Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Gumbo · 21-01-2013 03:47PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Its not bleeding heart its fact...

Just as there's many many people on the dole that wouldn't and will not work those hours. That is fact also. Both irrelevant facts in this thread mind you.

Anyway, why do you care? Thought you went to Oz?????

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 03:48PM

itzme wrote: »

I can understand why you would take issue if you viewed someone going with the bleeding heart response.
I was "taking issue" with the obvious hypocrisy of giving out to someone for a bleeding heart response and then giving one yourself in the same post.

That response was meant as time and again the nurses guards etc are wielded out..I tell you the gov if they had any moxy would bring over all the home care workers who had to take cuts due to money being ring fenced for wages..and let them sit at the table and allow the union leaders looking at them whilst defending increments... See there are bleeding heart stories in every sector...including those working and paying tax but yet they will have to pay more in tax..My post was to show how hypercritical it is to start these types of emotional blackmail posts.

Gumbo · 21-01-2013 03:48PM

noodler wrote: »

I think we have to keep in mind both figures.

I mean we don't (or didn't) publish health spending net of the Health Levy, and we don't publish spending on social welfare net of PRSI contributions.

For one it is standard international practice for any international comparison.

Rubbish comparison.

Gumbo · 21-01-2013 03:49PM

fliball123 wrote: »

That response was meant as time and again the nurses guards etc are wielded out..I tell you the gov if they had any moxy would bring over all the home care workers who had to take cuts due to money being ring fenced for wages..and let them sit at the table and allow the union leaders looking at them whilst defending increments... See there are bleeding heart stories in every sector...including those working and paying tax but yet they will have to pay more in tax..My post was to show how hypercritical it is to start these types of emotional blackmail posts.

You started them. Another poster pulled you up on it and you've gone on one of your infamous tangents......

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 03:50PM

kceire wrote: »

Just as there's many many people on the dole that wouldn't and will not work those hours. That is fact also. Both irrelevant facts in this thread mind you.

Anyway, why do you care? Thought you went to Oz?????

I agree with you there that there are some who wouldnt work it on the dole. and as for Oz I stated on here that I came back at the start of last year got a job offer and was home sick.

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 03:51PM

kceire wrote: »

You started them. Another poster pulled you up on it and you've gone on one of your infamous tangents......

Sorry I didnt start them look back again. I responded to them

road_high · 21-01-2013 03:52PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I agree with you there that there are some who wouldnt work it on the dole. and as for Oz I stated on here that I came back at the start of last year got a job offer and was home sick.

Good for you. But what relevance your own personal circumstances had to do with this debate is beyond me

kippy · 21-01-2013 03:53PM

noodler wrote: »

I think we have to keep in mind both figures.

I mean we don't (or didn't) publish health spending net of the Health Levy, and we don't publish spending on social welfare net of PRSI contributions.

For one it is standard international practice for any international comparison.

If Enda buys an item for 100 euro and get a cashback voucher for 39 euro how much does the item cost enda once he has gotten his cash back?

(Insert "The State" for Enda, 100Euro as the gross paybill and 39 euro as the deductions that go back to the state and the "item cost after cash back" as the net pay)

The major point is the NET pay and pensions bill for the public sector has gone down substantially in the time period being looked at. (Outside of the changes to salary and pensions arrangements for new staff and other "benefits" that CPA1 has brought)

Sure CPA2 needs to do some more.

noodler · 21-01-2013 03:58PM

kceire wrote: »

Rubbish comparison.

What?

Outstanding contribution as always.

kippy wrote: »

If Enda buys an item for 100 euro and get a cashback voucher for 39 euro how much does the item cost enda once he has gotten his cash back?

(Insert "The State" for Enda, 100Euro as the gross paybill and 39 euro as the deductions that go back to the state and the "item cost after cash back" as the net pay)

The major point is the NET pay and pensions bill for the public sector has gone down substantially in the time period being looked at. (Outside of the changes to salary and pensions arrangements for new staff and other "benefits" that CPA1 has brought)

Sure CPA2 needs to do some more.

So...we actually don't spend 20bn on social protection every year? Because PRSI contributions amount to approx 7bn, we actually spend 13bn? - we should only focus on the net cost?

That is basically what you are saying.

Disagree.

The gross figures are quite patently useful.

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 04:04PM

mfitzy wrote: »

Good for you. But what relevance your own personal circumstances had to do with this debate is beyond me

a poster said was I not in Oz which I was just stating that I am back. as if I was still in Oz the whole debate would not affect me in any way

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 04:05PM

kippy wrote: »

If Enda buys an item for 100 euro and get a cashback voucher for 39 euro how much does the item cost enda once he has gotten his cash back?

(Insert "The State" for Enda, 100Euro as the gross paybill and 39 euro as the deductions that go back to the state and the "item cost after cash back" as the net pay)

The major point is the NET pay and pensions bill for the public sector has gone down substantially in the time period being looked at. (Outside of the changes to salary and pensions arrangements for new staff and other "benefits" that CPA1 has brought)

Sure CPA2 needs to do some more.

But we all pay those costs?

kippy · 21-01-2013 04:08PM

noodler wrote: »

What?

Outstanding contribution as always.

So...we actually don't spend 20bn on social protection every year? Because PRSI contributions amount to approx 7bn, we actually spend 13bn? - we should only focus on the net cost?

That is basically what you are saying.

Disagree.

The gross figures are quite patently useful.

Let me break this down further for you.

It costs money to run a country, provide services etc etc? Do you agree?
There is no getting away from this.
So you have to pay wages and pensions associated with those wages yes?
So,
This year the state pays 100 euros in wages but gets back 20.
Next year the state pays 96 euro in wages but gets back 30.
Which position is better to be in? And what has the savings been to the sate over the 12 months?

Social welfare (and it exists in many guises) is a TOTALLY different animal.
That should be fairly obvious.

kippy · 21-01-2013 04:11PM

fliball123 wrote: »

But we all pay those costs?

I don't believe this. I really dont.

Of course we all pay them, the difference is - the state is the public sector employer, they are also the collectors of these taxes etc.
Net cost to the state of employing a person is:
Persons gross wage minus all their deductions (outside of pension related ones for arguments sake)

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 04:13PM

kippy wrote: »

I don't believe this. I really dont.

Of course we all pay them, the difference is - the state is the public sector employer, they are also the collectors of these taxes etc.
Net cost to the state of employing a person is:
Persons gross wage minus all their deductions (outside of pension related ones for arguments sake)

In your equation did you add in the tax take that that is lost via the cut , the pension levy and the tax breaks that all pensioners get when we lost the ps workers to their pensions or the dole money being paid out to those who took redundancy or those who were rehired on contract rates??

itzme · 21-01-2013 04:13PM

noodler wrote: »

What?

Outstanding contribution as always.

So...we actually don't spend 20bn on social protection every year? Because PRSI contributions amount to approx 7bn, we actually spend 13bn? - we should only focus on the net cost?

That is basically what you are saying.

Disagree.

The gross figures are quite patently useful.

As has been said already gross and net are both useful in different circumstances. When talking about PS pay there is no use in bringing in social welfare/protection.

In general, most people when talking about PS pay are reflecting on its impact on the budget deficit. Gross pay has a direct impact on the expenditure. Income tax/PRSI/USC/Pension levy/... all have a direct impact on the income.

When discussing how PS pay can be tackled to reduce the deficit, the impact of any proposed change needs to detail the impact on the deficit which can only be achieved through detailing its impact on both expenditure and income. Which is why I would say net pay is the most important.

antoobrien · 21-01-2013 04:24PM

kippy wrote: »

This year the state pays 100 euros in wages but gets back 20.
Next year the state pays 96 euro in wages but gets back 30.
Which position is better to be in? And what has the savings been to the sate over the 12 months?

That explanation is disingenuous - the government doesn't "get back" that 20/30, it spends it in other areas. The 100/96 still has to be raised in taxes for the employee to be paid.

It's a bit like claiming that the cost to my employer of my salary is the 29k I got after tax last year, not the gross wage, employers PRSI, pension contributions & other BIK (which is closer to 40k).

noodler · 21-01-2013 04:30PM

kippy wrote: »

Let me break this down further for you.

It costs money to run a country, provide services etc etc? Do you agree?
There is no getting away from this.
So you have to pay wages and pensions associated with those wages yes?
So,
This year the state pays 100 euros in wages but gets back 20.
Next year the state pays 96 euro in wages but gets back 30.
Which position is better to be in? And what has the savings been to the sate over the 12 months?

Social welfare (and it exists in many guises) is a TOTALLY different animal.
That should be fairly obvious.

How on earth is it different animal in terms of public expenditure?

You are going to have to do a little better than rehash your pre-school "Kenny has 100e..." line for the third time.

You have been provided with a quite obvious reason why gross figures are important but you choose to pretend that net is okay when it suits.

I worry we are both agreeing that both measures are useful and that we are splitting heairs over relative importance but if you are arguing the gross figures are not important then I would say that is a very disingenous thing to say.

itzme wrote: »

As has been said already gross and net are both useful in different circumstances. When talking about PS pay there is no use in bringing in social welfare/protection.

Both useful sure. It is impossible to dicsuss PS pay without mentioning other areas of expenditure - it is important for illustrative purposes.

itzme wrote: »

When discussing how PS pay can be tackled to reduce the deficit, the impact of any proposed change needs to detail the impact on the deficit which can only be achieved through detailing its impact on both expenditure and income. Which is why I would say net pay is the most important.

A reduction in gross pay would reduce the deficit.

itzme · 21-01-2013 04:31PM

fliball123 wrote: »

In your equation did you add in the tax take that that is lost via the cut , the pension levy and the tax breaks that all pensioners get when we lost the ps workers to their pensions or the dole money being paid out to those who took redundancy or those who were rehired on contract rates??

That's a fair point. I think what I (and I think others) are calling for is when talking about reducing the PS pay and pensions bill that the real impact on the budget deficit be estimated (calculating it 100% accurately is impossible).

So any reductions in pay should take account of the impact on the deficit, which can only be estimated using net pay.
Any redundancy packages should be costed to see how much it will cost in terms of increased pension payments and dole payments.

This would mean that the savings that are reported are more than headline figures. This would be true from both sides, as a 10% cut in the gross PS pay bill does not equate to reducing the deficit by 10% of the gross PS Pay bill. And in your case, getting €1bn reduction in the (for argument sake lets say net) net PS Pay bill does not equate to a €1bn reduction in the deficit because some of the savings will be redistributed to pay pensions and dole.

itzme · 21-01-2013 04:34PM

noodler wrote: »

A reduction in gross pay would reduce the deficit.

And what is the relationship between the reduction in gross pay and the reduction in the deficit?
(HINT: I've already given you the answer in my previous post)

kippy · 21-01-2013 04:34PM

antoobrien wrote: »

That explanation is disingenuous - the government doesn't "get back" that 20/30, it spends it in other areas. The 100/96 still has to be raised in taxes for the employee to be paid.

It's a bit like claiming that the cost to my employer of my salary is the 29k I got after tax last year, not the gross wage, employers PRSI, pension contributions & other BIK (which is closer to 40k).

You employer ISN'T the State and that is the KEY difference.
I cannot fathom how people CANNOT see this.
Your employer doesn't gain from the tax, USC, PRSI that YOU pay the state.

The put 40K into your bank account every year and do not see the 11K that the state gets.
The state pays 40K to a public sector worker on an annual basis and received 11K BACK
The COST to the state of paying that worker is the 29K
Can you not fathom this?

They can spent it paying other public sector workers, social welfare, interest payments on loans etc.

YOUR employer (private sector) doesn't have the option of spending that 11 K a year on another employee, reinvestment etc etc

THAT is the key difference.

Do I need to get more black and white than that?

noodler · 21-01-2013 04:36PM

itzme wrote: »

That's a fair point. I think what I (and I think others) are calling for is when talking about reducing the PS pay and pensions bill that the real impact on the budget deficit be estimated (calculating it 100% accurately is impossible).

So any reductions in pay should take account of the impact on the deficit, which can only be estimated using net pay.
Any redundancy packages should be costed to see how much it will cost in terms of increased pension payments and dole payments.

It should be obvious to all that a cut in PS pay by 10% would only save around half of that as the majority of PS workers would be on over 32K (the rate at which the 41% income tax rate kicks in for a single person).

Arguments that PS workers would also then spend less and so that would less the positive impact on the deficit are a misnomer as far as I am concerned. Followed to the nth degree of logic would be some sort of implication that it is never good to reduce salary costs in an economy because it would harm the deficit.

Our deficit has improved despite us taking money out of the economy - so far it has not been self-defeating.

kippy · 21-01-2013 04:38PM

noodler wrote: »

How on earth is it different animal in terms of public expenditure?

You are going to have to do a little better than rehash your pre-school "Kenny has 100e..." line for the third time.

You have been provided with a quite obvious reason why gross figures are important but you choose to pretend that net is okay when it suits.

I worry we are both agreeing that both measures are useful and that we are splitting heairs over relative importance but if you are arguing the gross figures are not important then I would say that is a very disingenous thing to say.

Here is one of the key reasons (in the context of this conversation) why it is a different animal.

A cut in 2 billion in gross social welfare spending results in a cut of almost the same (less PRSI and smaller amounts) in the net cost of spending that 2 billion.

A gross cut of 2 billion in the public sector paybill will result in a net saving of FAR less.
(I'm not trying to argue that you shouldnt cut gross pay, not at all, just that there is a difference in gross and net figures and their relevance between a social welfare bill and a pay and pensions bill)

Further, you HAVE to pay for the provision of services. Do you HAVE to pay childrens allowances to ALL parents?

noodler · 21-01-2013 04:40PM

kippy wrote: »

You employer ISN'T the State and that is the KEY difference.
I cannot fathom how people CANNOT see this.
Your employer doesn't gain from the tax, USC, PRSI that YOU pay the state.

The put 40K into your bank account every year and do not see the 11K that the state gets.
The state pays 40K to a public sector worker on an annual basis and received 11K BACK
The COST to the state of paying that worker is the 29K
Can you not fathom this?

They can spent it paying other public sector workers, social welfare, interest payments on loans etc.

YOUR employer (private sector) doesn't have the option of spending that 11 K a year on another employee, reinvestment etc etc

THAT is the key difference.

Do I need to get more black and white than that?

That is not an argument for not cutting PS pay.

Also the cost is significantly more than you let on. Employer PRSI, expenses, overtime and whatever cost you attribute to a DB pension scheme are substantial.

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 04:42PM

kippy wrote: »

Here is one of the key reasons (in the context of this conversation) why it is a different animal.

A cut in 2 billion in gross social welfare spending results in a cut of almost the same (less PRSI and smaller amounts) in the net cost of spending that 2 billion.

A gross cut of 2 billion in the public sector paybill will result in a net saving of FAR less.
(I'm not trying to argue that you shouldnt cut gross pay, not at all, just that there is a difference in gross and net figures and their relevance between a social welfare bill and a pay and pensions bill)

Further, you HAVE to pay for the provision of services. Do you HAVE to pay childrens allowances to ALL parents?

How much would this reduction save in pension costs going into the future aswell?

kippy · 21-01-2013 04:45PM

noodler wrote: »

That is not an argument for not cutting PS pay.

Also the cost is significantly more than you let on. Employer PRSI, expenses, overtime and whatever cost you attribute to a DB pension scheme are substantial.

I'm not making into an argument for not cutting public sector pay.
Just pointing out why there is a difference in the state being an employer versus a private sector employer - fairly straightforward to understand?

My statement earlier on that the public pay and pensions bill has been cut significantly in the past number of years is my argument.
It has and it has not been captured within ANY report that I can see.

I don't get your second paragraph.
Cost to whom? Oh you mean the overall cost to the state of employing a person of 40K a year?

noodler · 21-01-2013 04:46PM

kippy wrote: »

Here is one of the key reasons (in the context of this conversation) why it is a different animal.

A cut in 2 billion in gross social welfare spending results in a cut of almost the same (less PRSI and smaller amounts) in the net cost of spending that 2 billion.

A gross cut of 2 billion in the public sector paybill will result in a net saving of FAR less.
(I'm not trying to argue that you shouldnt cut gross pay, not at all, just that there is a difference in gross and net figures and their relevance between a social welfare bill and a pay and pensions bill)

Cutting welfare will reduce spending in the economy (even more so than PS pay since people on welfare would spend a higher percentage of their income). Now there are around 450,00 people on the Live Register so there could actually be quite negative feedback loop on VAT and other revenue streams which are (partly) used to finance pay.

kippy wrote: »

Further, you HAVE to pay for the provision of services. Do you HAVE to pay childrens allowances to ALL parents?

Nobody is suggesting not paying PS workers. The suggestion is reducing the public over private premium which the CSO/OECD/ECB have found to exist in Ireland (not explained by education).

I do not think CB should be paid to all parents, no.

fliball123 · 21-01-2013 04:46PM

kippy wrote: »

I'm not making into an argument for not cutting public sector pay.
Just pointing out why there is a difference in the state being an employer versus a private sector employer - fairly straightforward to understand?

My statement earlier on that the public pay and pensions bill has been cut significantly in the past number of years is my argument.
It has and it has not been captured within ANY report that I can see.

I don't get your second paragraph.
Cost to whom? Oh you mean the overall cost to the state of employing a person of 40K a year?

Last cut to pay was 3 years ago now

kippy · 21-01-2013 04:48PM

fliball123 wrote: »

How much would this reduction save in pension costs going into the future aswell?

If they started taxing the lump sum they would save far more (guess work)
I don't actually know how much they would save in pensions in the long run if they did that, in fact I'd like to see anyone try to calculate that with all the variables involved.

noodler · 21-01-2013 04:48PM

kippy wrote: »

I don't get your second paragraph.
Cost to whom? Oh you mean the overall cost to the state of employing a person of 40K a year?

Uh huh.

Employers PRSI and the pension value are the biggies.

Paulzx · 21-01-2013 04:48PM

fliball123 wrote: »

No I dont but I dont go on about it saying how tough it is and how terrible it is that I have to work over the xmas .

Neither do i. I just say i have an expectation of being paid for it.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments