public/civil servants im going to run you over...

smartypants · 11-02-2009 09:23AM #1

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

Hobart · 11-02-2009 09:26AM

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

Obviously your username is a misnomer.

smartypants · 11-02-2009 09:28AM

Hobart wrote: »

Obviously your username is a misnomer.

good one... :rolleyes:

4zn76tysfajdxp · 11-02-2009 10:03AM

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

twinytwo · 11-02-2009 10:14AM

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

They had it great in the good times but still want it great in the bad ones......

ps Biffo should this opportunity to get rid of bench marking... costs the country millions every year and keeps going up.

RATM · 11-02-2009 10:16AM

smartypants wrote: »

who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

Correct me if Im wrong but it wasn't the Gardai, nurses or teachers who screwed the country up in the first place but it is them who are now taking a financial hit to subsidise those who did.

If there had of been a tax on people with second homes or a way of bringing tax exiles into the tax net then public servants may not have felt so annoyed about the current situation. But there wasn't, as usual our government went after the little people- cuts on childcare allowance and overseas aid, like ffs.

There's a saying in politics that a measure of government is to look at how they treat the most vulnerable in society and between the childcare cuts, overseas aid and the medical card debacle this government fails in every aspect.

FlutterinBantam · 11-02-2009 10:27AM

We are where we are.

Promoting industrial action unrest will do absolutely nothing,not one thing, to get the country out of the situation it finds itself in.
In fact it will hasten us towards bankruptcy.

the unions know . The labradors in the street know it.

All we have here is exaggerated sabre rattling and posturing.

I'm well aware the PS didn't cause the problem, the PAYE person didn't either or the pvt sector worker....but, one can't look on as your house burns down and say I didn't start the fire.

First things first,try to put the damn fire out before it destroys the whole gaff.

FlutterinBantam · 11-02-2009 10:29AM

twinytwo wrote: »

They had it great in the good times but still want it great in the bad ones......

ps Biffo should this opportunity to get rid of bench marking... costs the country millions every year and keeps going up.

bench marking AND index linked pensions.

Naos · 11-02-2009 10:29AM

Out of curiosity RATM, why should there be the tax on second homes?

Joe Bloggs, works hard and saves his money. He buys a second home somewhere down the country as a retreat for his family and he plans to retire down there when he's finished working.

So instead of p1ssing it up against the wall or going on foreign holidays, he's spending his money domestically. He's paying for the builders, putting men/women in employment and is also going to contribute to the rural area by supporting the local shop.

Why should he have to pay tax on a second home?

easyontheeye · 11-02-2009 10:31AM

RATM wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but it wasn't the Gardai, nurses or teachers who screwed the country up in the first place but it is them who are now taking a financial hit to subsidise those who did.

If there had of been a tax on people with second homes or a way of bringing tax exiles into the tax net then public servants may not have felt so annoyed about the current situation. But there wasn't, as usual our government went after the little people- cuts on childcare allowance and overseas aid, like ffs.

There's a saying in politics that a measure of government is to look at how they treat the most vulnerable in society and between the childcare cuts, overseas aid and the medical card debacle this government fails in every aspect.

I think the op means screwing up the country by going on strike and making things even worse. i mean in fairnes it wasnt the private sectors fault either but they are reacting by slimming down and laying off staff... the public sector needs to cut its cloth to measure...why are people shocked by this?

im sickof hearing "we didnt cause this" ...neither did the private sector but at least the private sector can react...the PS has its hands tied by threats of industrial action!

peasant · 11-02-2009 10:33AM

Divide et impera

4zn76tysfajdxp · 11-02-2009 10:35AM

peasant wrote: »

Divide et impera

Carpe diem

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 10:41AM

smartypants wrote: »

if i see any of you picketing, i wont be stopping to offer my support, beeping my horn to show support or kind of support of other means! you self righteous shower of *****. who gives you the right to think you can screw the country just cause you are not getting what you want! wake up to reality!

That's fine, there are enough people in the public service that we don't need the "support" of uninformed morons.

the country will just grind to a halt because the people getting paid the least in the civil service are getting hit the hardest.

but no, your right - those people SHOULDN'T fight for their rights & allow the government to take the money from those with very little, whilst those on the highest rungs (still within the service) are getting paid INSANE salaries. because that makes LOTS of sense doesn't it? take from the poor give to the rich.

easyontheeye · 11-02-2009 10:42AM

jim o doom wrote: »

That's fine, there are enough people in the public service that we don't need the "support" of uninformed morons.

the country will just grind to a halt because the people getting paid the least in the civil service are getting hit the hardest.

but no, your right - those people SHOULDN'T fight for their rights & allow the government to take the money from those with very little, whilst those on the highest rungs (still within the service) are getting paid INSANE salaries. because that makes LOTS of sense doesn't it? take from the poor give to the rich.

they still have jobs dont they.... 200 euro a week or a few % pay cut...

and everyone is taking a hit...get real!

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 10:52AM

easyontheeye wrote: »

they still have jobs dont they.... 200 euro a week or a few % pay cut...

and everyone is taking a hit...get real!

in between 2000 & 2008 the max a sec general in civil service could earn was 130,000 (A LOT in 2000), which went up to a MAX of 230,000 (an absoultely CRAZY amount)..

in 2000 to a max of 36k in 2008. Most of the lower paid are not on the "highest" amount, in fact they are on the average industrial wage & are facing a big cut whilst having mortgages etc to pay for.

The strike is about them taking money from those with not much & not taking enough off those (all within the service) that have loads. simple as that.

easyontheeye · 11-02-2009 10:55AM

jim o doom wrote: »

in between 2000 & 2008 the max a sec general in civil service could earn was 130,000 (A LOT in 2000), which went up to a MAX of 230,000 (an absoultely CRAZY amount)..

in 2000 to a max of 36k in 2008. Most of the lower paid are not on the "highest" amount, in fact they are on the average industrial wage & are facing a big cut whilst having mortgages etc to pay for.

The strike is about them taking money from those with not much & not taking enough off those (all within the service) that have loads. simple as that.

but again i come back to my point... they still have jobs!!!! ffs they are lucky its hard to make them redundant!! the reality is the majority are low pay workers and thats where most of that taxes will come from

Noopti · 11-02-2009 10:55AM

The public sector need to take a hit as well as everyone else. Afterall they haven't got the risk of losing their jobs, so the least they can do is pay something towards having that piece of mind.

They are making out that they are taking a hit for everyone else. WAKE UP!
Thousands of private sector workers have lost their jobs, taken pay cuts and lower working hours.

Yes, the banks screwed us. But the end result is that everyone (private & public) will need to get hit because of it - and there is no way of avoiding that.

twinytwo · 11-02-2009 10:57AM

jim o doom wrote: »

That's fine, there are enough people in the public service that we don't need the "support" of uninformed morons.

the country will just grind to a halt because the people getting paid the least in the civil service are getting hit the hardest.

but no, your right - those people SHOULDN'T fight for their rights & allow the government to take the money from those with very little, whilst those on the highest rungs (still within the service) are getting paid INSANE salaries. because that makes LOTS of sense doesn't it? take from the poor give to the rich.

Eh.. where to start.... job security, pensions that they dont have to contribute to, index linked pensions, There is no drive in the public service to try and be more efficient etc etc.. Now i know this dosent apply to everyone but take the tradesmen working for the councils takes 3 times longer with 3 times the men to do a job compared to private contractor... talk about taking the piss. When was the last time a teacher was fired??... i mean they could be ****e and might not be able to teach but sure they cant be removed. it goes on and on and on

Noopti · 11-02-2009 11:07AM

twinytwo wrote: »

Eh.. where to start.... job security, pensions that they dont have to contribute to, index linked pensions, There is no drive in the public service to try and be more efficient etc etc.. Now i know this dosent apply to everyone but take the tradesmen working for the councils takes 3 times longer with 3 times the men to do a job compared to private contractor... talk about taking the piss. When was the last time a teacher was fired??... i mean they could be ****e and might not be able to teach but sure they cant be removed. it goes on and on and on

So true. My g/f works in the public sector and the stories I hear!
In the department where she works some people had upwards of 20 days sick leave for the year, people would routinely arrive 30-45 mins later, people would sit on their arse half the day unless forced to work.

Then at the end of the year they would have their hands out expecting their "increments". I am not saying all public sector workers are like this, far from it, it is the minority for sure. All I am saying is the public sector working environment is conducive to such lazy, money grabbing w@nkers, because if they worked in the private sector they:
A) Would be fired
or

Not get a raise (if they were lucky)

So for people to threaten to go on strike and cripple the country further just so that they don't lose some money like the rest of us (those who are lucky) is annoying in the extreme.

RATM · 11-02-2009 11:09AM

Naos wrote: »

Out of curiosity RATM, why should there be the tax on second homes?

Joe Bloggs, works hard and saves his money. He buys a second home somewhere down the country as a retreat for his family and he plans to retire down there when he's finished working.

So instead of p1ssing it up against the wall or going on foreign holidays, he's spending his money domestically. He's paying for the builders, putting men/women in employment and is also going to contribute to the rural area by supporting the local shop.

Why should he have to pay tax on a second home?

The logic being that if you have a second home then it is a luxury, not a necessity. I totally take on board your point about keeping money in the economy but it appears to many so far on these cutbacks that the rich and super rich are avoiding having to pay.
I wouldn't agree on a property tax on a first home as it could tend to hit those in need the most. But if you have a second ( or third, fourth, etc ) home and did quite well out of the property boom when Section 23 tax breaks were being thrown about then I think it is time to give back a little.

Such a gesture may not make the exchequer a massive amount of money but it would send the right signal to those public servants who are currently being asked to do their bit.

The biggest problem here is for the government to be seen to be dealing with cutbacks in a fair and equitable manner- if it is seen to be unfair ( which the unions and their members currently think it is ) then the only thing that is going to happen are strikes and stoppages and those are only going to serve to cripple the country.

As we heard last weekend there are 30,000 millionaires in this country and around half a dozen billionaires- so far not one single measure the government has made has targeted these people. There's no point throwing around the 'private sector is taking the hit with job losses' argument because these people have made so much money off the boom they no longer need a job.

Until the government targets some sort of a tax on these people then regular hard working people will not feel the treatment they are receiving is anywhere near equitable, especially when it is those same moneyed classes who are primarily responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 11:11AM

twinytwo wrote: »

Eh.. where to start.... job security, pensions that they dont have to contribute to, index linked pensions, There is no drive in the public service to try and be more efficient etc etc.. Now i know this dosent apply to everyone but take the tradesmen working for the councils takes 3 times longer with 3 times the men to do a job compared to private contractor... talk about taking the piss. When was the last time a teacher was fired??... i mean they could be ****e and might not be able to teach but sure they cant be removed. it goes on and on and on

Are you REALLY actually missing my point THAT much? ALL of us will be HAPPY to pay a levy. The problem is WITHIN the service. There are people in the service getting paid 260,000 at the high end of the scale, RIGHT? and they ALSO have JOB SECURITY, like those getting paid VERY LITTLE, RIGHT?

The point is that those with not much pay are having too much taken off them, when those getting paid LOADS are NOT getting enough taken off them.

Both those with HIGH & LOW pay BOTH have job security, but there is a MASSIVE discrepancy on how much both sections of the public sector are being levied. Now do you understand???????

The point is not job security, even remotely because after the levy which RAPES the lowest paid & doesn't bother the highest paid that much, they will both STILL HAVE job security.

easyontheeye · 11-02-2009 11:14AM

jim o doom wrote: »

The point is not job security, even remotely because after the levy which RAPES the lowest paid

abit dramatic... i think its fair. sure wont they get it all back when they retire through their pension which is outside the forces of economics.

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 11:14AM

twinytwo wrote: »

Eh.. where to start.... pensions that they dont have to contribute to

OMG I am so sick of hearing this! ALL CIVIL SERVANTS ALREADY PAY 6% of our wages to our pension, this levy will increase it to about 14%! jesus do some research before you post utterly uninformed rubbish.

easyontheeye · 11-02-2009 11:15AM

jim o doom wrote: »

OMG I am so sick of hearing this! ALL CIVIL SERVANTS ALREADY PAY 6% of our wages to our pension, this levy will increase it to about 14%! jesus do some research before you post utterly uninformed rubbish.

your missing the point, 6% is not the true value of the average pension, private sector workers would have to pay about 20% to get that kind of pension AND it would be at the mercy of the market and crashes.

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 11:16AM

easyontheeye wrote: »

abit dramatic... i think its fair. sure wont they get it all back when they retire through their pension which is outside the forces of economics.

So you think it's ok for VERY HIGHLY paid civil servants NOT to suffer, but OK for very lowly paid civil servants to suffer? grand, no point talking to you because that is patently wrong. It's like firing a bunch of staff from a bank & then giving a raise to the CEO for saving money. but no that's the "private" sector, its totally different.

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 11:19AM

easyontheeye wrote: »

your missing the point, 6% is not the true value of the average pension, private sector workers would have to pay about 20% to get that kind of pension AND it would be at the mercy of the market and crashes.

I'm missing the point when I respond to a poster who thinks we contribute nothing informing that we do contribute. yeah. & like I said, we all will contribute, this is not about us not wanting to take a levy, it's about the levy being unfairly biased against the lowest paid.

easyontheeye · 11-02-2009 11:19AM

jim o doom wrote: »

So you think it's ok for VERY HIGHLY paid civil servants NOT to suffer, but OK for very lowly paid civil servants to suffer? grand, no point talking to you because that is patently wrong. It's like firing a bunch of staff from a bank & then giving a raise to the CEO for saving money. but no that's the "private" sector, its totally different.

no it isnt. i mean they highest earner is being hit by 10%...so you tell me what is enough? what do you want? raise the levy on the higher earner? would this keep you happy? bet it wouldnt....you want the levy on the lower/middle earner dropped

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 11:33AM

easyontheeye wrote: »

no it isnt. i mean they highest earner is being hit by 10%...so you tell me what is enough? what do you want? raise the levy on the higher earner? would this keep you happy? bet it wouldnt....you want the levy on the lower/middle earner dropped

actually, it would be to raise it on the highest, so it COULD be dropped on the lowest - therefore the same amount is coming out of the wage bill, the lowest aren't getting hit so (unfairly) hard & the highest would have to pay more.

The reasoning behind this is that the highest paid have received in beteween the years 2000 & 2008 a 94% increase in their wages, the lowest paid have received a total increase of 51.7%. Do you honestly think that the meagre10% levy the highest paid are expected to give equeates to the MASSIVE NINETY FOUR PER CENT increase they have received in eight years? NO OF COURSE IT DOESN'T. It's simple mathematics & it's simple in logic.

twinytwo · 11-02-2009 11:37AM

jim o doom wrote: »

OMG I am so sick of hearing this! ALL CIVIL SERVANTS ALREADY PAY 6% of our wages to our pension, this levy will increase it to about 14%! jesus do some research before you post utterly uninformed rubbish.

PRSI for civil servents employed before april 95 is 0.9%... Your job is secure ,your pension is secure.... you can even avail of a career break of up to 5 years "you know that there is a job there when you come back... " that really is taking the piss.

jim o doom · 11-02-2009 11:44AM

twinytwo wrote: »

PRSI for civil servents employed before april 95 is 0.9%... Your job is secure ,your pension is secure.... you can even avail of a career break of up to 5 years "you know that there is a job there when you come back... " that really is taking the piss.

yes, and many people employed pre 1995 would be the HIGHER paid servants, not the lowest rung like me and my mates who are only here a few years & pay the SAME damn PRSI as EVERYONE ELSE. Also, anyone who goes on a "career break" now, is being put of returning until AFTER the recession, so no job for them then. and try reading the previous posts in the thread, it's not about "job security", it's about the levy being unfair to the lowest paid.

branners69 · 11-02-2009 11:46AM

jim o doom dont rise to it! You wont convince them they are wrong no matter what you say so I wouldnt be @rsed!

I think you have to be a civil servant to fully understand your point but I agree the lower paid civil servants should not have to take such a huge hit.

I love the way the media has turned everyone on each other, I dont feel sorry for the unemployed private sector employees and those moaning at having shorter weeks as a couple of years ago they were laughing at the poor civil servants! I remember when they held competitions for civil service positions and no one turned up! I have very little sympathy with the taxi drivers as it was their greed which has them in the state they are!

But in the same way I can understand why the civil servants are being targeted now, doesnt bother me in the slightest. I get well paid for what I do, I love having flexi and sleep easy at night knowing my job is pretty safe and I can put food on the table for my family!

public/civil servants im going to run you over...

Comments