Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

noodler

chopper6 wrote: »

The old "hindsight is 20/20"? eh?

I bet you refused all short-term gain at the time for the betterment of the country in the long term?

It seems to me that most of the people whinging about public sector pay and pensions were happy to make hay while the sun shined but made no provision for thier future.

Plenty of people driving round in brand new jeeps without a penny saved for a rainy day now they're blaming benchmarking or whaever the Indo is babbling about as a reason for thier woes.

Irrelevant rant to hide the misinterpretation apparent in your previous one.

Marks for effort anyway.


Again, pandering to the prevailing wisdom of the time played a massive part in getting us into this mess.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

You've asserted that you *know* of staff that are holding down other jobs and running their own businesses.

The onus is on you to provide proof of that.

And yet you don't seem to want it. As I've said I can give you names, and details of their businesses. Do you want them? I'm not going to put them on a public forum, but I'll PM you details if you want them?

Edit: And to be clear, I said I know people who run businesses, I don't know people who have other PAYE jobs. I'm sure there are some, but not personally known to me.

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

The old "hindsight is 20/20"? eh?

I bet you refused all short-term gain at the time for the betterment of the country in the long term?

It seems to me that most of the people whinging about public sector pay and pensions were happy to make hay while the sun shined but made no provision for thier future.

Plenty of people driving round in brand new jeeps without a penny saved for a rainy day now they're blaming benchmarking or whaever the Indo is babbling about as a reason for thier woes.

This kinda thing sickens me - I know I said I would stay away but this is farcical content.

So you're happy to berate those who took the spoils available at the time and didnt save for a rainy day, yet don't see, that all those benchmarked payrises etc to public sector workers during the boom were the exact same thing in essence. Didnt see any public sector worker turning them down.

Monife

barneystinson wrote: »

And yet you don't seem to want it. As I've said I can give you names, and details of their businesses. Do you want them? I'm not going to put them on a public forum, but I'll PM you details if you want them?

Edit: And to be clear, I said I know people who run businesses, I don't know people who have other PAYE jobs. I'm sure there are some, but not personally known to me.

This is getting boring. Chopper clearly does not want the information, you should drop it at this stage as it is nothing to with the topic of the thread.

Anyway, back on topic. I think the argument of public always fairing financially better than private is refuted from the below article.

According to the CSO’s latest earnings and labour costs report, in the three years to the end of 2012, public sector earnings fell by €42.75 per week or 4.4%. That compared to a decline of €7.60 per week or 1.2% in the private sector.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/public-sector-pay-falls-4275-per-week-in-3-years-223535.html

Monife

kippy wrote: »

This kinda thing sickens me - I know I said I would stay away but this is farcical content.

So you're happy to berate those who took the spoils available at the time and didnt save for a rainy day, yet don't see, that all those benchmarked payrises etc to public sector workers during the boom were the exact same thing in essence. Didnt see any public sector worker turning them down.

Only a select few benefited from benchmarking.

Source: http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Documents/Benchmarking%2007.pdf

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

This kinda thing sickens me - I know I said I would stay away but this is farcical content.

So you're happy to berate those who took the spoils available at the time and didnt save for a rainy day, yet don't see, that all those benchmarked payrises etc to public sector workers during the boom were the exact same thing in essence. Didnt see any public sector worker turning them down.

Well I'm not online talking about jailing the people who dodged tax during the "boom" or repossessing the trophy home they bought and now can longer afford...eventhough this behaviour contribute directly to my financial situation being disimproved.

SOME in the PS received payrises but ALL of us received paycuts too...for the sake of parity the entire private sector should have also had their pay cut but this did NOT happen.

Why they think it's alright to whinge about the PS *maybe* receiving pittance back from lost wages is beyond me.

barneystinson

Monife wrote: »

This is getting boring. Chopper clearly does not want the information, you should drop it at this stage as it is nothing to with the topic of the thread.

Anyway, back on topic. I think the argument of public always fairing financially better than private is refuted from the below article.

It is to do with the topic, or at least Chopper must think it is, or he shouldn't have brought it up. Just to remind you, Chopper believes
1.) that every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant, and
2.) that none of us can have any business interests outside of our PS jobs... do you think he's right Monife?

I'm pretty sure you know he's wrong, and even more wrong to accuse me of spoofing for suggesting I know plenty of PS workers who are also small business owners.

Monife

barneystinson wrote: »

It is to do with the topic, or at least Chopper must think it is, or he shouldn't have brought it up. Just to remind you, Chopper believes
1.) that every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant, and
2.) that none of us can have any business interests outside of our PS jobs... do you think he's right Monife?

I'm pretty sure you know he's wrong, and even more wrong to accuse me of spoofing for suggesting I know plenty of PS workers who are also small business owners.

It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is getting seriously boring and repetitive at this stage and I am pretty sure no one cares about this but you.

ardmacha

1.) that every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant

Every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant in respect of his or her main employment. Can you say this about non PS employmees?

chopper6

ardmacha wrote: »

Every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant in respect of his or her main employment. Can you say this about non PS employmees?

The black economy costs the country 20 billion a year and people are whining about 100 euro a month in PS wages.

kippy

Monife wrote: »

Only a select few benefited from benchmarking.

Source: http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Documents/Benchmarking%2007.pdf

Stall the digger here for a second.
1. The VAST MAJORITY of workers in the public sector benefited from benchmarking.
2. EVERY member of the public service and most working in the private sector as well (to be fair) benefited hugely from major tax cuts in the period.
Didn't see anyone turning them down.........

kippy

ardmacha wrote: »

Every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant in respect of his or her main employment. Can you say this about non PS employmees?

Nice to see, unlike Chopper yesterday, you added the caveat about "main employment".

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

Nice to see, unlike Chopper yesterday, you added the caveat about "main employment".

I didn't see ONE person on the defaulters list giving their occupation as civil or public servant.

Here's the list again.

Of course there's people here claiming that PS staff have the time to moonlight as Scrap Metal dealers or Chipper Owners.

Laughable.

ardmacha

kippy wrote: »

Stall the digger here for a second.
1. The VAST MAJORITY of workers in the public sector benefited from benchmarking.

True. However some without influential unions received negligible increases, at a time of real economic growth when there were justified real increases in wages for most people. Those who received low increases then could well overlap with those who got substantial cuts.

EVERY member of the public service and most working in the private sector as well (to be fair) benefited hugely from major tax cuts in the period.
Didn't see anyone turning them down.........

Also true. For people to turn them down somebody would have had to articulate a model of the economy that reflected how out of balance it was, it is difficult for Sean Citizen to do this.

noodler

I have to say, I don't see why PS workers would be any more or less tax compliant with their non-PAYE affairs than anyone else in the country.

chopper6

noodler wrote: »

I have to say, I don't see why PS workers would be any more or less tax compliant with their non-PAYE affairs than anyone else in the country.

Because the Govt pays their wages and the Govt taxes the taxes...how can you not see that?

What non-PAYE affairs would they have?


Back to nurses being landlords again?

Monife

kippy wrote: »

Stall the digger here for a second.
1. The VAST MAJORITY of workers in the public sector benefited from benchmarking.
2. EVERY member of the public service and most working in the private sector as well (to be fair) benefited hugely from major tax cuts in the period.
Didn't see anyone turning them down.........

Did you read the report? On a quick scan, it looked to me that only 1 grade (AP) in Civil Service, 1 grade (Senior EO) in Local Authorities a number of grades in health and education got benchmarking increases.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

So you reckon the Govt will be listening to your anti-PS rantings on the internet and will change policy accordingly?

When you get over the fact that its not just me chopper..Do you really think people out there working will accept a payrise for you which has the knock on effect of being a pay cut for them..

I dont think so.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

No, that is not what I am saying.

There is unbdoubtedly problems in parts of the public sector as the comparisons between different parts show anomalies especially as you know you are comparing like with like (though I will come back to that as there are some differences).

However, any comparison between public and private has to take account of the fact that long-term illnesses like cancer and strokes are treated more compassionately and with more paid sick-leave in the public sector than in the private sector.

For example, take a public service office of ten people where two people are out for six months in 2014 with cancer and stroke. If nobody else takes any sick leave, the average sick leave for that office is 36.5 days per person (where you are out sick over a weekend it counts as 7 days so two people out for six months counts as 365 days). That would be among the highest in the country yet it would all come down to the unfortunate circumstances of two people. In the private sector, they would have been off pay and on disability after six weeks.

Really so offices of 10 people with 2 having cancer can only exist in the public sector...haha will you give me a break

kippy

Monife wrote: »

Did you read the report? On a quick scan, it looked to me that only 1 grade (AP) in Civil Service, 1 grade (Senior EO) in Local Authorities a number of grades in health and education got benchmarking increases.

The report does not reflect the reality of the years 2001-2007
You might want to pull up a more relevant article or scan less quickly.
Towards 2016 is relevant here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Partnership

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

When you get over the fact that its not just me chopper..Do you really think people out there working will accept a payrise for you which has the knock on effect of being a pay cut for them..

I dont think so.

If,as a country you want public services,you as a taxpayer have to pay for them.

It's really that simple.

There's NOTHING you can do about that.

And you also seem to have forgotten...your beloved taxes are paying for a lot more than public service pay.

I am also a taxpayer and despite not having children *I* took TWO paycuts to fund YOUR kid's education and YOUR children's allowance.

Now I have to pay for my water to subsidise our old age pension and YOUR children's college education....how is this fair? I wont tolerate it!!

kippy

chopper6 wrote: »

I didn't see ONE person on the defaulters list giving their occupation as civil or public servant.

Here's the list again.

Of course there's people here claiming that PS staff have the time to moonlight as Scrap Metal dealers or Chipper Owners.

Laughable.

As explained yesterday, you can have as many professions as you want, and tax compliance is a lot more than just income tax compliance.
There are many public sector workers who also farm, are company directors, and hold many other interests outside of their own employment.
You cannot say with any level of accuracy that Public sector workers are all entirely tax compliant.

kippy

ardmacha wrote: »

True. However some without influential unions received negligible increases, at a time of real economic growth when there were justified real increases in wages for most people. Those who received low increases then could well overlap with those who got substantial cuts.



Also true. For people to turn them down somebody would have had to articulate a model of the economy that reflected how out of balance it was, it is difficult for Sean Citizen to do this.

The point I was making is that many sectors of society benefited during the boom time, whether it was as obvious as Joe Bloggs blowing it all on a jeeb or another joe blogs paying less tax or getting more money as a result etc etc.
Just as many sectors of society have felt the hit since then, so more so than others, and some not at all.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

Really so offices of 10 people with 2 having cancer can only exist in the public sector...haha will you give me a break

To be fair, the point Godge is making is relevant.
Again statistics out of context aren't a very reliable indicator of what is actually going on.

chopper6

kippy wrote: »

There are many public sector workers who also farm, are company directors, .

This is a new one...tell me more!

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

I didn't see ONE person on the defaulters list giving their occupation as civil or public servant.

Here's the list again.

Of course there's people here claiming that PS staff have the time to moonlight as Scrap Metal dealers or Chipper Owners.

Laughable.

The tax defaulters list is not a list of everyone in the country with a tax default though!

It's the list of people who had a liability greater than a threshold amount AND who did not make a qualifying disclosure when they were audited AND who have been charged a penalty greater than a threshold percentage.

The vast majority of tax default settlements are not published.

By the way I've PM'ed you some details, you can let me know if you need more, or feel free to apologise for accusing me of spoofing.

Riskymove

ardmacha wrote: »

Every PS worker in the country is 100% tax compliant in respect of his or her main employment. Can you say this about non PS employmees?

tbh it is that all PAYE workers are compliant with regard to their main income - private or public

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

The tax defaulters list is not a list of everyone in the country with a tax default though!

It's the list of people who had a liability greater than a threshold amount AND who did not make a qualifying disclosure when they were audited AND who have been charged a penalty greater than a threshold percentage.

The vast majority of tax default settlements are not published.

You're flanneling becuae you cant find a PS worker in ANY list of tax defaulters.

barneystinson wrote: »

By the way I've PM'ed you some details, you can let me know if you need more, or feel free to apologise for accusing me of spoofing.

Or you can just stop harrasing me and publish your "knowledge" on the board like i'm doing.

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

As explained yesterday, you can have as many professions as you want, and tax compliance is a lot more than just income tax compliance.
There are many public sector workers who also farm, are company directors, and hold many other interests outside of their own employment.
You cannot say with any level of accuracy that Public sector workers are all entirely tax compliant.

chopper6 wrote: »

This is a new one...tell me more!

Yep, absolutely true, I actually forgot about the people I've worked with who are also farmers! You obviously live and work in the big smoke chopper, I can PM you the names of public sector workers who are also small farmers if you like...?

Riskymove

Monife wrote: »

Did you read the report? On a quick scan, it looked to me that only 1 grade (AP) in Civil Service, 1 grade (Senior EO) in Local Authorities a number of grades in health and education got benchmarking increases.

you are talking about the second Benchmarking exercise

the first one gave everyone an increase