Jürgen Stark: Abandon the Croke Park Agreement, cut welfare

meglome · 13-09-2011 03:58PM

Lumbo wrote: »

Oh look, it's Mary Harney.

The high prices across the board made this difficult but not impossible. I went to the butchers around Moore Street and all fruit and veg was either bought in the Corpo Fruit & Veg markets or Lidl/Aldi.

Bottom line I was eating like a king but for considerably less money.

wolfpawnat · 13-09-2011 04:06PM

meglome wrote: »

The high prices across the board made this difficult but not impossible. I went to the butchers around Moore Street and all fruit and veg was either bought in the Corpo Fruit & Veg markets or Lidl/Aldi.

Bottom line I was eating like a king but for considerably less money.

Gotta love the butchers on the North side and in the Liberties. Any time I am in town I use it as a chance to stock up on chicken and mince meat, the amount of dinners I can cook using those two meats is amazing!!! Also cheap curry pastes from the Chinese Emporiums!!!!!

Bannasidhe · 13-09-2011 04:12PM

Godge wrote: »

To be fair, I think the salary for the Taoiseach is now over 30% down on its highest point, so the biggest cuts are happening at the top. Also both the pension levy and the public sector pay cut had bigger cuts at the top rather than the bottom. We have also dumped the Celtic Tiger cheerleaders of FF. The new government was elected on a huge majority so there is a real sense of "we are all in this together" from that 65% or so who voted for them. So your points have already been addressed.

I hate to keep repeating myself but some of the biggest disrepancies in public service pay are at or near the bottom of the pile - clerical officers earning 34,000 and teachers earning 60,000 at the top of their scales being two examples - but you cannot address these issues without tackling at the same time the excessive social welfare rates by even generous European standards and the excessive prices in the sheltered domestic private economy e.g. the non-exporting services sectors.

According to The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/16525240) Kenny is the 12th highest paid 'world leader' (on a ratio of salary to GDP per person) - that's after taking a cut. That is based only on his salary - not including expenses and pension 'rights'. We are borrowing the money to pay Kenny same as we are borrowing the money to pay SW and PS.

I'm sure the like of McCarty really felt the effects of the pension levy...

As for 'dumping' the FF cheerleaders...forgive me if I am wrong, but arn't their noses still firmly in the public trough along with their PD buddies? I'm sure we'd all love a 'job' where when 'sacked' you get a lovely pay off and a big pension to take the sting out of retirement. Oh - except some of them haven't actually retired...just turned their hand to other things.

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2011 04:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Kenny is the 12th highest paid 'world leader'

In GDP terms, Ireland was the 7th wealthiest country in 2010.

RichardAnd · 13-09-2011 04:32PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In GDP terms, Ireland was the 7th wealthiest country in 2010.

I'm guessing you mean the 7th wealthiest country in Europe. According to wikipedia, Ireland was the 43rd wealthiest country by GDP in the world in 2010. That would place us behind greece, portugal and italy. This is all by GDP now, take from it what you will.

Godge · 13-09-2011 04:45PM

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm guessing you mean the 7th wealthiest country in Europe. According to wikipedia, Ireland was the 43rd wealthiest country by GDP in the world in 2010. That would place us behind greece, portugal and italy. This is all by GDP now, take from it what you will.

No, he meant GDP per capita, not absolute GDP.

Godge · 13-09-2011 04:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

According to The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/16525240) Kenny is the 12th highest paid 'world leader' (on a ratio of salary to GDP per person) - that's after taking a cut. That is based only on his salary - not including expenses and pension 'rights'. We are borrowing the money to pay Kenny same as we are borrowing the money to pay SW and PS.

I'm sure the like of McCarty really felt the effects of the pension levy...

As for 'dumping' the FF cheerleaders...forgive me if I am wrong, but arn't their noses still firmly in the public trough along with their PD buddies? I'm sure we'd all love a 'job' where when 'sacked' you get a lovely pay off and a big pension to take the sting out of retirement. Oh - except some of them haven't actually retired...just turned their hand to other things.

But we have close to the highest social welfare rates in the world, close to the highest paid teachers. You asked that the cuts start at the top and graduated downwards, that the people responsible be thrown out. I pointed out that this has happened.

There is no answer to the argument that you must have an incentive for people to work i.e. working must pay more than sitting on the dole. The figure of 50k has been thrown around as the amount required for a man with a family to earn more than if he was on the dole.

If you are to make any saving on public service pay, you have to cut where the most people are, otherwise the saving is cosmetic. Think 50% of one person on 200k saves you 100k. 20% off 1,000 people on 50k saves you 10,000k. so the cuts must happen where the bulk of the people are in the public service - under earnings of 70k. Not to say those higher shouldn't pay but that won't cut the budget deficit.

Following that logic, if you are to keep the incentive for those people to work, you must cut the social welfare rate. Nobody can escape, you have to shift all expectations downwards.

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2011 04:56PM

Not sure exactly where I got that number, but I think it was GDP per capita in the OECD countries. Of course, it doesn't mean Enda should be the 7th (or whatever) best paid leader in the world given our deficit.

sarumite · 13-09-2011 05:01PM

Godge wrote: »

I hate to keep repeating myself but some of the biggest disrepancies in public service pay are at or near the bottom of the pile - clerical officers earning 34,000 and teachers earning 60,000 at the top of their scales being two examples - but you cannot address these issues without tackling at the same time the excessive social welfare rates by even generous European standards and the excessive prices in the sheltered domestic private economy e.g. the non-exporting services sectors.

I know you hate repeating it, so I thought I would do you the favour and repeat it on your behalf as I think it is an excellent point.

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2011 05:06PM

Godge wrote: »

Nobody can escape, you have to shift all expectations downwards.

If we had our own currency (as many Eurosceptics wish) we would get this deflation by devaluing the Punt. That would affect everyone equally in percentage terms, which would, of course, be toughest on the poor.

We aren't doing that. We are sheltering those on state pensions and SW from the necessary deflation to a very large extent, but I don't think we can afford to shelter them completely.

Bannasidhe · 13-09-2011 05:07PM

Godge wrote: »

But we have close to the highest social welfare rates in the world, close to the highest paid teachers. You asked that the cuts start at the top and graduated downwards, that the people responsible be thrown out. I pointed out that this has happened.

There is no answer to the argument that you must have an incentive for people to work i.e. working must pay more than sitting on the dole. The figure of 50k has been thrown around as the amount required for a man with a family to earn more than if he was on the dole.

If you are to make any saving on public service pay, you have to cut where the most people are, otherwise the saving is cosmetic. Think 50% of one person on 200k saves you 100k. 20% off 1,000 people on 50k saves you 10,000k. so the cuts must happen where the bulk of the people are in the public service - under earnings of 70k. Not to say those higher shouldn't pay but that won't cut the budget deficit.

Following that logic, if you are to keep the incentive for those people to work, you must cut the social welfare rate. Nobody can escape, you have to shift all expectations downwards.

My point - which you seem to keep missing - is that the 'cuts' that were made were token at best and we are continuing to fund those who were thrown out. Many of them at pre-cut level.

The 'symbolic' cut brought Kenny down to 200,000 plus expenses and a generous pension/retirement package. He still earns more then Cameron.

The average TD's salary is now 91,817 plus expenses (and showing up for work allowance).

Hardly swingeing cuts are they?

Now lets look at the full text of the letter from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to RTÉ News re: Dermot McCarthy:

Dear Mr Hunt

I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003 for details of the severance pay and pension arrangements for Mr Dermot McCarthy, retired Secretary General, Department of the Taoiseach.

I am setting out below the details of the severance and superannuation arrangements that applied to Mr McCarthy, which are based on the standard Top Level Appointments Committee (TLAC) terms applied to Secretaries General in accordance with Government decision of 5 March 1987.

Pension ... ... €142,670.50.

Lump sum ... ... €428,011.50.

Special Severance Payment €142,670.50.

The pension was based on Mr McCarthy's salary prior to the salary reduction under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No.2) Act 2009 (€285,341) and 40 years service (including 67 days additional notional service). An annual reduction of €13,980.49 is applied to the pension under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2010. The lump sum was subjected to taxation in accordance with new pension lump sums provisions in the 2011 Budget/Finance Act.

These superannuation arrangements are subject to the abatement terms that apply to Secretaries General superannuation in the event of them resuming employment in the Public Service.

Yours Sincerely

Tony Jordan
Pensions Section
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform

Let's look at Brian Cowen: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/taoiseach-entitled-to-a-double-pension-of-euro150000-2518882.html

Brian Cowen will be immediately entitled to two pensions worth around €150,000 in total per year on his retirement.

He has almost 27 years' service in the Dail, which means he qualifies for a full TD's pension worth around €50,000 per year.

And he will be entitled to a ministerial pension of around €100,000 per year based on his Taoiseach's salary. Mr Cowen will receive a tax-free pension lump sum of around €150,000 (three times the value of his TD's pension) and a termination lump sum of around €16,000.

Mr Cowen will also be entitled to a special allowance to pay for two secretaries for up to five years after he steps down -- and then one secretary for as long as he likes after that.

Mr Cowen (51) can receive both his Taoiseach's pension and his TD's pension immediately because they can be paid out once a retired politician reaches the age of 50.

Where is this money coming from?

It is the principle of equality and fairness I am arguing for. I see no evidence of it here.

Jaysoose · 13-09-2011 05:07PM

Can somebody please explain in real terms with solid figures how we sort out the deficit without cutting pay/pension and social welfare.

I sure as **** cant see how.

sarumite · 13-09-2011 05:10PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If we had our own currency (as many Eurosceptics wish) we would get this deflation by devaluing the Punt. That would affect everyone equally in percentage terms, which would, of course, be toughest on the poor.

We aren't doing that. We are sheltering those on state pensions and SW from the necessary deflation to a very large extent, but I don't think we can afford to shelter them completely.

It doesn't really affect everyone equally though...some people have sacrificed a lot and saved their money, whereas others spent madly on holidays, new cars etc. Devaluing affects the responsible and prudent person more than it affects the careless person. That aside, its pie in the sky as we don't have our own currency. There is currently another thread started by Scofflaw showing that leaving the Euro is about a 40-50% reduction in GDP and that ignores the political and social upheavel caused by it.

fliball123 · 13-09-2011 05:17PM

sarumite wrote: »

I know you hate repeating it, so I thought I would do you the favour and repeat it on your behalf as I think it is an excellent point.

Well reat this one the whole of the Public sector both working and retired are overpaid to some degree

Zubeneschamali · 13-09-2011 05:17PM

sarumite wrote: »

That aside, its pie in the sky as we don't have our own currency.

I know, that's why we need to make actual cuts in wages and benefits, instead of just devaluing.

Godge · 13-09-2011 05:48PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

Can somebody please explain in real terms with solid figures how we sort out the deficit without cutting pay/pension and social welfare.

I sure as **** cant see how.

1. Property taxes - up to €3bn in revenue in three years, both a significant increase in the second home tax as well as a new tax on homes
2. Reductions in public service numbers - up to €1.5 bn in three years
3. Elimination or reduction of taxation reliefs, in particular on pensions - up to €2 bn in three years
4. Changes in eligibility requirements for social welfare, taxation of social welfare payments, cut in child benefit, reductions in rent allowance, fuel allowance and other ancillary - up to €3 bn (out of welfare bill of €26 bn)
5. Widening tax bands, elimination of employee tax credit - up to €1 bn in three years
6. water charges, increase bin charges, student fees, increase hospital charges, medicine charges, up to €1 bn in three years

total is 11.5 bn out of deficit of 15 bn. The resultant deficit of 3.5 bn would be under the target of 3%. I haven't cut social welfare rates, neither have I increased income tax rates or have I cut levels of public sector pay.

There are other measures too - increase capital gains and capital acquisitions taxes, cut subsidies to farming as that sector is doing well, increase school entry age - which would save money if the above list is too short.

fliball123 · 13-09-2011 06:00PM

Godge wrote: »

1. Property taxes - up to €3bn in revenue in three years, both a significant increase in the second home tax as well as a new tax on homes
2. Reductions in public service numbers - up to €1.5 bn in three years
3. Elimination or reduction of taxation reliefs, in particular on pensions - up to €2 bn in three years
4. Changes in eligibility requirements for social welfare, taxation of social welfare payments, cut in child benefit, reductions in rent allowance, fuel allowance and other ancillary - up to €3 bn (out of welfare bill of €26 bn)
5. Widening tax bands, elimination of employee tax credit - up to €1 bn in three years
6. water charges, increase bin charges, student fees, increase hospital charges, medicine charges, up to €1 bn in three years

total is 11.5 bn out of deficit of 15 bn. The resultant deficit of 3.5 bn would be under the target of 3%. I haven't cut social welfare rates, neither have I increased income tax rates or have I cut levels of public sector pay.

There are other measures too - increase capital gains and capital acquisitions taxes, cut subsidies to farming as that sector is doing well, increase school entry age - which would save money if the above list is too short.

So lets see

No 1: so we get people to pay more in tax for property that is more than likely in neg equity and kick the dog while he is down..Seriously..the gov need to give back the tax on interest relief that it took away. Not to mention the billions they ciphened off for stamp duty

No 2: No argument but there also needs to be an accross the board wage cut...about 10% that would save another 2 billion odd.

No 3: Yeah but make sure the same pensions are then available in the public sector aswell..No more asking the tax payer to pay public sector employees pensions when they cant pay for their own. Also put a levy on P.S pensions of 75% of any Euro over say 50k paid out in public sector pensions. This would save another billion odd

No 4: No argument there

No 5: So on top of employees paying more in USC which will happen and water charges and property charges they now get this cut...Are you trying to reduce the income pool in this country as that is what will happen and we will not save a dime here IMO as anyone working here at present will jump ship and take their valuable tax take with them.

No 6: No argument there.

Another consideration...Sell all semi state entities and set up new and more efficient replacments..

IE

Sell ESB ...keep the power grid , start a new semi state that undercuts them..They will not play dice and this is one way around the unions..Same could be done with CIE, Aer Lingus and other such semi states. This would save a good few billion

Infact putting the measures in with what Godge has we would have closed the deficit

Bannasidhe · 13-09-2011 06:01PM

Godge wrote: »

1. Property taxes - up to €3bn in revenue in three years, both a significant increase in the second home tax as well as a new tax on homes
2. Reductions in public service numbers - up to €1.5 bn in three years
3. Elimination or reduction of taxation reliefs, in particular on pensions - up to €2 bn in three years
4. Changes in eligibility requirements for social welfare, taxation of social welfare payments, cut in child benefit, reductions in rent allowance, fuel allowance and other ancillary - up to €3 bn (out of welfare bill of €26 bn)
5. Widening tax bands, elimination of employee tax credit - up to €1 bn in three years
6. water charges, increase bin charges, student fees, increase hospital charges, medicine charges, up to €1 bn in three years

total is 11.5 bn out of deficit of 15 bn. The resultant deficit of 3.5 bn would be under the target of 3%. I haven't cut social welfare rates, neither have I increased income tax rates or have I cut levels of public sector pay.

There are other measures too - increase capital gains and capital acquisitions taxes, cut subsidies to farming as that sector is doing well, increase school entry age - which would save money if the above list is too short.

How about including:
A cap on the salaries of all paid from public funds at 150,000 P.A.
A similar cap on semi-state salaries.
A cap on ALL pensions for above at 50,000 P.A - subject to same taxation rules as PAYE.
End to 'lump sum severance payments' for PS employees and TDs.
No public pension to begin before 'official' retirement age -(perhaps exceptions for Gardaí as their retirement age is mandated)
OAP to be means tested.
Child benefit to be means tested.

It seems to me that many of your proposals would hit the 30-60k bracket hardest.

Godge · 13-09-2011 06:01PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Well reat this one the whole of the Public sector both working and retired are overpaid to some degree

not necessarily, while people will use CSO data to show that the average public sector person is paid more than the average private sector (and even if I and others think this is comparing apples with oranges) that doesn't mean the whole of the public sector is overpaid. There could well be significant parts who are correctly paid and some underpaid, especially at the levels that have taken the biggest cuts.

Not saying this is true, but I saw something recently arguing that medical consultants (even with their very high salaries) are now earning the equivalent of their UK counterparts when all aspects are taken into account - working hours, private work, bonus, pension etc. would like to see the evidence but it is possible. The same could apply lower down as well but there are likely to be some who are way overpaid still.

fliball123 · 13-09-2011 06:07PM

Godge wrote: »

not necessarily, while people will use CSO data to show that the average public sector person is paid more than the average private sector (and even if I and others think this is comparing apples with oranges) that doesn't mean the whole of the public sector is overpaid. There could well be significant parts who are correctly paid and some underpaid, especially at the levels that have taken the biggest cuts.

Not saying this is true, but I saw something recently arguing that medical consultants (even with their very high salaries) are now earning the equivalent of their UK counterparts when all aspects are taken into account - working hours, private work, bonus, pension etc. would like to see the evidence but it is possible. The same could apply lower down as well but there are likely to be some who are way overpaid still.

But the fact here is dodge comparing with the Uk?? a consultant over there is working for the gov who is not sh1t deep in Nama property or borrowing 20 odd billion to keep the lights on..So a PS representative at this point in time wheather they be the presedent or a tea boy should be getting paid significantly less in this country until we get out of this mess

Godge · 13-09-2011 06:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How about including:
A cap on the salaries of all paid from public funds at 150,000 P.A.
A similar cap on semi-state salaries.
A cap on ALL pensions for above at 50,000 P.A - subject to same taxation rules as PAYE.
End to 'lump sum severance payments' for PS employees and TDs.
No public pension to begin before 'official' retirement age -(perhaps exceptions for Gardaí as their retirement age is mandated)
OAP to be means tested.
Child benefit to be means tested.

It seems to me that many of your proposals would hit the 30-60k bracket hardest.

Your first proposal would only hit a small number of people and not save very much. Even assume there are 3,000 public servants earning 200,000. A cap as you suggest would save 150m. 2,000 of that 3,000 are hospital consultants and most of them would quit and leave the country and get work abroad where they are in demand. So leave them out and you get savings of 50m (and I am not sure that there are even 1,000 public servants earning 200,000, it is more likely to be 100).

ditto the rest of your proposals, most of which are either impractical or cost too much. Means-testing child benefit saves less money than cutting it drastically and replacing with direct provision of childcare, school books etc.

You can't cut lump-sum payments to pensions. The courts have found that public service pensions are deferred payments and there is a legal entitlement to them. You would never get a constitutional change either as there are too many public servants with pension entitlements and spouses and children who would benefit from the money. Even people like me working in the private sector now who have a preserved pension entitlement would vote against such a measure out of self-interest. You could cap the lump sums at what people have earned to date and say that from now on they will earn a different type of pension but that would only bring savings from about 2020 onwards. Ditto with changing the retirement age, many people have a contractual entitlement.

Non-contributory old-age pension is already means-tested. The contributory pension is based on what people paid in. You can either leave it alone or cut it for all, you cannot introduce means-testing.

So compared with my savings of €11.5bn, you can at best come up with savings of a couple of hundred million, probably satisfy the IMF until about Jan. 15th next year.

By the way, my proposals are not my favoured idea, they were options in response to someone who asked how you can cut the deficit without cutting pay and pensions and social welfare. I also didn't increase income tax rates which is the third promise of the coalition. I was just showing that the promises could be kept but that the options are stark if the FG/Lab coalition keeps to its promises.

OMD · 13-09-2011 06:21PM

Godge wrote: »

1. Property taxes - up to €3bn in revenue in three years, both a significant increase in the second home tax as well as a new tax on homes
2. Reductions in public service numbers - up to €1.5 bn in three years
3. Elimination or reduction of taxation reliefs, in particular on pensions - up to €2 bn in three years
4. Changes in eligibility requirements for social welfare, taxation of social welfare payments, cut in child benefit, reductions in rent allowance, fuel allowance and other ancillary - up to €3 bn (out of welfare bill of €26 bn)
5. Widening tax bands, elimination of employee tax credit - up to €1 bn in three years
6. water charges, increase bin charges, student fees, increase hospital charges, medicine charges, up to €1 bn in three years

total is 11.5 bn out of deficit of 15 bn. The resultant deficit of 3.5 bn would be under the target of 3%. I haven't cut social welfare rates, neither have I increased income tax rates or have I cut levels of public sector pay.

There are other measures too - increase capital gains and capital acquisitions taxes, cut subsidies to farming as that sector is doing well, increase school entry age - which would save money if the above list is too short.

1. Would mean average tax of €1500 per household (Owners & renters) every year
6. This would mean about €500 extra per household per year.

sarumite · 13-09-2011 06:22PM

Godge wrote: »

2. Reductions in public service numbers - up to €1.5 bn in three years

The savings here will obvioulsy come as we transition people from full time employment to pensions. However, assuming most PS workers at pensionable age will get 1.5 times their salary, then the saving don't actually kick in until 3 years from post retirement. (as we are effectively paying them full wages for the first three years post retirement).

Godge · 13-09-2011 06:25PM

fliball123 wrote: »

But the fact here is dodge comparing with the Uk?? a consultant over there is working for the gov who is not sh1t deep in Nama property or borrowing 20 odd billion to keep the lights on..So a PS representative at this point in time wheather they be the presedent or a tea boy should be getting paid significantly less in this country until we get out of this mess

No the question is, do you want a consultant-led health service, or do you want nurses doing heart transplants. If you have top-quality people whose services are in demand internationally and who are mobile - think of hospital consultants and research academics - and you need them to provide a health service or an education service, then you have to pay them the going rate, even if it means that others (clerical officers, teachers, guards, social welfare recipients) lose out. you don't think that most consultants are going to hang around out of doing their bit for Ireland?

Godge · 13-09-2011 06:26PM

OMD wrote: »

1. Would mean average tax of €1500 per household (Owners & renters) every year
6. This would mean about €500 extra per household per year.

Accepted, yes, not out of line with European rates.

Bannasidhe · 13-09-2011 06:28PM

Godge wrote: »

Your first proposal would only hit a small number of people and not save very much. Even assume there are 3,000 public servants earning 200,000. A cap as you suggest would save 150m. 2,000 of that 3,000 are hospital consultants and most of them would quit and leave the country and get work abroad where they are in demand. So leave them out and you get savings of 50m (and I am not sure that there are even 1,000 public servants earning 200,000, it is more likely to be 100).

ditto the rest of your proposals, most of which are either impractical or cost too much. Means-testing child benefit saves less money than cutting it drastically and replacing with direct provision of childcare, school books etc.

You can't cut lump-sum payments to pensions. The courts have found that public service pensions are deferred payments and there is a legal entitlement to them. You would never get a constitutional change either as there are too many public servants with pension entitlements and spouses and children who would benefit from the money. Even people like me working in the private sector now who have a preserved pension entitlement would vote against such a measure out of self-interest. You could cap the lump sums at what people have earned to date and say that from now on they will earn a different type of pension but that would only bring savings from about 2020 onwards. Ditto with changing the retirement age, many people have a contractual entitlement.

Non-contributory old-age pension is already means-tested. The contributory pension is based on what people paid in. You can either leave it alone or cut it for all, you cannot introduce means-testing.

So compared with my savings of €11.5bn, you can at best come up with savings of a couple of hundred million, probably satisfy the IMF until about Jan. 15th next year.

By the way, my proposals are not my favoured idea, they were options in response to someone who asked how you can cut the deficit without cutting pay and pensions and social welfare. I also didn't increase income tax rates which is the third promise of the coalition. I was just showing that the promises could be kept but that the options are stark if the FG/Lab coalition keeps to its promises.

I did not suggest as alternatives but as possible other options - a combination if you will.

50 m saved in PS not to be sneezed at and it would demonstrate all are genuinely taking a hit not just the low and middle income brackets.

Just heard on RTE that insurance polices (except life and health and non-Irish) are to be hit with a 2% levy to help re: Quinn bail-out - so that's another hit on beleaguered home owners who are obliged to have building's insurance.

Godge · 13-09-2011 06:30PM

sarumite wrote: »

The savings here will obvioulsy come as we transition people from full time employment to pensions. However, assuming most PS workers at pensionable age will get 1.5 times their salary, then the saving don't actually kick in until 3 years from post retirement. (as we are effectively paying them full wages for the first three years post retirement).

FG/Lab are committed to losing 25,000 public sector workers off the paybill. You are right that there is an upfront cost, when private sector companies do this (say Talk Talk), they have an exceptional item in their accounts that year to account for it. The government is likely to slash capital spending next year (no new roads, no rail projects, only a few schools), the saving in capital spending could be used to pay the one-off bill with the savings in pay bill appearing from 2013 onwards.

Godge · 13-09-2011 06:32PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did not suggest as alternatives but as possible other options - a combination if you will.

50 m saved in PS not to be sneezed at and it would demonstrate all are genuinely taking a hit not just the low and middle income brackets.

Just heard on RTE that insurance polices (except life and health and non-Irish) are to be hit with a 2% levy to help re: Quinn bail-out - so that's another hit on beleaguered home owners who are obliged to have building's insurance.

Have gone into this many times. Home-owners by definition are not poor, they have a home so they have wealth. The homeless, those sharing a house in Rathgar with fifteen others, now they are the real poor.

OMD · 13-09-2011 06:35PM

Godge wrote: »

Have gone into this many times. Home-owners by definition are not poor, they have a home so they have wealth. The homeless, those sharing a house in Rathgar with fifteen others, now they are the real poor.

Well if they own their home they are wealthy but if they have a massive mortgage that they cannot afford I think we can call them poor & in debt.

Bannasidhe · 13-09-2011 06:37PM

Godge wrote: »

Have gone into this many times. Home-owners by definition are not poor, they have a home so they have wealth. The homeless, those sharing a house in Rathgar with fifteen others, now they are the real poor.

What about those in negative equity?

Jürgen Stark: Abandon the Croke Park Agreement, cut welfare

Comments