bob for their dry cleaning. If they live outside Dublin - they hit the fuel expense jackpot - Germany pays for an annual rail card for their representatives.

In 2012 - how many years into our all in it together austerity was that?? - Ireland's politicians were the 7th highest paid in Europe. And that was after the cuts to their remuneration and the only one in the top 12 to be in a bail out. Greece was 13th. http://www.businessinsider.com/salary-politicians-europe-mps-2012-1?op=1

Does anyone seriously that this level of expenditure is justified?

Personally, I think that is a spit into the eye of the electorate.