Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

noodler · 12-01-2011 04:23PM

Riskymove wrote: »

and I merely pointed out that one set of figures was more relevant to what we were dicussing

Right, and I was informing you and the other poster what the difference was between the two sets of figures you were both posting.

Not rocket science is it?

Riskymove wrote: »

?

what has this got to do with our present discussion

you seem intent on having a different dig in in every response, I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the matter in hand without such asides

For serious? How on earth is the Public Sector pension bill not relevant?

Riskymove wrote: »

no I know what the white paper is

the estimates for the Budget 2011 is not the final version based on end of year outturn and final allocations

the Revised Estimates Volume is

this is what Count Dooku linked to first, for 2010, the 2011 version will be available in due course

If you are certain.

What else are you expecting changes to on the purely pay side in 2011 that was implemented in the budget 2011:

Off hand, all I can think of is a 10% reduction for all new entrants (surely a releatively tiny figure) and the 2000 odd jobs being vacated in the HSE (in return for a reasonable redundancy of course).

EDIT: I mean the document starts off saying

"The 2011 Estimates shown in this section reflect the expenditure allocations proposed
in the National Recovery Plan 2011-2014, as published 24 November 2010, with some
minor technical adjustments."

Wasn't the 10% paycut for new entrants mentioned first in the NRC?

Maybe this year's paper is more inclusive than usual due to the early publishing of the 1022-2014 plan.

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 04:34PM

noodler wrote: »

Not rocket science is it?

see above, you are not impressing anyone

For serious? How on earth is the Public Sector pension bill not relevant?

I said relevant in the discussion we were having, not relevant full stop

we were discussing the cost of public service wages and cuts to them

we pinted out that the pay bill is reducing and presented figures to show that

therefore the figures about pay (not including pensions) were most relevant to that point

obvious the overall cost, including pensions, is relevant to the bigger picture discussions about overall expenditure

If you are certain.

What else are you expecting changes to on the purely pay side in 2011 that was implemented in the budget 2011:

they may well end up being very similar, anything is possible, but they are based on a position last November

in any event the most important figures are actual outturn as set out by others for up to end of last year

noodler · 12-01-2011 04:41PM

Riskymove wrote: »

see above, you are not impressing anyone

Look, you are actaully starting to cry now.

You had a figure for pay, the other poster had a figure for pay and pensions.

You guys were unsure what the difference was so I told you.

And your response was "its not relevant".

Grow up.

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 04:45PM

noodler wrote: »

Look, you are actaully starting to cry now.

you can see him through your PC????

noodler wrote: »

You had a figure for pay, the other poster had a figure for pay and pensions.

my figures were also for pay and pensions.

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 05:06PM

noodler wrote: »

Look, you are actaully starting to cry now.

Grow up.

:rolleyes:

seeking to respect other posters is childish now is it?

:rolleyes:

And your response was "its not relevant".

actually it wasn't

I said one set of figures was 'more relevant' to what we were discussing

that is not the same as saying the other was 'not relevant'..I hope you can see that

I think the discussion would be better if you took the time to read what was actually being said rather than thinking up the next snide comment.

macannrb · 12-01-2011 07:52PM

I think yourself and Keire are just being childish now

You two demonstrate the stereotype that the public sector can't accept reality and adapt to change

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 08:26PM

macannrb wrote: »

I think yourself and Keire are just being childish now

You two demonstrate the stereotype that the public sector can't accept reality and adapt to change

i i think your protraying the stereotype of a typical begrudger................

PS pay bill decreased in 2009, 2010 and will do in 2011 again, and yet you still scream for blood, your not happy until you see somebody else suffer.

the fact is the PS pay bill is decreasing while private sector services are increasing.

i think your the one being childish, throwing your toys from the pram just because everybody else doesnt agree with you

kaiser sauze · 12-01-2011 09:28PM

kceire wrote: »

PS pay bill decreased in 2009, 2010 and will do in 2011 again, and yet you still scream for blood, your not happy until you see somebody else suffer.

You make this sound like the PS are being very accommodating with those reductions. The truth is that they have fought against every single reduction.

In addition, the fact is that the bill has to come down. Our budget cannot be balanced without tackling a pay and pension bills that is almost 2/3 of national income.

kceire wrote: »

the fact is the PS pay bill is decreasing while private sector services are increasing.

Hang on, I have some straw to fetch to pay the man.

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 09:36PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The truth is that they have fought against every single reduction.

so you admit the PS pay is being reduced?
i agree it has to come down further, and it will in 2011 and again in 2012 and again in 2013, it will decrease for the foreseeable future imo.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

In addition, the fact is that the bill has to come down. Our budget cannot be balanced without tackling a pay and pension bills that is almost 2/3 of national income.

2009, PS pay and Pensions were as you say 36% of all government expenditure, but PS pay and pension bill for 2010 dropped to 15.092Bn.

kaiser sauze · 12-01-2011 09:45PM

kceire wrote: »

so you admit the PS pay is being reduced?

Erm, where did I argue otherwise?!?

kceire wrote: »

i agree it has to come down further, and it will in 2011 and again in 2012 and again in 2013, it will decrease for the foreseeable future imo.

Yes, because it has to, not because the PS are "accommodating" us.

kceire wrote: »

source?
PS pay and pension bill for 2010 was 15.092Bn.

What do you mean source? Do you not know what national income is?

Are you debating in a thread without knowing the basic underlying figures of our economy?

This is why I gave up trying to explain to you about your pension entitlement, you really do not understand all this.

kaiser sauze · 12-01-2011 09:49PM

kceire wrote: »

2009, PS pay and Pensions were as you say 36% of all government expenditure, but PS pay and pension bill for 2010 dropped to 15.092Bn.

Nice edit, and I am delighted to have caught this as it lends more to the fact that you do not know what you are debating and pick and choose figures as you perceive what they mean and suit your agenda.

You are talking here about expenditure, I am talking about income.

Either admit you do not understand this or stop trying to facetiously blur the lines.

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 09:51PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Yes, because it has to, not because the PS are "accommodating" us.

fact is that its reducing. doesnt matter whether the staff like it or not, its reducing and thats the whole point of it.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

What do you mean source? Do you not know what national income is?

Are you debating in a thread without knowing the basic underlying figures of our economy?

i was looking for a source to say that the PS pay and pensions is 2/3 of our income, i cant find one. we took in 31Bm in 2010 and payed out 15bn, so thats 1/2 in my books.

anyway its a public forum, and judging by 95% of the posts in here in relation to PS pay and conditions, i dont need to know diddliy squat about our economy.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

This is why I gave up trying to explain to you about your pension entitlement, you really do not understand all this.

your personal grudge against me is getting tiresome, so get over it.

kaiser sauze · 12-01-2011 10:06PM

kceire wrote: »

fact is that its reducing. doesnt matter whether the staff like it or not, its reducing and thats the whole point of it.

The staff don't like it, they fought against it nand it needs to reduce because our income is only 2/3 of our expenditure.

kceire wrote: »

i was looking for a source to say that the PS pay and pensions is 2/3 of our income, i cant find one. we took in 31Bm in 2010 and payed out 15bn, so thats 1/2 in my books.

I think you do not know what you are looking for.

kceire wrote: »

anyway its a public forum, and judging by 95% of the posts in here in relation to PS pay and conditions, i dont need to know diddliy squat about our economy.

This is unfortunately true.

kceire wrote: »

your personal grudge against me is getting tiresome, so get over it.

You keeping up the same ill-informed form is what is even more tiresome.

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 10:12PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

You keeping up the same ill-informed form is what is even more tiresome.

just like the PS begrudgers who post BS on here.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Nice edit

i edited it before you posted your post, so i wasnt trying to hide anything, i clicked submit instead of preview.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Nice edit, and I am delighted to have caught this as it lends more to the fact that you do not know what you are debating and pick and choose figures as you perceive what they mean and suit your agenda.

You are talking here about expenditure, I am talking about income.

Either admit you do not understand this or stop trying to facetiously blur the lines.

i done this to highlight your point :

you said :

Our budget cannot be balanced without tackling a pay and pension bills that is almost 2/3 of national income.

but how can 15.092Bn (PS Pay BIll) be 2/3 of 31.7Bn (National income)?
that was my point?

Head The Wall · 12-01-2011 10:14PM

kceire wrote: »

fact is that its reducing. doesnt matter whether the staff like it or not, its reducing and thats the whole point of it.

The whole point is that it is not reducing enough, how you can claim otherwise when the pay and pensions bill was still going up until 2009 is incredulous

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 10:19PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

The whole point is that it is not reducing enough, how you can claim otherwise when the pay and pensions bill was still going up until 2009 is incredulous

PS pay bill reduced in 2009 in relation to 2008.

17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

kaiser sauze · 12-01-2011 10:39PM

kceire wrote: »

just like the certain PS begrudgers workers who post BS on here.

I invite you to an education seminar at you home tonight.

The topic is this, it is a 21 page document, but if you would like me to summarise it for you, you only need to check out page 11. These figures are from the DoF, so no calling them wrong or any other BS argument.

Lastly, the reason the DoF uses the net reduction in the bill is because your tax money pisses back into the same pot it came out of.

Gross pay increased until 2010.

kceire wrote: »

i done this to highlight your point :

you said :

Our budget cannot be balanced without tackling a pay and pension bills that is almost 2/3 of national income.

but how can 15.092Bn (PS Pay BIll) be 2/3 of 31.7Bn (National income)?
that was my point?

Like I said before, stop blurring the lines or being deliberately facetious.

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

ardmacha · 12-01-2011 10:55PM

but how can 15.092Bn (PS Pay BIll) be 2/3 of 31.7Bn (National income)?

National income is €130Bn, so the PS pay bill is about 11.5% of this.

noodler · 13-01-2011 01:53AM

Don't worry about GNP people.

The Bill as a % of tax revenue is far more important.

ardmacha · 13-01-2011 02:04AM

Don't worry about GNP people.
The Bill as a % of tax revenue is far more important.

GNP is the ability of the country to bear taxation, tax revenue is the outcome of the polticial decisions made. If the latter is insufficient relative to the former then different decisions have to be made.

Count Dooku · 13-01-2011 08:25AM

kceire wrote: »

but how can 15.092Bn (PS Pay BIll) be 2/3 of 31.7Bn (National income)?
that was my point?

My figure taken from budget, i.e. what have been actually paid, and it much higher then yours, which taken from document, which doesn't have any legislative power

noodler · 13-01-2011 10:44AM

ardmacha wrote: »

GNP is the ability of the country to bear taxation, tax revenue is the outcome of the polticial decisions made. If the latter is insufficient relative to the former then different decisions have to be made.

The relationship between GNP and taxation is not 1 for 1 and can vary from country to country.

What we can actually, physically afford is far important for the debate.

Gumbo · 13-01-2011 11:00AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

[/COLOR]

I invite you to an education seminar at you home tonight.

The topic is this, it is a 21 page document, but if you would like me to summarise it for you, you only need to check out page 11. These figures are from the DoF, so no calling them wrong or any other BS argument.

Lastly, the reason the DoF uses the net reduction in the bill is because your tax money pisses back into the same pot it came out of.

Gross pay increased until 2010.

Like I said before, stop blurring the lines or being deliberately facetious.

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

thats the same document i was linking to 5 pages back

plus my figures are for the PS pay bill, which incase you forgot is the title of the thread :

Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

no mention of pensions in there is there now :rolleyes:

Like you said before, stop blurring the lines or being deliberately facetious.

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

ardmacha · 13-01-2011 12:38PM

What we can actually, physically afford is far important for the debate.

GNP is the measure of what the economy can afford. There is nothing complex about this.

macannrb · 13-01-2011 01:15PM

ardmacha wrote: »

GNP is the measure of what the economy can afford. There is nothing complex about this.

What the economy can afford and that the government can afford are two different things. Many in the economy can up and leave, and judging by the the emmigration plenty are doing so. In my workplace plenty are leaving with qualifications, even though there are jobs here in their area, as tax is higher then in other countries, where they can get jobs also.

Also GNP would be including the income of companies who pay no tax because of R&D tax credits and other reasons, who would leave straight away if these were taken away. On this point its good that they are here, as teh income tax they pay gives the government income, and less unemployment.

The government are borrowing heavily for current expenditure, so this expenditure needs to but cut back far quicker then
proposed. The average rate of reduction in public pay over the last 3 years is about 1bn, but rise in interest costs on the borrowing is 1bn, so the effect is we are not making any progress. Hence why there are calls to reduce public pay at higher rates. Along with other public expenditure.

noodler · 13-01-2011 01:15PM

ardmacha wrote: »

GNP is the measure of what the economy can afford. There is nothing complex about this.

GNP is a perfectly fine measure if you want a universal comparison with other countries.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, and with information exchequer revenue for 2010 readily available, why wouldn you not use our actual revenue seeing as how is is what will directly pay the bills we are disucssing.

Gumbo · 13-01-2011 01:23PM

macannrb wrote: »

The average rate of reduction in public pay over the last 3 years is about 1bn

PS pay bill reduced by 2.005Bn between Dec 2008 and Dec 2010.
and we will see another decrease by Dec 2011.

ardmacha · 13-01-2011 02:20PM

However, for the purposes of this discussion, and with information exchequer revenue for 2010 readily available, why wouldn you not use our actual revenue seeing as how is is what will directly pay the bills we are disucssing.

The issue is the deficit. Whether actual revenue is close to potential revenue is properly measured by reference to GNP. Actual revenue and actual expenditure reflect policy, you are much to the fore in proposing changes in expenditure policy while enitrely silent on changes to revenue policy.

macannrb · 13-01-2011 02:30PM

kceire wrote: »

PS pay bill reduced by 2.005Bn between Dec 2008 and Dec 2010.
and we will see another decrease by Dec 2011.

Will it decrease as much as the increase in interest costs forecast by the DOF?

Gumbo · 13-01-2011 03:17PM

macannrb wrote: »

Will it decrease as much as the increase in interest costs forecast by the DOF?

I'm afraid not even you can answer that yet can you?
I'll tell you in January 2012.

Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

Comments