IT, how we spent the boom

ei.sdraob · 31-10-2010 06:25PM #1

Yep here you can observe the elephants in the room called public salaries/pensions and welfare.

Note how we spent more (during the boom) on debt interest (why wasn't it paid off in full giving us a cushion for a bad day?) than on roads, and how child benefit amounted to almost same amount as road building ...

the_syco · 31-10-2010 06:30PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Note how we spent more (during the boom) on debt interest (why wasn't it paid off in full giving us a cushion for a bad day?) than on roads, and how child benefit amounted to almost same amount as road building ...

Of how much we spent on roads, as opposed to how much was spent on the roads.

kippy · 31-10-2010 06:38PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

an interesting graphic in IT

Yep here you can observe the elephants in the room called public salaries/pensions and welfare.

Note how we spent more (during the boom) on debt interest (why wasn't it paid off in full giving us a cushion for a bad day?) than on roads, and how child benefit amounted to almost same amount as road building ...

Is it still an elephant in the room, I mean seriously?

Is less than a third of state expenditure on the payment of its staff and associated pensions really that much?

murphaph · 31-10-2010 07:18PM

kippy wrote: »

Is it still an elephant in the room, I mean seriously?

Is less than a third of state expenditure on the payment of its staff and associated pensions really that much?

Well, I'm sure you'll agree that we have to balance the books at the end of the day. So, given that, what would you reduce app. 20bn worth of expenditure on to achieve that?

kippy · 31-10-2010 07:20PM

murphaph wrote: »

Well, I'm sure you'll agree that we have to balance the books at the end of the day. So, given that, what would you reduce app. 20bn worth of expenditure on to achieve that?

I am commenting specificilly on the diagram above and what it is saying.

You should know me well enough at this stage to know where my thoughts lie on balancing the books.

granturismo · 31-10-2010 07:24PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

an interesting graphic in IT

Yep here you can observe the elephants in the room called public salaries/pensions and welfare.

You seem to expect the public sector staff that deal with all the other boxes to work for nothing.

Put up a similar graphic for a private business and pensions aside, salaries will be a similar proportion.

Roll on the serial thankers and public service bashers.

Count Dooku · 31-10-2010 08:02PM

A new kind of snip: a dozen ways to trim our public sector pay bill

1. Cut number of TDs to 100 and cap pay at €80,000
Saving €20.6m
2. Abolish the Seanad
Saving €9.4m
3. Cut judges' salaries to €100,000
Saving €13.1m
4. Cut the pay package of semi-state bosses to €150,000
Saving €2.9m
5. Abolish private secretaries, drivers, advisers and helpers attached to the ministerial and constituency offices of Ministers and junior ministers
Saving €16m
6. Abolish all quangos
Saving €926.5m
7. Cut the pay of all secretaries-general to €150,000
Saving €0.75m
8. Cut the salaries of all senior public servants to €100,000
Saving €488.4m
9. Cut average public sector wage to average wage of all workers
Saving €2.521bn
10. Cut public service pension bill by 10%
Saving €220m
11. Abolish pensions to all former Presidents, Judges and Ministers
Saving €11.1m
12. Abolish consultancy costs
Saving €84m

TOTAL SAVING: €3.825bn–€4.314bn

PanchoVilla · 31-10-2010 08:04PM

granturismo wrote: »

You seem to expect the public sector staff that deal with all the other boxes to work for nothing.

Put up a similar graphic for a private business and pensions aside, salaries will be a similar proportion.

Roll on the serial thankers and public service bashers.

Work for nothing? Let's come back to reality. The number of administrative staff has grown exponentially since the mid 90s while the regular PS staff that actually does the work remained about the same. The problem is not the PS as a whole, it's the administrators and directors getting massive salaries for doing sweet fúck all. It's the senators, TDs, and ministers getting massive salaries for doing the same.

Nijmegen · 31-10-2010 08:07PM

What's not interesting to me is the PS pay and pensions - we've been over that ground, of benchmarking and all the rest.

What's interesting to me is that for all the money we've spent on welfare, child benefit, housing, etc... 20% of kids, 1 in 5, is living in 'relative poverty' in Ireland.

We obviously didn't spend it well.

Merrion · 31-10-2010 08:07PM

There doesn't appear to be any military expenditure - what box is that in?

Pete_Cavan · 31-10-2010 09:56PM

granturismo wrote: »

Put up a similar graphic for a private business and pensions aside, salaries will be a similar proportion.

This is where the comparison between the public and private sector begins and ends. That private business actually funds itself and pays its employees from these funds (they also fund the public sector as it happens). Also private companies downsize and reduce wages in times of poor economic activity in order to allow the business to survive and staff can be sacked for poor performance. No comparison between the two here then.

ninty9er · 31-10-2010 10:13PM

Where is jobseekers benefit and allowance. Which box is it hidden in? I suppose it would be very unpopular to show that for what it is;)

Godge · 31-10-2010 10:15PM

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Work for nothing? Let's come back to reality. The number of administrative staff has grown exponentially since the mid 90s while the regular PS staff that actually does the work remained about the same. The problem is not the PS as a whole, it's the administrators and directors getting massive salaries for doing sweet fúck all. It's the senators, TDs, and ministers getting massive salaries for doing the same.

Not true, the numbers of teachers and nurses have increased dramatically.

feicim · 01-11-2010 11:26AM

What exactly was this graphic supposed to prove? Was there a point behind it, or does is just simply show a simplified version of Ireland's account sheet?Its mildly interesting from a historical perspective, but offers no solutions and bears little relevance to the problems faced today.

If it is supposed to highlight the cause of our economic problems, I think it is very misleading.

Firstly it only covers government spending. This is only half of the problem.

The real boom money was all the money the banks lent to developers / homebuyers / speculators.

The other half of the problem is the vulnerable economic position of individuals/families who have high levels of personal debt. This leaves the government between a rock and a hard place, they need to balance the books, its looking likely at some point in the future they can't borrow what they need from international markets and the population are up to their eyes in debt and can't really be tapped for much more without causing unknown knock on economic / social consequences.

southsiderosie · 01-11-2010 12:50PM

feicim wrote: »

What exactly was this graphic supposed to prove? Was there a point behind it, or does is just simply show a simplified version of Ireland's account sheet?Its mildly interesting from a historical perspective, but offers no solutions and bears little relevance to the problems faced today.

If it is supposed to highlight the cause of our economic problems, I think it is very misleading.

What it proves is that the Irish government put a shockingly small percentage of its boom year revenues into productive investment.

feicim wrote: »

Firstly it only covers government spending. This is only half of the problem. The real boom money was all the money the banks lent to developers / homebuyers / speculators.

Yes, and this generated an incredible amount of revenue from the government in the form of VAT, stamp tax, income tax, etc...which was then spent on cash payouts.

dan_d · 01-11-2010 04:09PM

Emmmm......education.
Not seeing it.
Unless it's counted as "school buildings". In which case, it's fairly pathetic.

But we've got a great education system, right? It's going to get us out of this mess, right??

Interesting graphic. Gives a good indication of where priorities lie for this
country's politicians.

I would imagine a similar one for 2008-2010 would have SW as one of the big ones...and little else would have changed....

kippy · 01-11-2010 04:14PM

dan_d wrote: »

I would imagine a similar one for 2008-2010 would have SW as one of the big ones...and little else would have changed....

The figures would be far far smaller actually..............

The majority of education spending would be in under public sector salaries and other current goods and services, I would have thought.

Sleepy · 01-11-2010 04:19PM

What delusional putting the stats together on this included 2008 and 2009 in the 'boom'?

It's a stretch to even include 2007 ffs.

ei.sdraob · 01-11-2010 05:36PM

Sleepy wrote: »

What delusional putting the stats together on this included 2008 and 2009 in the 'boom'?

It's a stretch to even include 2007 ffs.

True then again public wages kept increasing well into 2009

IT, how we spent the boom

Comments