Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

There are not many developed countries in the world that don't borrow a certain amount year on year. This is perfectly normal and indeed sustainable if kept in check.

"Everyone knew they housing bubble couldn't last" yet almost everyone got caught out by it.

Look, my point is not that we had a sustainable economy, my point is in response to a point that arose earlier in this thread where somebody said that had things remaimed the way they were (without 64 bil for the banks) the public sector wages would have caused us to go to the IMF ANYWAY.
This is patently not true, had income continued as it was...........
Of course none of this happened.

We had an ecconomy built on stamp duty how the frick is that sustainable..Your getting laughable now Kippy. I state that the 64bn from the banks could of been reneged on had we not had to borrow for our day to day spending. . You cannot turn around to your loan masters and say I aint covering those banks and then in the same breathe ask for a few billion there to pay for ps increments or for the xmas bonus for the dole.?

Can you not see this?

We were spiraling with a deficit regardless of if no one lost the job (we had full employment), we probably would of had benchmarking 3, 4 and 5 and Bertie would be still sitting there in the Dail with his Teflon suit had the banking crisis not hit.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

This is what I was trying to point out to this poster. That even with supposed full employment and the cash lottery ticket that was stamp duty our borrowings grew and this was while the banking crisis was still a couple of years away.

Stamp duty income and near full employment ended circa 2008. The income fell of the cliff.
A large part of expenditure moved to social welfare spending.

Of course cuts had to be made to expenditure to match. However to suggest that public sector wages ALONE would have made us head to the IMF HAD income levels remained static is completely incorrect.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

We had an ecconomy built on stamp duty how the frick is that sustainable..Your getting laughable now Kippy. I state that the 64bn from the banks could of been reneged on had we not had to borrow for our day to day spending. . You cannot turn around to your loan masters and say I aint covering those banks and then in the same breathe ask for a few billion there to pay for ps increments or for the xmas bonus for the dole.?

Can you not see this?

We were spiraling with a deficit regardless of if no one lost the job (we had full employment), we probably would of had benchmarking 3, 4 and 5 and Bertie would be still sitting there in the Dail with his Teflon suit had the banking crisis not hit.

There is absolutely no point in pointing out black and white to you, is there?

Of course it was build on unsustainable income, as was spending for everything in this country

Can you show me some figures from 2007 and previous to show me that we were borrowing significantly to cover expenses?

We havent had "full employment" since 2007/08

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

Stamp duty income and near full employment ended circa 2008. The income fell of the cliff.
A large part of expenditure moved to social welfare spending.

Of course cuts had to be made to expenditure to match. However to suggest that public sector wages ALONE would have made us head to the IMF HAD income levels remained static is completely incorrect.

We had near too full employment coming up to it aswell Kippy from 2003/4 onwards.

No one is suggesting it was PS pay alone infact welfare is a bigger part than ps pay and pensions..But the fact still remains that when this debate happens people in the PS say "oh if only those banks behaved themselves" and not understanding that without the banks we would of found ourselves over that cliff anyways

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

We had near too full employment coming up to it aswell Kippy from 2003/4 onwards.

No one is suggesting it was PS pay alone infact welfare is a bigger part than ps pay and pensions..But the fact still remains that when this debate happens people in the PS say "oh if only those banks behaved themselves" and not understanding that without the banks we would of found ourselves over that cliff anyways

Had income remained the same as 2007, even with the banks the way they turned out, the country was "manageable". Why? Because income was close enough to expenditure?
Granted some cuts would have had to occur but we would not have had to hit the IMF for the amount of money we did, in the time scale we did.
The biggest hit on the states finances in a short period of time was again:
1. The drop off in property related taxes/income.
2. The increase in the live register.
That, was ultimately the big reason why the state began to run at a major deficit.

Now, that was caused because spending had increased in a massive way, which is all well and good when the income matches it.

What has happened in the interm is that cuts have been made on the spending side in the order of 20 or so billion I believe and changes have been made on the income side, to again balance the books.

I ain't saying:
Public sector wages were'nt too high.
Welfare costs weren't too high.
The banks are entirely at fault etc etc

What I am saying is fairly straight forward.

Right now, the key aim is getting people back to work, as shown with figures earlier presented.

One of the big reasons, we coulnt "write off" that debt was of course because we would have had major fiscal issues( as well of course of the fact that a lot of that debt was actually held by irish people themselves, directly or indirectly)

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I think you ought to take a look at the budget deficits throughout the Ahern years, this would help your understanding.

Such as the 2006 budget surplus?

Peter Flynt

Godge wrote: »

Such as the 2006 budget surplus?

Indeed the budget was in surplus for virtually all (1997-2007) of the Ahern years.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Of course, but the ridiculous PS rises led to more builders being employed in the first place. That's the essential criticism.

The economy could never have kept going the way it was, we had structural problems, just like Greece had.

Public sector wage increases led to more builders led to the crash:D:D:D:D:D:D.

Hilarious.

You should write an economics textbook to explain it all.

Godge

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Indeed the budget was in surplus for virtually all (1997-2007) of the Ahern years.

FF messed up the country because they didn't use the surpluses to put the long-term tax revenue on a sustainable path. Instead they taxed the froth and when the froth disappeared, crash.

As for the budget deficits, in most years we ran a primary surplus (i.e. surplus before interest payments) and in two years we ran an overall surplus.

However, don't expect rightwing to admit he is wrong.

I am still waiting for him to point out an example of a country where the maximum teacher salary is below the average industrial wage.

ardmacha

fliball123 wrote:

No one is suggesting it was PS pay alone infact welfare is a bigger part than ps pay and pensions..But the fact still remains that when this debate happens people in the PS say "oh if only those banks behaved themselves" and not understanding that without the banks we would of found ourselves over that cliff anyways

Without the banks it would not have been a cliff, but a gentle undulation.

Godge wrote: »

I am still waiting for him to point out an example of a country where the maximum teacher salary is below the average industrial wage.

And if he finds one, is it the kind of place he would like to live?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Barney its a pity you were not crying foul of this little nugget of wisdom when they done the benchmarking exercise twice?

Some Apples are more orangy than oranges

Welcome back Fliball, am I to take it you haven't mastered even a rudimentary understanding of averages while you were on your holiday?!

I was still in school or college when benchmarking happened Fliball, and then I was out working in the big bad private sector for the majority of my working life to date.

But I don't really understand the logic of your statement (what's new says I); if the purpose of benchmarking was to generate pay parity, and you can't show me categories of PS worker who are overpaid by 48% relative to a comparable group of private sector workers, then surely that means benchmarking actually worked...

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

Public sector wage increases led to more builders led to the crash:D:D:D:D:D.

Hilarious.

You should write an economics textbook to explain it all.

This is really self explanatory stuff, but anyway, as teachers and gardai etc were getting too much money, they went buying 2nd homes etc. Now I'll hazard a guess that they didn't build the house themselves.

Needless to say, they ran aground, and are now back cap in hand to drain the private sector once more.

Sleephead

Rightwing wrote: »

This is really self explanatory stuff, but anyway, as teachers and gardai etc were getting too much money, they went buying 2nd homes etc. Now I'll hazard a guess that they didn't build the house themselves.

Needless to say, they ran aground, and are now back cap in hand to drain the private sector once more.

Wow. You're clearly a WUM. Bizarre point of view to be honest!

The public sector have kept this country afloat for the past 7 years, taking cut after cut, all the while taking abuse from the public at large for having the audacity to have a job.

Rightwing

Sleephead wrote: »

Wow. You're clearly a WUM. Bizarre point of view to be honest!

The public sector have kept this country afloat for the past 7 years, taking cut after cut, all the while taking abuse from the public at large for having the audacity to have a job.

True, sure where would we without 'em, eh?

nice_guy80

It wasn't wage levels in the PS, it was the number of people hired into the PS that caused a lot of problems.
so when the crash came we'd too many PS workers who collectively earned too much money.

the HSE and most government departments became bloated with admin staff, too many ancillary teaching posts were created (resources teachers, SNAs, DEIS funded schools), the Gardai increased to its highest ever strength

Rightwing

nice_guy80 wrote: »

It wasn't wage levels in the PS, it was the number of people hired into the PS that caused a lot of problems.
so when the crash came we'd too many PS workers who collectively earned too much money.

the HSE and most government departments became bloated with admin staff, too many ancillary teaching posts were created (resources teachers, SNAs, DEIS funded schools), the Gardai increased to its highest ever strength

No question about that, and that still remains a huge problem for us going forward. But when you see a headline like this, it's fair to say pay is also a huge concern.

About 1,500 teachers earn between€85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

Peter Flynt

Rightwing wrote: »

No question about that, and that still remains a huge problem for us going forward. But when you see a headline like this, it's fair to say pay is also a huge concern.

About 1,500 teachers earn between€85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

They're Principals.

Rightwing

Peter Flynt wrote: »

They're Principals.

That doesn't hold any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Ever wonder where your taxes go?
Another PS classic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mayor-takes-9000-pay-cut-but-still-earns-more-than-spanish-pm-26897042.html

THE country's highest-paid Lord Mayor has volunteered to take a €9,000 pay cut -- but he will still earn more than the prime ministers of Israel, Sweden, Spain and even Russia.

But we can excuse this on the grounds he is a lord mayor.

Geuze

If newly qualified accountants, aged 25 approx, are on 50k, and average accountancy pay is 90k, then principals of schools should be on 80-120k pa.

Seems sensible to me.

A typical accountant isn't in charge of 750 pupils and 50+ staff, a large school principal is, so they should get paid more.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

That doesn't hold any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Ever wonder where your taxes go?
Another PS classic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mayor-takes-9000-pay-cut-but-still-earns-more-than-spanish-pm-26897042.html

THE country's highest-paid Lord Mayor has volunteered to take a €9,000 pay cut -- but he will still earn more than the prime ministers of Israel, Sweden, Spain and even Russia.

But we can excuse this on the grounds he is a lord mayor.

2 year old news piece. Seriously

Peter Flynt

Rightwing wrote: »

That doesn't hold any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

So you think there's no difference between being responsible for the duties of an educational institution with 1000 pupils, 70 teachers, 30-40 other staff. . . . and a classroom teacher?

Do you have a habit of making a fool of yourself on here?

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

If newly qualified accountants, aged 25 approx, are on 50k, and average accountancy pay is 90k, then principals of schools should be on 80-120k pa.

Seems sensible to me.

A typical accountant isn't in charge of 750 pupils and 50+ staff, a large school principal is, so they should get paid more.

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

Peter Flynt

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

A friend of mine in a major multinational Accountancy firm told me she interviewed someone recommended three weeks ago for a position . . Salary 85K - He had virtually no experience.

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

He's getting chartered accountants mixed up with accountants.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

He's getting chartered accountants mixed up with accountants.

Huh?

Geuze

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

The Chartered accountants themselves report that:

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

The Chartered accountants themselves report that:

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Press-Release-Leinster-Society-Salary-Survey-The-Panel-25-7-14.pdf

Respondents to the chartered accountants Leinster survey - doesn't represent the average of all accountants across the several professional bodies and the country as a whole...

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

No question about that, and that still remains a huge problem for us going forward. But when you see a headline like this, it's fair to say pay is also a huge concern.

About 1,500 teachers earn between€85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

You posted that earlier today, six or seven pages back.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92494930&postcount=1203

You got detailed answers then that refuted your point. Yet you chose to ignore those responses and posted again the same discredited point.

I for one won't be paying any attention to your posts.

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

Average accountancy pay is not 90k, come on now that's nonsense! If that's the case I'm even more underpaid than I thought in the PS..!

Barney, that is the average salary of employed accountants. It is the figure used for the CSO averages.

However, it does not include accountants who are partners in an accountancy firm, neither does it include accountants who have their own practice. As a result the figure seriously underestimates the amount of money earned by accountants. It also does not include bonuses and other perks.

You can understand now why I have such a problem with the CSO figures and other similar earnings data.

barneystinson

Godge wrote: »

Barney, that is the average salary of employed accountants. It is the figure used for the CSO averages.

However, it does not include accountants who are partners in an accountancy firm, neither does it include accountants who have their own practice. As a result the figure seriously underestimates the amount of money earned by accountants. It also does not include bonuses and other perks.

You can understand now why I have such a problem with the CSO figures and other similar earnings data.

Sorry Godge, you're misunderstanding me - I'm expressing surprise at how HIGH that figure is. Have a look over on the accountancy forum at the guy/gal in Galway, stuck on 23k as a fully qualified accountant with several years experience.

There's no-one bar the partners, in any accountancy firm outside of Dublin, earning next or near 90k.

Even in industry you'd have to be the FC or Director to be on that kind of wedge; the accountancy profession is a pyramid shape like any other with a broad base of trainees and people who'll never make it to 90k. That survey showing 90k average figure is a piece of propaganda - "you should join our institute, and you'll be minted like us!", I'm very dubious...

But as I said, if I'm wrong, it just means I'm even more underpaid than I thought! :pac: