Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 11:06AM

kceire wrote: »

And the pot calls the kettle black :rolleyes:

That would only be the case if the PS weren't fiddling numbers to suit itself - net pay suggest all deductions to me. Somebody stating that it isn't the case makes the use of the "net" figure well lying to support an agenda.

kceire wrote: »

IMHO, Nett figure is what the government takes back from your wages, doesnt matter what a document calls it.

Sure - so what's the figure then? The one I think is stated in that doc or some other figure that nobody has ever provided any proof of?

noodler · 22-01-2013 11:20AM

kceire wrote: »

My private sector pension has gone up in value since 2004. My sisters DC pension scheme is quite attractive too with generous employer contributions.

People ranting about how ravaged private sector pensions are hiding behind headline lies. Unless you were risky with your contributions and didn't care where they were placed then your pension will have risen in recent years.

I let AIB look after my PRSA and they've done quite well for me so far.

Wow.

Next time you complain about people generalising or stereotyping the PS - I want you to remember that post.

1) Most Pension Funds are only recovering from the crisis.

2) Most Pension Funds are eaten away by fees.

3) Employer contributons are a nice notion but do not apply to a vast swath of people.

4) You take no responsibility for PS pensions - the Government does.

That is certainly the worst post you have typed in this thread.

Gumbo · 22-01-2013 11:33AM

noodler wrote: »

Wow.

Next time you complain about people generalising or stereotyping the PS - I want you to remember that post.

1) Most Pension Funds are only recovering from the crisis. So you admit, not ravaged like most rant on here.

2) Most Pension Funds are eaten away by fees. Not eaten away, fees are to be expected. if you dont want fees, invest yourself.

3) Employer contributons are a nice notion but do not apply to a vast swath of people. Just like the gold plated PS pensions, not everybody gets them

4) You take no responsibility for PS pensions - the Government does. You pay the contributions and prey that the government doesnt eat into your final pension figure. Least my private pension can be moved around if i dont like the T&C's or fees etc PS staff have no option to opt out as im sure many would

That is certainly the worst post you have typed in this thread. Thanks, i'll take that as a compliment.

Works both ways there

kippy · 22-01-2013 11:33AM

antoobrien wrote: »

That would only be the case if the PS weren't fiddling numbers to suit itself - net pay suggest all deductions to me. Somebody stating that it isn't the case makes the use of the "net" figure well lying to support an agenda.

Sure - so what's the figure then? The one I think is stated in that doc or some other figure that nobody has ever provided any proof of?

Read the doc and read the definition of net that those documents use for their calculations.

Those figures (in the document you linked to) uses a net figure that does NOT take account of PAYE, PRSI and USC payments.

As I said I suspect they dont as the figures are rather difficult to work out because of the current payroles in place.

(BTW, I have said this before but there could be massive savings made on centralistation of Civil/Public HR and Payroll as well as possibly IT).

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 11:34AM

noodler wrote: »

1) Most Pension Funds are only recovering from the crisis.

I wouldn't be too harsh on that comment - my pension was down by over 1/3 on the cost at one point in 2008. It recovered that value in 2009, it has now risen to be about 15% above cost.

Gumbo · 22-01-2013 11:38AM

antoobrien wrote: »

I wouldn't be too harsh on that comment - my pension was down by over 1/3 on the cost at one point in 2008. It recovered that value in 2009, it has now risen to be about 15% above cost.

+1

Most private pension funds dipped for 1 year, maybe 2, but have recovered ten fold since!
As i said, mine is up nearly 25% from my contributions which started in 2004.

noodler · 22-01-2013 11:44AM

kceire wrote: »

So you admit, not ravaged like most rant on here.

Ravaged. As in value of contributions not equalling in anyway shape or form the present value.

kceire wrote: »

Not eaten away, fees are to be expected. if you dont want fees, invest yourself.

No, eaten away is right. Massive, massive cost.

Invest yourself? Another suitably silly comment. Every non-PS worker in the State should be told to suck it up regarding fees? Should be told to invest yourself as if pension investment was something which required no expertise?

kceire wrote: »

Just like the gold plated PS pensions, not everybody gets them

Employer contributions tend to stop when the company is in dire financial straights - the majority of pension schemes in the country also do not have a backer to take the risk off the shoulders of the individual (Just unlike the gold plated PS pensions).

kceire wrote: »

You pay the contributions and prey that the government doesnt eat into your final pension figure. Least my private pension can be moved around if i dont like the T&C's or fees etc PS staff have no option to opt out as im sure many would

No, I sincerely doubt they would. Having to spend considerable time, considerable fees on something which isn't guaranteed to give you a final figure and a possible lump sum?

You have a seriously blinkered view on the pensions issue.

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 11:52AM

kippy wrote: »

Read the doc and read the definition of net that those documents use for their calculations.

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

kippy wrote: »

Those figures (in the document you linked to) uses a net figure that does NOT take account of PAYE, PRSI and USC payments.

I've been asked to back up my assertions, the meaning of net pay quite clear - all deductions, including all of the above - so prove you're right and that the government are not including this in their net figure (which I find to be an extremely disturbing accounting method).

btw the figure definitely does not tally with the pension levy.

kippy wrote: »

As I said I suspect they dont as the figures are rather difficult to work out because of the current payroles in place.

Oh it's not that hard. I can tell you that the figure should be in the region of 2bn-4bn based on the averages calculated from the figures supplied in that document (I know averages tend to be misleading but...).

I don't think the whole nett thing is at all relevant because, regardless of who gets what the gross figure still has to be funded from taxes.

However if we want to try to calculate a figure, there was a breakdown of the numbers of people in each pay band (e.g. 20k-30k) put up in a previous thread (can't remember where). That would be the best place to start.

kippy wrote: »

(BTW, I have said this before but there could be massive savings made on centralistation of Civil/Public HR and Payroll as well as possibly IT).

That is something I am in total agreement with. Unfortunately the mess that was PPARS shows just how hard this will be without either first creating uniform nationwide pay structures (good luck) or getting some serious enterprise level software (which imo the government should be looking at regardless) - which is extremely expensive and may not be worth the expense or hassle of cutting over.

kippy · 22-01-2013 12:13PM

I'm gonna try and move on this discussion as I, probably more than anyone else, have assisted to derail it.

What CP2 should look to achieve:

1. Centralised Payroll and possibly HR for any Civil or Public service body.
This, in my opinion is critical. There are people within the same departments even who are on different pay frequencies and pay methods (some still get cheques) and there are different payrolls software used across the various units with different staff operating them all, some local, some national.
There is NO reason in my mind that the vast majority of payroll based work cannot be centralised and indeed payment frequencies and methods be standardised.
This would lead to cost savings in a number of ways:
a. Software licensing, hardware costs maintenance costs.
b. Staff time. In theory less staff SHOULD be required to actually run the payroll. This will only be of benefit if redeployment or redundancy is used for those that are not required.
c. Much easier for reports to be run against payroll in relation to sick leave, net pay reports, headcount reports, salary reports etc, easier to implement standard salary payment dates.
d. Much easier to update changes to deductions, changes to increases etc etc
e. HR policy and procedure is uniform across the sector.

How feasible this is I do not know.

2. A move towards a centralised IT group for CERTAIN functions.

3. A move from the 34.75 hour working week to a 36.75 working week.

4. A stipulation that PROPER and MEANINGFUL performance appraisal linked DIRECTLY to salary be implemented. Basicilly the scrapping of time based increments.

That would be for starters, there's lots more that could be implemented however I do not see a straight salary cut as happening.

noodler · 22-01-2013 12:18PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

These figures are shown in Table I
of this booklet but all other figures in the booklet are net figures, i.e. after deduction of
appropriation-in-aid (mainly pension contributions, ESF funding and pension related
deduction).

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Point 5, Page 21

Seems reasonably conclusive.

If the Net figure was net of taxes (USC and PRSI as well) then it'd have to be around a third lower at least.

kippy · 22-01-2013 12:19PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

I've been asked to back up my assertions, the meaning of net pay quite clear - all deductions, including all of the above - so prove you're right and that the government are not including this in their net figure (which I find to be an extremely disturbing accounting method).

btw the figure definitely does not tally with the pension levy.

Oh it's not that hard. I can tell you that the figure should be in the region of 2bn-4bn based on the averages calculated from the figures supplied in that document (I know averages tend to be misleading but...).

I don't think the whole nett thing is at all relevant because, regardless of who gets what the gross figure still has to be funded from taxes.

However if we want to try to calculate a figure, there was a breakdown of the numbers of people in each pay band (e.g. 20k-30k) put up in a previous thread (can't remember where). That would be the best place to start.

That is something I am in total agreement with. Unfortunately the mess that was PPARS shows just how hard this will be without either first creating uniform nationwide pay structures (good luck) or getting some serious enterprise level software (which imo the government should be looking at regardless) - which is extremely expensive and may not be worth the expense or hassle of cutting over.

But you are in agreement that the NET figure in that document cannot possibly be the Net figure as understood in general to be after all deductions?

I obviously dont think it's at all irrelevant as it is the true cost to the state of paying the wages. If I were a business owner I would like to know the true cost of paying the public sector pay and pensions. It would have a major impact on my overheads and I would be safe in the knowledge that I can have a direct impact on by payroll costs by increasing taxes/prsi and paye without cutting headline pay.
The calculations would also have to include PRSI and USC but I assume they could be worked out.

Yeah, the PPARS was a joke, but any project that is mis specced, mis managed and subject to a tendering process that is devoid of any proper requirements will always have those issues.

murphaph · 22-01-2013 12:20PM

Godge wrote: »

Compare that to eliminating child benefit. Child benefit costs the state 2 bn and is not taxed. Eliminating child benefit saves 2 bn off the budget deficit as there are no secondary effects.

Using your own logic this is incorrect. Government gets VAT and Excise Duty (I dare say a decent bit of that) back from Children's allowance.

Personally I'd abolish children's allowance as a cash payment completely but to suggest that a cut of 2bn saves 2bn is clearly flawed.

The whole lot needs cutting to suit our measure. We can't afford it, welfare, PS pay and pensions and we need to pay a wee bit more tax as well (though I would say there is very limited scope there for increases. We are not lightly taxed when ALL taxes are considered)

Godge · 22-01-2013 12:28PM

antoobrien wrote: »

So they're allowed use a different version of net to the rest of us?:(

Of course anything to suit their own arguments.:rolleyes:

Wait a minute, the simplest understanding of numbers and taxation rates would have told you that 900m does not represent the income tax take on 14 plus billion.

Even if you hadn't copped to that using common sense, the footnotes and detailed explanations in the documents make it clear what gross and net for the purposes of the figures in the tables.

Godge · 22-01-2013 12:36PM

murphaph wrote: »

Using your own logic this is incorrect. Government gets VAT and Excise Duty (I dare say a decent bit of that) back from Children's allowance.

Personally I'd abolish children's allowance as a cash payment completely but to suggest that a cut of 2bn saves 2bn is clearly flawed.

The whole lot needs cutting to suit our measure. We can't afford it, welfare, PS pay and pensions and we need to pay a wee bit more tax as well (though I would say there is very limited scope there for increases. We are not lightly taxed when ALL taxes are considered)

Eh no, because the effects of VAT and excise duty were excluded from both calculations.

I suggested that with the loss of income tax, pension contributions, PRSI deductions, pension levy as well as the need to pay social welfare plus associated costs meant that the saving from a one third headline cut (lets get away from gross:)) in public service pay (c 5 bn) concentrated on cutting numbers to the taxpayer would only be in the region of 1 bn.

Abolishing child benefit saves 2 bn on a like-for-like comparison. Both the 1 bn and the 2bn would be subject to losses of VAT and excise duty.

I then never said which option (if any) I would choose.

As for this idea that we are heavily-taxed, as this analysis points out, that is only true for income tax on higher earners, it is not true at all for average earners or for total deductions on higher earners.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Now you cannot say our property tax or water charges make up the difference between us and the rest of Europe?

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 12:39PM

kippy wrote: »

I obviously dont think it's at all irrelevant as it is the true cost to the state of paying the wages. If I were a business owner I would like to know the true cost of paying the public sector pay and pensions.

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

Godge · 22-01-2013 12:48PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Funny enough, there is no definition that I can find in that document.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

Table XIII sets out the difference between gross and net paybill and what is consists of.

(1). 2012 A in A breakdown €m
Pay - mainly Education ( ESF receipts and fees) 43
Pensions - Civil Service, Health, Education, Guards and Army 536
Pension Related Deduction 930

Total 1,509

22-01-2013 12:50PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

This is exactly why simple analogies don't work.

Your comparing what you view to be the same and ignoring the obvious differences between your "antoobrien inc" and the state.

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 12:52PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This is exactly why simple analogies don't work.

Your comparing what you view to be the same and ignoring the obvious differences between your "antoobrien inc" and the state.

antoobrien inc in this case represents the taxpayer.

noodler · 22-01-2013 12:55PM

Godge wrote: »

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/is-ireland-low-tax-again.html

Now you cannot say our property tax or water charges make up the difference between us and the rest of Europe?

The thrust of that article is that we have our tax system in such a way that people on the minimum wage pay little or no income tax, and that the main difference between us and European average is that they would.

Now, I read the article on Friday so I'd have to double check what they define as "tax" but you'd have to be certain that thye USC is included in that analysis.

Coffey's point seems to be that destroying income tax relief for lower earners is what people are inadvertadntly asking for when they argue we should have the same tax priorities as some EU countries.

Godge · 22-01-2013 12:55PM

antoobrien wrote: »

The last word on this I have is that it is not and can not be the true cost. As every business person knows the true cost is gross wage (including bik) & employers PRSI & employers pension contribution - that figure is the figure that has to be funded from taxes. You would like us to ignore it and use a lower figure because it doesn't go into the pockets of PS workers.

To out this in an Angola that you might understand, lets say antoobrien inc. buys a HR application off kippy inc. The application needs hardware, OS, databases & application servers to run, so they also have to buy all that, bringing the total cost of the system to €10m.

Does the CEO of antoobrien inc. care that the CFO of kippy inc decides that the apps team should only get €1m of the total paid, the hardware division gets €2m and the infrastructure software teams (db, application servers etc) get €5m and €2m goes to cover other costs? Hell no, he cares that the application cost his company €10m to buy.

PS pay is the exact same thing - it doesn't matter to the taxpayer what the government allocates parts of the pot to, it matters what the pot costs!

your analogy is wrong.

Let me say the CEO of antoobrien inc decides to buy 100 widgets off kippy inc. Normally the widegets cost 1,000 euro each. However, the CEO of kippy inc recognises that antoobrien inc is a valued customer so while he will not give a discount up front, he promises to refund 50% of the cost of the widgets to antoobrien inc.

So antoobrien inc hands a cheque for 100,000 euro to kippy inc. At the same time kippy inc hands a cheque for 50,000 eueo to antoobrien inc. What is the cost of the widgets to antoobrien inc. Anyone with half a brain would say 50,000 euro.

The Government hands antoobrien a payslip with a gross wage of 100,000. Antoobrien hands over 50,000 worth of income tax, prsi, pension contribution, USC, and pension levy to the government. What is the cost of antoobrien tot he government. Anyone with the same half a brain would say 50,000 euro.

Do you get it yet?

fliball123 · 22-01-2013 12:55PM

Godge wrote: »

Once again, from the report it states:

"in 2012 the pay bill will amount to €14,402m, a decrease of 12.6% over the 2009 figure of €16,471m, a 1.6% decrease over the 2011 figure of €14,638m (Table V)."

That includes the effects of increments pushing up the bill, pension levy reducing the bill, new entrants reducing the bill, people leaving reducing the bill etc. etc. Why people seem to think differently I don't know.

But does not take pensions or the hidden costs such as the loss of tax revenue by losing these people , the cost of people in the ps taking redundancy and now getting the dole.

Godge · 22-01-2013 12:56PM

noodler wrote: »

The thrust of that article is that we have our tax system in such a way that people on the minimum wage pay little or no income tax, and that the main difference between us and European average is that they would.

Now, I read the article on Friday so I'd have to double check what they define as "tax" but you'd have to be certain that thye USC is included in that analysis.

Coffey's point seems to be that destroying income tax relief for lower earners is what people are inadvertadntly asking for when they argue we should have the same tax priorities as some EU countries.

Agree with all that. However, it does seem to refute the argument that we are lightly taxed.

22-01-2013 12:58PM

antoobrien wrote: »

antoobrien inc in this case represents the taxpayer.

Thanks for that clarification, I think that much was obvious.
However to compare a corporate body to a nations taxpayers is an incredible leap and to make this comparison you ignore massive difference between a company and taxpayers.
So my point still stands, your analogy doesn't further the discussion because it is not a valid comparison.

Godge · 22-01-2013 12:58PM

fliball123 wrote: »

But does not take pensions or the hidden costs such as the loss of tax revenue by losing these people , the cost of people in the ps taking redundancy and now getting the dole.

no it doesn't but it depends on what you are trying to measure. Are you trying to measure the cost of something to the taxpayer? Are you trying to measure the effects of the changes on the individual employee to compare whether they are fairly treated compared to others? Or something else entirely?

fliball123 · 22-01-2013 12:59PM

kceire wrote: »

which is in part funded by the contributions and the levy that PS staff pay on top of PRSI for the state pension.

Which doesnt come close to covering the cost of this pension and guess who has the job of filling the deficit? the private sector tax payer who a lot of cannot afford their own pension

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 01:03PM

Godge wrote: »

your analogy is wrong.

Let me say the CEO of antoobrien inc decides to buy 100 widgets off kippy inc. Normally the widegets cost 1,000 euro each. However, the CEO of kippy inc recognises that antoobrien inc is a valued customer so while he will not give a discount up front, he promises to refund 50% of the cost of the widgets to antoobrien inc.

So antoobrien inc hands a cheque for 100,000 euro to kippy inc. At the same time kippy inc hands a cheque for 50,000 eueo to antoobrien inc. What is the cost of the widgets to antoobrien inc. Anyone with half a brain would say 50,000 euro.

That line of thinking is totally wrong!

Discounts are given up front to valued customers. In this case the "discount" isn't given back to antoobrien inc it's kept by kippy inc (the government) to spend on other items. That is not a discount to the antoobrien inc!

Godge wrote: »

The Government hands antoobrien a payslip with a gross wage of 100,000. Antoobrien hands over 50,000 worth of income tax, prsi, pension contribution, USC, and pension levy to the government. What is the cost of antoobrien tot he government. Anyone with the same half a brain would say 50,000 euro.

Do you get it yet?

The cost to the taxpayer is still €100,000 that does not change becuase the worker only sees 50,000! Regardless of how much of it the worker sees, the tax has to be collected so as to allow the money to be re-allocated to other areas. Why do you not get this?

fliball123 · 22-01-2013 01:09PM

Godge wrote: »

no it doesn't but it depends on what you are trying to measure. Are you trying to measure the cost of something to the taxpayer? Are you trying to measure the effects of the changes on the individual employee to compare whether they are fairly treated compared to others? Or something else entirely?

Godge forget measureing the reason we are doing this is to bring costs down. Tax payers looking at whats going on within the public sector..see the costs being shifted from pay by people taking retirement and redundancy and see these costs transfered to the ps pensions and social welfare..We are looking to bring costs down and to date the spend side since 2008 hasnt moved much at all. Now these same tax payers see their taxes increased year in year out for 5 years and the listen to union leaders threaten to strike if pay rises are stopped or if outdated allowances are taken away. If you want to measure something it has to be the total spend this country is on the hook for we can no longer move expenditure from Column A to B and expect that to be enough

antoobrien · 22-01-2013 01:11PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Thanks for that clarification, I think that much was obvious.

Given your initial & subsequent comments it appears that it is not only obvious but explanation is still required.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

However to compare a corporate body to a nations taxpayers is an incredible leap and to make this comparison you ignore massive difference between a company and taxpayers.

I suppose it would be an incredible leap if you can't equate the public/taxpayer to being the customer of the PS rather than just a funding source. Lets face it, we pay the gross figure - same as the analogy earlier. The fact that the PS worker does not see part of it is irrelevant to the cost of employing them.

Maybe if we removed deduction at source for PS workers and had the relevant departments report the deductions to revenue and made the PS workers pay the tax themselves they'd see the difference.

sarumite · 22-01-2013 01:28PM

Godge wrote: »

I suggested that with the loss of income tax, pension contributions, PRSI deductions, pension levy as well as the need to pay social welfare plus associated costs meant that the saving from a one third headline cut (lets get away from gross:)) in public service pay (c 5 bn) concentrated on cutting numbers to the taxpayer would only be in the region of 1 bn.

why would you include pensions contributions? Pension contributions are not a source of income for the government.

creedp · 22-01-2013 01:42PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Maybe if we removed deduction at source for PS workers and had the relevant departments report the deductions to revenue and made the PS workers pay the tax themselves they'd see the difference.

What is the difference? So now the PS worker receives a payment (A) from the State. He then hands a proportion (B) of this payment straight back to the State. Cost to taxpayer of the PS salary = A-B. Now the State uses these deductions to fund welfare/CB, pay down national debt, etc.

Your argument is that the Gross wage = the Gross wage - that is correct. However, the cost to the taxpayer of that gross wage is the gross less tax/prsi/usc.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments