Survey reveals a 44% pay gap between public and private sector

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 02:56PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Sorry I am trying to understand you but im finding it very hard!

We cant tax the working more becasue there has been an increase in the unemployed, is that what your saying in point 1?

Reason 2 affects everyone, if you dont want to pay increased carbon taxes gte rid of your car.

If you dont want to pay a hosuehold charge dont own a house.
Im not really sure what these have to do with a public sector versus private sector super row though.
So perhaps you can enlighten me?
Im seriously confused by this post!

No my point is Robbie that there are 1.8 billion people working paying income tax and to date in the first 6 months desipte losing 20k of these people we paid 2bilion more in tax. So lets put that in context..Thats the same amount saved via the pension levy and the so called increased effiencies saved through the CPA and the pay cut to the Public sector wage. All of which has been done over 4 years...So once again income tax 2 billion in 6 months...Public sector 2 billion 4 years...Spot the difference???
So I will say it again how long do you think the gov can keep taxing the fcuk out of people whilst also introducing stealth taxes such as the household tax, increases in carbon tax..That my point Robbie..

So out of all you only pic the carbon tax..what about people who will have to pay this for heat during the winter...What just freeze to death?? What about addressing the sure to increase USC aswell as the household tax..Will we all just give our property to Nama..

Your making less and less sense as you type?

05-08-2011 03:02PM

fliball123 wrote: »

No my point is Robbie that there are 1.8 billion people working paying income tax and to date in the first 6 months desipte losing 20k of these people we paid 2bilion more in tax. So lets put that in context..Thats the same amount saved via the pension levy and the so called increased effiencies saved through the CPA and the pay cut to the Public sector wage. All of which has been done over 4 years...So once again income tax 2 billion in 6 months...Public sector 2 billion 4 years...Spot the difference???
So I will say it again how long do you think the gov can keep taxing the fcuk out of people whilst also introducing stealth taxes such as the household tax, increases in carbon tax..That my point Robbie..

So out of all you only pic the carbon tax..what about people who will have to pay this for heat during the winter...What just freeze to death?? What about addressing the sure to increase USC aswell as the household tax..Will we all just give our property to Nama..

Your making less and less sense as you type?

All of the things you mention have to be paid for by both public sector workers and private sector can you not understand this?

Another thing you need to understand is the public sector also pay tax, do you understand this?

05-08-2011 03:03PM

robtri wrote: »

I never said cut them and not me...

all I said is simple maths money coming in is not enough to cover money going out....

increasing taxes is not the answer.... decreasing outgoings is the answer...

yes you did!

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 03:07PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

All of the things you mention have to be paid for by both public sector workers and private sector can you not understand this?

Another thing you need to understand is the public sector also pay tax, do you understand this?

I do understand that Robbie..but once again do you deny the correlation between tax take vs spending cuts?? Do you deem it fair that we should pay more tax so that 300k people can keep their terms and conditions and be immune from cuts..Which takes 16/17 billion off the table for cuts?

We are going around in circles I have conceeded yes you do pay tax the ps pay tax but as a previous posted pointed out.....You still get 50 - 60% of your wage which is funded via the private sector...the 40 - 50% in tax you pay is paid back to the gov...So the private sector is still picking up a bill of about 9/10 billion even if we do not include the tax that you pay...Heres a good point for you if we do cut the ps pay you pay less in tax

happy days

05-08-2011 03:12PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I do understand that Robbie..but once again do you deny the correlation between tax take vs spending cuts?? Do you deem it fair that we should pay more tax so that 300k people can keep their terms and conditions and be immune from cuts..Which takes 16/17 billion off the table for cuts?

We are going around in circles I have conceeded yes you do pay tax the ps pay tax but as a previous posted pointed out.....You still get 50 - 60% of your wage which is funded via the private sector...the 40 - 50% in tax you pay is paid back to the gov...So the private sector is still picking up a bill of about 9/10 billion even if we do not include the tax that you pay...Heres a good point for you if we do cut the ps pay you pay less in tax happy days

Are you saying the work of the public sector is waste or of no value to the state?

Or should public servants just forgo their salary because they are doing the states work and so shall recieve their thanks in the afterlife?

OMD · 05-08-2011 03:15PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Everyone knows this means tax rates rather than the amount of tax. Don't pretend different.

I really doubt you speak for everyone :rolleyes:

Well really anyone who doesn't know really shouldn't be posting in an economics forum. Anyone pretending thriving know is simply arguing just to rise people (and succeeding by the evidence on this thread)

05-08-2011 03:17PM

OMD wrote: »

Well really anyone who doesn't know really shouldn't be posting in an economics forum. Anyone pretending thriving know is simply arguing just to rise people (and succeeding by the evidence on this thread)

Sorry what?

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 03:17PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Are you saying the work of the public sector is waste or of no value to the state?

Are your reaching Robbie...Look some do a good job in the public sector some dont..Do I think you deserve more than the average accross the OCED countries ...No you dont...

Let me turn the tables on you...Do you think it prudent to be borrowing 18billion a year to suppliment your wage??

I have put it out in black and white robbie and you blatently ignore all reason and fact that I have put forward...

We are 18billion in the hole and you want our children to be sent to England for an education before we cut ps wage

You want the dole to be completely scrapped (even if people have been paying their stamps for years) before the ps wage is touched.

And finally you want to increase the tax on a working force who have already shelled out 2 billion extra in taxes and with a load more stealth taxes are going to be imposed on them before PS wage is cut..

And if the ps wage is cut will you be going on strike Robbie?

05-08-2011 03:28PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Are your reaching Robbie...Look some do a good job in the public sector some dont..Do I think you deserve more than the average accross the OCED countries ...No you dont...

Do you want me to answer questions you direct at me or will you answer them yourself?

fliball123 wrote: »

Let me turn the tables on you...Do you think it prudent to be borrowing 18billion a year to suppliment your wage??

I have put it out in black and white robbie and you blatently ignore all reason and fact that I have put forward...
We are 18billion in the hole and you want our children to be sent to England for an education before we cut ps wage
You want the dole to be completely scrapped (even if people have been paying their stamps for years) before the ps wage is touched.
And finally you want to increase the tax on a working force who have already shelled out 2 billion extra in taxes and with a load more stealth taxes are going to be imposed on them before PS wage is cut..
And if the ps wage is cut will you be going on strike Robbie?

:D:D:D:D:D

Your a great laugh and next to nothing in your post is the truth, wait no you called me robbie thats true I guess!

I have highlighted in bold everything thast wrong with your post.

What i will or wont do in the future isnt really any of your business now is it?

Me predicting my reaction to an event that you have given enough detail for wouldnt be smart either would it?

Anyway your comedy gold these days, claiming you put anything in black and with is just hilarious!

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 03:34PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you want me to answer questions you direct at me or will you answer them yourself?

:D:D:D:D:D

Your a great laugh and next to nothing in your post is the truth, wait no you called me robbie thats true I guess!

I have highlighted in bold everything thast wrong with your post.

What i will or wont do in the future isnt really any of your business now is it?

Me predicting my reaction to an event that you have given enough detail for wouldnt be smart either would it?

Anyway your comedy gold these days, claiming you put anything in black and with is just hilarious!

What ever Robbie your full of it..You post stuff and then have amnesia..

You posted saying to sack all doctors...Sell the schools and sent the kids to england and to stop the dole completely....Once again you have no substance to anything in your post...

Anyone on here can see what has been posted between the pair of us..If I was a public servant I would be onto you to tell you to stop as your painting a very bad image...Attack the post with points..You have not once tried to argue any point I made I have conceeded in thing such as PS do pay tax.....So why bother I wont be responding to you...

05-08-2011 03:49PM

fliball123 wrote: »

What ever Robbie your full of it..You post stuff and then have amnesia..

You posted saying to sack all doctors...Sell the schools and sent the kids to england and to stop the dole completely....Once again you have no substance to anything in your post...

Anyone on here can see what has been posted between the pair of us..If I was a public servant I would be onto you to tell you to stop as your painting a very bad image...Attack the post with points..You have not once tried to argue any point I made I have conceeded in thing such as PS do pay tax.....So why bother I wont be responding to you...

I posted it as a suggestion along with all the other stupid ones posted in this thread, i neither think the option is valid or good.
However I did think it was as acceptable as the other stupid suggestions in this thread.
So no im not claiming amnesia i am stating i dont want those options, that doesnt make them any less an option though does it?

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 03:53PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I posted it as a suggestion along with all the other stupid ones posted in this thread, i neither think the option is valid or good.
However I did think it was as acceptable as the other stupid suggestions in this thread.
So no im not claiming amnesia i am stating i dont want those options, that doesnt make them any less an option though does it?

So you posted a suggestion as to how you would get out of the current situation and when I pull you up on it..You say that I am a great comic act...So what other options have been put up..???and if you think that your suggestions are stupid why put them up..

Actually lets call you out..How would you go about addressing the 18billion. and be honest i woul like to size you up as I say I dont know if your deluded or acting the clown or what..One simple question to be answered Robbie..if you were enda kenny how would you addess the 18 billion deficit

Gumbo · 05-08-2011 04:03PM

fliball123 wrote: »

..Attack the post with points..You have not once tried to argue any point I made I have conceeded in thing such as PS do pay tax.....So why bother I wont be responding to you...

sometimes, you really need to read your own posts, and take your own advice too......

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 04:07PM

kceire wrote: »

sometimes, you really need to read your own posts, and take your own advice too......

True and in most cases when I have gone after a poster or anything like that I have appologised for it...I have asked this individual to explain himself I have set my stall up stating that it is immoral and unfair that 16/17 of what we spend be off the table in the next budget...I have asked Robbie what he would do ..and some of his suggestions were sell the schools and send the kids to England and other really stupid stuff (now he may of been joking) so I have asked him to clarify what he would do..If anyone asks me that i have no problem answering

Gumbo · 05-08-2011 04:09PM

fliball123 wrote: »

True and in most cases when I have gone after a poster or anything like that I have appologised for it...I have asked this individual to explain himself I have set my stall up stating that it is immoral and unfair that 16/17 of what we spend be off the table in the next budget...I have asked Robbie what he would do ..and some of his suggestions were sell the schools and send the kids to England and other really stupid stuff (now he may of been joking) so I have asked him to clarify what he would do..If anyone asks me that i have no problem answering

its either or, it cant be 16/17 of a spend when you admit PS pay tax, so whats the nett cost of the PS to the exchequer?

OMD · 05-08-2011 04:11PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Well really anyone who doesn't know really shouldn't be posting in an economics forum. Anyone pretending thriving know is simply arguing just to rise people (and succeeding by the evidence on this thread)

Sorry what?

It is your lack of a point. You react to other posts with the seeming intention of irritating the poster. You make no real comments and never back up your points. I know at the moment you disagree with other posters here (and 1 in particular) but I have no idea what you agree with.

OMD · 05-08-2011 04:14PM

kceire wrote: »

fliball123 wrote: »

True and in most cases when I have gone after a poster or anything like that I have appologised for it...I have asked this individual to explain himself I have set my stall up stating that it is immoral and unfair that 16/17 of what we spend be off the table in the next budget...I have asked Robbie what he would do ..and some of his suggestions were sell the schools and send the kids to England and other really stupid stuff (now he may of been joking) so I have asked him to clarify what he would do..If anyone asks me that i have no problem answering

its either or, it cant be 16/17 of a spend when you admit PS pay tax, so whats the nett cost of the PS to the exchequer?

In other words we need to cut public sector more

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 04:14PM

kceire wrote: »

its either or, it cant be 16/17 of a spend when you admit PS pay tax, so whats the nett cost of the PS to the exchequer?

I believe its somewhere in between 16. something or other...

Well what do they pay in tax 40% add another 10% for usc so its 50% of that..Whats your point?

Itchianus · 05-08-2011 04:29PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I believe its somewhere in between 16. something or other...

Well what do they pay in tax 40% add another 10% for usc so its 50% of that..Whats your point?

I think his point is that it'd be much more valid to discuss the cost, and potential savings in terms of the Net figure.

Having said that, if the gross cost is 18bn and you cut 2bn, then the net cost of 9bn falls by a slightly lower proportionate amount (820m), since the deductions are roughly 59% including pension levy. (This is of course assuming the cuts are aimed at PS workers on the high rate of tax.) If lower earning PS workers are hit, ie ones who pay little or no tax, then the proportionate saving per € of cut is greater.

fliball123 · 05-08-2011 04:33PM

Itchianus wrote: »

I think his point is that it'd be much more valid to discuss the cost, and potential savings in terms of the Net figure.

Having said that, if the gross cost is 18bn and you cut 2bn, then the net cost of 9bn falls by a slightly lower proportionate amount (820m), since the deductions are roughly 59% including pension levy. (This is of course assuming the cuts are aimed at PS workers on the high rate of tax.) If lower earning PS workers are hit, ie ones who pay little or no tax, then the proportionate saving per € of cut is greater.

But all cuts for ps are off the table thats the point..say PS worker is paying 50 cent for every euro earned...the private sector or from borrowings still has to pay that additional 50 cent...

Itchianus · 05-08-2011 04:48PM

fliball123 wrote: »

But all cuts for ps are off the table thats the point..say PS worker is paying 50 cent for every euro earned...the private sector or from borrowings still has to pay that additional 50 cent...

You're sounding like a broken record at this stage Fliball, I don't think that even Robbie has said that PS pay shouldn't be touched. I certainly haven't anyway. I think you need to take a deep breath and say something else, because you've said the same thing for days now and it's boring the hole off me!

By the logic of your post above, left hanging like that, the PS shouldn't be paid anything, surely you can see how infuriating that is to a person trying to engage in a discussion with you?

Itchianus · 05-08-2011 04:52PM

fliball123 wrote: »

But all cuts for ps are off the table thats the point..say PS worker is paying 50 cent for every euro earned...the private sector or from borrowings still has to pay that additional 50 cent...

Also, the recruitment ban, along with rising population, means the PS have to do the same, if not more work, with falling numbers. No different to many private sector organisations in tough times, but has to be acknowledged.

OMD · 05-08-2011 04:59PM

Itchianus wrote: »

Also, the recruitment ban, along with rising population, means the PS have to do the same, if not more work, with falling numbers. No different to many private sector organisations in tough times, but has to be acknowledged.

But there are large areas with massive increases in staff over the last 10 years. Those are the areas we need to target with bigger cuts.

Itchianus · 05-08-2011 05:07PM

gigino wrote: »

Its the same group which done the same work ten years ago for half that....and the country got along fine then.

The population has risen by 18/19% in the last ten years Gigino, so leaving the pay issue aside, is it reasonable to suggest that the PS in it's entirety does in fact need to produce/provide more than ten years ago?

Itchianus · 05-08-2011 05:10PM

OMD wrote: »

But there are large areas with massive increases in staff over the last 10 years. Those are the areas we need to target with bigger cuts.

Bingo. Find the fat and trim it.

thebman · 05-08-2011 05:22PM

Itchianus wrote: »

Also, the recruitment ban, along with rising population, means the PS have to do the same, if not more work, with falling numbers. No different to many private sector organisations in tough times, but has to be acknowledged.

Except the way the public service is doing it is like it wishes to self harm itself.

Trim the fat. An article about the HSE was going on about how the recruitment ban is stopping them hiring some essential staff.

Yet they have 2,000 HR staff or close to with admittance they could do with less than a thousand.

The HSE response, we will ask HR if exceptions can be made in this instance. Crazy stuff, you couldn't make this up. If a private company was run like this, it would be bankrupt 4 years ago, much like the state I suppose.

OMD · 05-08-2011 05:32PM

thebman wrote: »

Except the way the public service is doing it is like it wishes to self harm itself.

Trim the fat. An article about the HSE was going on about how the recruitment ban is stopping them hiring some essential staff.

Yet they have 2,000 HR staff or close to with admittance they could do with less than a thousand.

The HSE response, we will ask HR if exceptions can be made in this instance. Crazy stuff, you couldn't make this up. If a private company was run like this, it would be bankrupt 4 years ago, much like the state I suppose.

A lot of the fat is in fact nurses. The number increased massively in the last 10 years. We could see a massive reduction in nurses (if performed correctly) and not effect the health service in any meaningful way. Does anyone see the benefits to the health service of the numbers being increased.
Another area is the number of gardai. Again the number has increased greatly. Would a reduction be such a bad thing?

However both these areas have become the great sacred cows of the recession "front line Workers" If we had the same number of nurses & gardai as we had in 2000 would the country be much worse off?

thebman · 05-08-2011 05:55PM

TBH I saw more gardai in 2000 than I have recently on the street. Only place I see them now is in Traffic Corp cars and bikes.

Friend called a garda not too long ago because someone was climbing into the backyard, 40 minutes later they turned up. Either there isn't enough of them or they are doing SFA.

Nurses I don't know anything about numbers but heard we have too many alright and extremely well paid consultants.

Just talking about it, it seems unlikely you couldn't save a billion by just looking at getting rid of the excess staff and pay in the HSE.

murphaph · 05-08-2011 06:01PM

Itchianus wrote: »

Also, the recruitment ban, along with rising population, means the PS have to do the same, if not more work, with falling numbers. No different to many private sector organisations in tough times, but has to be acknowledged.

I'm sure you know already but it's not directly comparable to the private sector at all.

If my firm is up against the wall and I don't work harder (following retirements/redundancies of others) to maintain the service at a level the client is happy with, then our clients will go elsewhere to a more competitive company and the whole firm will cease trading-I will be out of a job for sure.

If I work in the PS and my department is under the same pressure due to reduced numbers, I don't actually feel the same pressure to up my game as my own job is secure, even if I don't strive to provide the same service to my clients. The service suffers but the clients/customers have no competition to turn to, so they just wait longer etc.

It is NOT the same pressure. I accept that there are INDIVIDUALS within the PS that have a high sense of responsibility and will up their game just as much as a private sector worker, but institutionally it is not the same at all and many will not get the finger out to process more work. They will still go home at 5pm on the dot regardless. We saw this with the passport office debacle.

robtri · 05-08-2011 08:52PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

yes you did!

show me where i said that???

Survey reveals a 44% pay gap between public and private sector

Comments