Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

1…132133135137138…159

Comments

  • #4022
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,759 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    noodler wrote: »
    Fair play to the Government for standing up to them.

    Its a game of bluff at the moment between the PS and the Govt.
    Neither side will give in and again the public will suffer when the strikes begin.
    No winners, only losers and that's you and I who are part of neither side.


  • #4023
    noodler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,002 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Its a game of bluff at the moment between the PS and the Govt.
    Neither side will give in and again the public will suffer when the strikes begin.
    No winners, only losers and that's you and I who are part of neither side.

    Not being on one side or another is certainly not the impression you give.


  • #4024
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    The time for belt tightening has not ended and it is appropriate to say that. However, there is not a crisis, there is a chronic problem. The government must cut, but in a discerning way. The aim should be to move to a sustainable model for public revenue and expenditure, measures that move toward stabilitymust be done, but stunts that move in the opposite direction are not needed and should be shunned. Unfortunately discernment and management are not words that Irish politicians understand and commentators be there in this forum or in newspapers etc are mostly only interested in point scoring rather than moving the State towards a long term model.


  • #4025
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,759 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    noodler wrote: »
    Not being on one side or another is certainly not the impression you give.

    I have little time for this Govt.
    They are putting their people to the sword in an effort to be the poster boy of Europe. It seems to me to be about personal praise with them, trying to please Europeans at the expense of their own. They are over-doing the austerity and there is no need to have so much in so short a period.

    What I meant earlier was that we are not part of the PS but will suffer too by being effected by strikes. I don't blame them for striking as someone has to stand up to this shower.


  • #4026
    vinylbomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭vinylbomb


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The time for belt tightening has not ended and it is appropriate to say that. However, there is not a crisis, there is a chronic problem. The government must cut, but in a discerning way. The aim should be to move to a sustainable model for public revenue and expenditure, measures that move toward stabilitymust be done, but stunts that move in the opposite direction are not needed and should be shunned. Unfortunately discernment and management are not words that Irish politicians understand and commentators be there in this forum or in newspapers etc are mostly only interested in point scoring rather than moving the State towards a long term model.


    Great post.
    But I would argue that discernment and management are not watchwords for many union leaders and some members also.
    I'm not for cutting PS numbers, but there must be some reduction in expenditure in order to close the deficit.


  • Advertisement
  • #4027
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    noodler wrote: »
    Fair play to the Government for standing up to them.


    The Government have done no more than make threatening noises. Let us see what happens.


  • #4028
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    Great post.
    But I would argue that discernment and management are not watchwords for many union leaders and some members also.
    I'm not for cutting PS numbers, but there must be some reduction in expenditure in order to close the deficit.

    Yes there must be a reduction in Expenditure but this must be in the correct areas. I see on Welfare.ie the statistical information for 2011 says expenditure on this was €20.96 billion making up 39.7% of gross current government expenditure.

    How much was the PS pay bill for 2011 and does anyone have the figures for 2012?

    When was the last time Social Welfare was cut? And how much do these transfer payments cost each year in fraud


  • #4029
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,759 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    There is an easy way to fix Social Welfare especially for the won't work brigade.

    Leave it as it is for those who will sign up to do 20 hours per week cleaning up estates of rubbish, cleaning chewing gum off pavements, cleaning graffiti off walls or cutting grass etc.
    Those who won't work should be cut down to 100 euro a week.
    The country has been too easy on lazy layabouts.

    People who genuinely lost their jobs are a different matter and should be given help with bills etc until they regain employment.


  • #4030
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Yes there must be a reduction in Expenditure but this must be in the correct areas. I see on Welfare.ie the statistical information for 2011 says expenditure on this was €20.96 billion making up 39.7% of gross current government expenditure.

    How much was the PS pay bill for 2011 and does anyone have the figures for 2012?

    When was the last time Social Welfare was cut? And how much do these transfer payments cost each year in fraud


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

    The paybill was €14.4 bn in 2012, down from €14.6 in 2011 (Table V on page 11 of the link).

    In the boom years, public service pay and social welfare were roughly equal.


  • #4031
    Dreamertime
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 425 ✭✭Dreamertime


    vinylbomb wrote: »
    Great post.
    But I would argue that discernment and management are not watchwords for many union leaders and some members also.
    I'm not for cutting PS numbers, but there must be some reduction in expenditure in order to close the deficit.


    Careful. Your yellow pack jealousy is showing...


  • Advertisement
  • #4032
    vinylbomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭vinylbomb


    Dreamertime wrote: »
    Careful. Your yellow pack jealousy is showing...

    I've really got your goat, haven't I?

    Don't worry sweetie, I've the skills to pay the bills out in the real world too.


  • #4033
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


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

    The paybill was €14.4 bn in 2012, down from €14.6 in 2011 (Table V on page 11 of the link).

    In the boom years, public service pay and social welfare were roughly equal.

    Is that 14bn gross or net my phone won't open it.


  • #4034
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Is that 14bn gross or net my phone won't open it.

    Gross


  • #4035
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    woodoo wrote: »
    Gross

    So 8 or 9 net then if not less. Makes me wonder why all the hate and vitriol is directed at public sector wages when there are far bigger areas of expenditure that have remained virtually untouched for years now,especially when there are some in receipt of this money that have never contributed anything to society or government revenue.

    Seems some areas need reform before others but for some reason this is almost taboo.


  • #4036
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Makes me wonder why all the hate and vitriol is directed at public sector wages when there are far bigger areas of expenditure that have remained virtually untouched for years now


    All of those bomb disposal officers, paramedics, computer science lecturers, tax auditors, forensic analysts, maths teachers, care workers and the rest of them are not the sort of people many people want in society.


  • #4037
    sharper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    donalg1 wrote: »
    So 8 or 9 net then if not less.

    The entire pay and pensions bill goes from €18.4b gross to €16.9b net, a difference of €1.5b

    You're being wildly optimistic if you think you can take 5 or 6 billion (or more!) of the pay bill alone.

    Edit: And since the companion pensions figure to the €14.4 billion one is €2.5b that strongly implies €14.4b is the net not gross figure even though I don't see it explicitly called out.


  • #4038
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,759 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Good to see our President Michael D. Higgins speak out against the austerity policies. He has more balls than the rest of the Labour party put together.


  • #4039
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    sharper wrote: »
    The entire pay and pensions bill goes from €18.4b gross to €16.9b net, a difference of €1.5b

    You're being wildly optimistic if you think you can take 5 or 6 billion (or more!) of the pay bill alone.

    Edit: And since the companion pensions figure to the €14.4 billion one is €2.5b that strongly implies €14.4b is the net not gross figure even though I don't see it explicitly called out.

    The figure of €14.4 bn is net of pension levy but gross before PRSI, income tax and USC. Not entirely clear whether it is gross or net of superannuation contributions.

    Applying an average 25% (conservative estimate for PRSI, income tax and USC) tax slice to that figure gives you a net paybill of around €10.8 bn.

    The net social welfare bill (only a small amount is taxed) would come in around twice that.


    P.S. The confusion between net and gross should be understood by those who did even simple accounting as you had gross profits before interest, depreciation, tax etc. and various net figures after that.


  • #4040
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    sharper wrote: »
    The entire pay and pensions bill goes from €18.4b gross to €16.9b net, a difference of €1.5b

    You're being wildly optimistic if you think you can take 5 or 6 billion (or more!) of the pay bill alone.

    Edit: And since the companion pensions figure to the €14.4 billion one is €2.5b that strongly implies €14.4b is the net not gross figure even though I don't see it explicitly called out.

    Either way there have been far more savings to the public sector wage bill compared to the Social Welfare bill, and if they were the same during the boom then surely the Social Welfare bill should have been reduced in the same way.

    Yet it remains untouched, and there is never any mention in the media or by government or anyone else for that matter about the need to overhaul, reform and reduce this bill. And at the same time you cant open a paper or turn on the news or radio without another attack on the PS.

    I think its about time that those on SW for the last decade or more are asked to make a contribution, I think its time the whole SW system is overhauled and made a bit harsher but also fairer, if you have worked for x amount of years you receive x amount of payments in line with your contribution, if you have never worked then see you later.

    Stop the attacks on the people trying to make a living, and start focussing on those that have never contributed a thing.


  • #4041
    sharper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Yet it remains untouched, and there is never any mention in the media or by government or anyone else for that matter about the need to overhaul, reform and reduce this bill.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unemployment-falls-as-kenny-seeks-end-to-dole-dependency-29236785.html
    TAOISEACH Enda Kenny has warned Ireland could no longer afford to tolerate a "passive" welfare system that consigned large numbers of people to welfare dependency.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/eu-warns-government-over-need-to-reform-welfare-system-1.544170
    THE Government has been warned about the need to reform the welfare system to eliminate poverty traps and broaden the tax base. The call in a European Commission report came as controversy continued over the introduction of a property tax next year as part of the EU-IMF programme.


  • Advertisement
  • #4042
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    donalg1 wrote: »
    and if they were the same during the boom then surely the Social Welfare bill should have been reduced in the same way.

    Why?


  • #4043
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    sharper wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unemployment-falls-as-kenny-seeks-end-to-dole-dependency-29236785.html



    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/eu-warns-government-over-need-to-reform-welfare-system-1.544170

    A lot of lip service but no real action it seems, I mean two months before the last budget the Government were saying SW wouldnt be touched.

    I dont think it takes a genius to realise the system of SW here in Ireland needs major overhauling, yet nothing ever happens, instead its attacks on those in employment, reduce them until they are better off on SW seems to be the aim of this lot.

    Nobody in full time employment should be better off on SW yet this is the case for many in Ireland today.


  • #4044
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    sarumite wrote: »
    Why?

    Well why not? What cuts have been made to Social Welfare?

    Cut those in employment but not those in long term unemployment instead, doesnt make sense to me seems a little bit backwards, almost as if people are being encouraged not to work but to sit at home collecting SW for decades.


  • #4045
    sharper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    donalg1 wrote: »
    A lot of lip service but no real action it seems, I mean two months before the last budget the Government were saying SW wouldnt be touched.

    Well you could say the same in relation to public sector pay and allowances too.

    Yes social welfare needs to be reduced, aside from the cost it's unfathomable to me that a large number of people are essentially working for free or close to nothing since the comparable social welfare package rivals their earnings (minus costs of getting to/from work). I also find it bizarre that benefits increase rather than decrease over time.

    You'll find many of the same arguments used to defend public sector pay are used to defend social welfare - "They spend that money in the domestic economy", "They're not responsible for the crisis", "Why do you hate the unemployed", "Why not just increases taxes instead", "I'm barely getting by as it is, I can't take another cut".

    And so on.


  • #4046
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    sharper wrote: »
    Well you could say the same in relation to public sector pay and allowances too.

    Yes social welfare needs to be reduced, aside from the cost it's unfathomable to me that a large number of people are essentially working for free or close to nothing since the comparable social welfare package rivals their earnings (minus costs of getting to/from work). I also find it bizarre that benefits increase rather than decrease over time.

    You'll find many of the same arguments used to defend public sector pay are used to defend social welfare - "They spend that money in the domestic economy", "They're not responsible for the crisis", "Why do you hate the unemployed", "Why not just increases taxes instead", "I'm barely getting by as it is, I can't take another cut".

    And so on.

    Yes there are similarities between the two but one main difference in that those working are providing a service in return whereas those on Social Welfare provide nothing in return, hence the term "transfer payment".

    I too do find it unfathomable that people can work full time and be worse off than those that never work, and why oh why cant they reduce SW after x amount of time on it, certainly would provide more of an incentive to come off it, instead like you say it tends to increase the longer you are on it.

    Why if I leave school and work for 20 years and am made redundant do I get the same rate as someone that has left school and been unemployed for the same 20 years, hardly seems equitable to me.

    The worst part about it is that we can all see the problems with SW, yet nothing is done about it year after year after year.


  • #4047
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Well why not?

    It was your statement, so I am just asking you to justify what you said. "Why not?" isn't a particularly persuasive justification.

    but since you ask, in financially good times one could reasonably expect people to be more financially independent. In economic downturns, where the population will become more financially constrained, it makes sense that they will rely more and more on external funding such as a government funded welfare system. An obvious indicator of this is the unemployment rate which has increased dramatically in the current downturn.


  • #4048
    sharper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭sharper


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Yes there are similarities between the two but one main difference in that those working are providing a service in return whereas those on Social Welfare provide nothing in return, hence the term "transfer payment".

    Well as argued by a number of people here:

    1. Performance management in the public sector is mostly non-existent and poorly implemented in general, we don't really know what service is being provided by many employees.

    2. The cost of that service cannot be set arbitrarily, it has to be supportable by the domestic economy. Paying €100 for a mars bar obviously makes no sense even though you do get something for your money.

    3. Pay is only one component of providing a service and protecting pay is not necessarily the way to ensure quality or availability of service.

    Try to discuss any of the above and you'll hear more about people not being afford further cuts etc


  • #4049
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    sarumite wrote: »
    It was your statement, so I am just asking you to justify what you said. "Why not?" isn't a particularly persuasive justification.

    but since you ask, in financially good times one could reasonably expect people to be more financially independent. In economic downturns, where the population will become more financially constrained, it makes sense that they will rely more and more on external funding such as a government funded welfare system. An obvious indicator of this is the unemployment rate which has increased dramatically in the current downturn.

    I have already outlined my reasons why I think SW should be cut before the PS pay is cut again.

    Also in relation to your 2nd Paragraph in financially good times why was SW being increase, why was it not being reduced then when there were 1000's of jobs around. Yes more people are dependent on the state today than during the boom and they are more than entitled to aid from the state.

    However my argument is those that have been on SW for over 7 years now that havent worked in up to 40 years should not be receiving the same payment as those that have lost their jobs in the last 5 years. That is where the reform needs to be and the cuts need to be made.


  • #4050
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    sharper wrote: »
    Well as argued by a number of people here:

    1. Performance management in the public sector is mostly non-existent and poorly implemented in general, we don't really know what service is being provided by many employees.

    2. The cost of that service cannot be set arbitrarily, it has to be supportable by the domestic economy. Paying €100 for a mars bar obviously makes no sense even though you do get something for your money.

    3. Pay is only one component of providing a service and protecting pay is not necessarily the way to ensure quality or availability of service.

    Try to discuss any of the above and you'll hear more about people not being afford further cuts etc

    Well in fairness they are providing a service, you will always have people saying they do nothing blah blah blah, but those on SW that I am referring to are definitely doing nothing for the money they receive.

    Obviously the costs of that service have to be supported however in many instances the services provided are charging a fee as such, we dont pay the Guards if they call out to us when our house has been burgled, and this is why the State must provide this service. If the costs of the service could be covered by charges and fees then the private market would be taking care of this service and there would be no need for the Government to provide it.

    There are some that genuinely cant afford more cuts and shouldnt get them especially when you consider that there are those on SW better off than them and not facing more cuts.


  • Advertisement
  • #4051
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    donalg1 wrote: »
    However my argument is those that have been on SW for over 7 years now that havent worked in up to 40 years should not be receiving the same payment as those that have lost their jobs in the last 5 years. That is where the reform needs to be and the cuts need to be made.

    No, this was your argument (well, more a statement than an argument, which was the reason I asked you "Why?" in the first place).
    donalg1 wrote: »
    and if they were the same during the boom then surely the Social Welfare bill should have been reduced in the same way.


Advertisement