nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Brussels Sprout

It is understood that management outlined its agenda for the talks, including widespread cuts in pay and conditions aimed at securing savings of €1bn over the next three years, in addition to reductions planned under the existing Croke Park Agreement.

So, what do you think would be fair conditions under a new agreement?

link to story

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Godge

sharper wrote: »

I used google as an example because they've been hiring aggressively over the last few years. It highlights perfectly why it's difficult to make assumptions about where in the salary scale new jobs will be

I am not arguing all jobs being created are at the higher level, I am arguing you cannot assume a new job created must be pushing the average down. I find it bizarre you're trying chastise me for making assumptions when I'm simply providing reasonable example which undercut the assumptions you've made in order to draw conclusions from data you cannot draw conclusions from.

You argued "basic supply and demand" and I used laws around minimum wage as an example which prevents "basic supply and demand" from applying. In a regulated economy such as ours there many laws and agreements which prevent wage levels responding quickly to underlying demand.

The only way your view of the world makes sense from the available data is if the vast majority of jobs now being created and filled are at levels approaching twice the average pay and that there are few to none beloe average pay.

If your common sense cannot tell you that this is unlikely.......maybe there are no tanks advancing on Baghdad.

Godge

vinylbomb wrote: »

Common sense is not borrowing to pay for something you cannot afford and is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, your post is based on a simplistic assumption that the need to borrow is predicated on public service pay.

An alternative approach of higher taxes and cuts in grants and transfer payments means that your post is undermined.

donalg1

vinylbomb wrote: »

Common sense is not borrowing to pay for something you cannot afford and is unsustainable.

Tell that to all those that borrowed recklessly during the boom and have now left the country up the creek without the paddle.

vinylbomb

barneystinson wrote: »

Think you must be mixing me up with someone else... :rolleyes:

Hmmm. Maybe I have been misinformed.:eek:

Apologies

Tea drinker

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, your post is based on a simplistic assumption that the need to borrow is predicated on public service pay.

An alternative approach of higher taxes and cuts in grants and transfer payments means that your post is undermined.

At a certain point the higher taxes become self defeating, no money available to spend in the economy, or negative spend in the economy (mortgages unpaid loans unpaid - picked up by taxpayer, so less spend in economy) no retirement savings - dependent on state bennies etc.
Same as cutting your pay at a certain point would mean unpaid mortgages, better pay on dole etc.
I think there is very little left spare for the low to mid income, certainly many low paid are better off on dole (maybe another question to be answered there)
Perhaps the unions are right in that a 100k plus tax could be useful - I don't know offhand what that would net. But it still doesn't escape that the taxpayers can't afford the level of service they have - cuts to gov services like garda station, health services will continue. Still it won't be enough.
And now we are back to cuts in PS pay, it's inescapable.

As long as we get quite close to balancing the books it will be enough - assumption being inflation will take care of yesterdays debt.

All the best

sharper

Godge wrote: »

The only way your view of the world makes sense from the available data is if the vast majority of jobs now being created and filled are at levels approaching twice the average pay and that there are few to none beloe average pay.

Again you're heaping assumptions on top of assumptions. If google hires 500 new engineers you have no idea what services they're consuming, how the businesses which provide those services are responding (i.e. whether they're hiring new staff or increasing the hours of existing staff) or how long the lead time of their response is relative to the point at which you're looking at the figures.

All of these assumptions are seemingly based around your conclusion - that pay levels must be increasing. If pay levels are increasing in the way you suggest they'll show up as economic growth, as increases in tax revenue, in the CSO stats and probably plenty of other reports.

If your common sense cannot tell you that this is unlikely.......maybe there are no tanks advancing on Baghdad.

I don't even know how to interpret this analogy - tanks advancing on Baghdad could clearly be observed. Neither "commons sense" nor assumption of any kind would play a role in reaching that conclusion.

Step back and think about what you're arguing here - that the labour force response in the current recovery can be intuited without any information at all about where in the recovery cycle you are or what sector or sectors the economy is recovering in.

ardmacha

I think there is very little left spare for the low to mid income, certainly many low paid are better off on dole (maybe another question to be answered there)
Perhaps the unions are right in that a 100k plus tax could be useful - I don't know offhand what that would net. But it still doesn't escape that the taxpayers can't afford the level of service they have - cuts to gov services like garda station, health services will continue. Still it won't be enough.
And now we are back to cuts in PS pay, it's inescapable.

Another claim that there is no room for taxes and then essentially proposing a tax on PS workers. That's logical.

Godge

Tea drinker wrote: »

I think there is very little left spare for the low to mid income, certainly many low paid are better off on dole (maybe another question to be answered there)
Perhaps the unions are right in that a 100k plus tax could be useful - I don't know offhand what that would net. But it still doesn't escape that the taxpayers can't afford the level of service they have - cuts to gov services like garda station, health services will continue. Still it won't be enough.
And now we are back to cuts in PS pay, it's inescapable.

As long as we get quite close to balancing the books it will be enough - assumption being inflation will take care of yesterdays debt.

All the best

You think that there is little to spare in respect of income tax for the low to middle income? Yet all of the evidence suggests that at lower/middle income levels, we are among the lowest taxed in the OECD?

Yes, there is little room for increased income tax at the lower to middle income levels if you want to preserve the living standards of the lower to middle class.

sean200

For god sake will you just lock this
It is the same people repeating the same s***t for the last 4 year and you would have to wonder dose any of them work and pay TAX or even live in the real world
SHUT DOWN NOW

Tea drinker

Godge wrote: »

You think that there is little to spare in respect of income tax for the low to middle income? Yet all of the evidence suggests that at lower/middle income levels, we are among the lowest taxed in the OECD?

Yes, there is little room for increased income tax at the lower to middle income levels if you want to preserve the living standards of the lower to middle class.

No, in comparison to other European countries, the low and middle income classes here spent too much on houses, and if you saddle them with more tax/charges/lower allowances they are on an increasing scale going to be bankrupt. It's not my fault, but there it is.
Also you may have heard how life is expensive here, drug cartel of the pharmacy with their special "Irish" prices (even IMF said the prices have to come down), also many retail chains charge ~1/3 more for items here.
Rip off republic oh yeah.

Face it, we are too poor to afford the Gucci government services we have today. Cut baby cut!

Vizzy

Tea drinker wrote: »

Face it, we are too poor to afford the Gucci government services we have today. Cut baby cut!

Which of our Gucci services would you like to see cut ?

Godge

Tea drinker wrote: »

No, in comparison to other European countries, the low and middle income classes here spent too much on houses, and if you saddle them with more tax/charges/lower allowances they are on an increasing scale going to be bankrupt. It's not my fault, but there it is.
Also you may have heard how life is expensive here, drug cartel of the pharmacy with their special "Irish" prices (even IMF said the prices have to come down), also many retail chains charge ~1/3 more for items here.
Rip off republic oh yeah.

Face it, we are too poor to afford the Gucci government services we have today. Cut baby cut!

Some of the lower and middle classes spent too much on houses, probably in part because they were subject to such low taxes. that is not sufficient reasons to keep taxes low on all lower and middle classes.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

Some of the lower and middle classes spent too much on houses, probably in part because they were subject to such low taxes. that is not sufficient reasons to keep taxes low on all lower and middle classes.

Godge it is nearly impossible to increase taxes on lower and lower middle income workers. These workers would need little incentive to exit the workforce as a lot of them would be better off on welfare. Our middle income earners hit the high rate of tax faster than most other EU countries and receive less services. In this country you hit an effective marginal tax rate of 52% when you go beyond 33K or 66K for a working couple. None of these people are earning massive wages.

The Couple would bring home about 1060/week and the single earner about 530/week. That is before expenses attached to work. The level of services they receive from the state compare to other countries is minimal.

There is little room for tax increases, if CA is reduced to these working families they will continue to exit the workforce and be slow to attempt to re-enter.

In reality the government has little choice but to cut PS pay. The PS employ's too may workers many in the wrong places and we have failed to redeploy, even with that we outsource too much from the PS because we cannot get it done within because of the failure to change workpractices and get more bang for our money.

The pay of our PS is out of kilter with the rest of Europe as is the hours that some sections work. The reality is that we need massive reform of Social Welfare, taxation ( without increasing overall tax take) and the PS.

barneystinson

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In reality the government has little choice but to cut PS pay. The PS employ's too may workers many in the wrong places and we have failed to redeploy, even with that we outsource too much from the PS because we cannot get it done within because of the failure to change workpractices and get more bang for our money.

The pay of our PS is out of kilter with the rest of Europe as is the hours that some sections work. The reality is that we need massive reform of Social Welfare, taxation ( without increasing overall tax take) and the PS.

Just to clarify, because I'm pretty sure you're on record on this and other threads as saying PS workers at the lower end of the pay spectrum (who actually make up the majority in headcount) shouldn't have their pay cut - have you changed your mind now?

Maybe your vested interest has changed... (or am I now too cynical from spending too much time reading through guff on here)?

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Some of the lower and middle classes spent too much on houses, probably in part because they were subject to such low taxes. that is not sufficient reasons to keep taxes low on all lower and middle classes.

Nor a reason not to cut PS pay.

noodler

Godge wrote: »

Looking at the employment information for Ireland for the last year (IBEC and CSO data both confirm the trend), it suggests that private sector employment is rising while public sector employment is falling. At the same time private sector average salaries are rising slightly.

I thought we agreed the CSO data on the private sector didn't say this.

Christ, we had mountains of posts on it.

Farmer Pudsey

barneystinson wrote: »

Just to clarify, because I'm pretty sure you're on record on this and other threads as saying PS workers at the lower end of the pay spectrum (who actually make up the majority in headcount) shouldn't have their pay cut - have you changed your mind now?

Maybe your vested interest has changed... (or am I now too cynical from spending too much time reading through guff on here)?

I see little point in cutting pay on lower paid in the public service however my defination would be different to SIPTU. Siptu consider's that basic pay up to 65K needs to be protected but yet allowances can be cut on lower paid workers.

I also think that PS pensioners who's pension exceed 50% of present pay rates should be adjusted to reflect present pay rates. And yes we will not save massive money but however all these adjustments need to be done.

Kristopherus

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I see little point in cutting pay on lower paid in the public service however my defination would be different to SIPTU. Siptu consider's that basic pay up to 65K needs to be protected but yet allowances can be cut on lower paid workers.

I also think that PS pensioners who's pension exceed 50% of present pay rates should be adjusted to reflect present pay rates. And yes we will not save massive money but however all these adjustments need to be done.

So you think a PS pensioner on €20-25,000 should be cut? And a married couple who sat on their arses all their life would then get a non-con pensions greater than your PS who has had their pension cut. That just makes no sense.:mad:

Dannyboy83

I am against the retrospective changes of public service pensioners who are currently drawing their pension.

I agree it can be changed for those still in employment, but not for those who have already retired.

Yes, it's a difficult financial burden to bear.
But it's the only way our government will ever learn accountability; Allowing retrospective changes to those contracts now completely eliminates the necessity for financial competence for future governments.

We should bear this burden and we should learn from it.
It should be seared in the public consciousness, so future governments cannot attempt to buy an election with the next round of benchmarking, safe in the knowledge that they can retrospectively change it.

barneystinson

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I am against the retrospective changes of public service pensioners who are currently drawing their pension.

I agree it can be changed for those still in employment, but not for those who have already retired.

Yes, it's a difficult financial burden to bear.
But it's the only way our government will ever learn accountability; Allowing retrospective changes to those contracts now completely eliminates the necessity for financial competence for future governments.

We should bear this burden and we should learn from it.
It should be seared in the public consciousness, so future governments cannot attempt to buy an election with the next round of benchmarking, safe in the knowledge that they can retrospectively change it.

Why should their contracts be treated differently to those of existing staff?

amen

I've been trying to keep up with all the posts here and I rarely comment but

I am against the retrospective changes of public service pensioners who are currently drawing their pension

I thought that if you were a retired PS/CS in certain grades that retired before the bench marking rounds and if the during bench marking your grade got an increase then you as a retired person also got an increase?

donalg1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Godge it is nearly impossible to increase taxes on lower and lower middle income workers. These workers would need little incentive to exit the workforce as a lot of them would be better off on welfare. Our middle income earners hit the high rate of tax faster than most other EU countries and receive less services. In this country you hit an effective marginal tax rate of 52% when you go beyond 33K or 66K for a working couple. None of these people are earning massive wages.

The Couple would bring home about 1060/week and the single earner about 530/week. That is before expenses attached to work. The level of services they receive from the state compare to other countries is minimal.

There is little room for tax increases, if CA is reduced to these working families they will continue to exit the workforce and be slow to attempt to re-enter.

In reality the government has little choice but to cut PS pay. The PS employ's too may workers many in the wrong places and we have failed to redeploy, even with that we outsource too much from the PS because we cannot get it done within because of the failure to change workpractices and get more bang for our money.

The pay of our PS is out of kilter with the rest of Europe as is the hours that some sections work. The reality is that we need massive reform of Social Welfare, taxation ( without increasing overall tax take) and the PS.

I'm a bit confused by this, you say that 33k or 66k isnt a big wage however you then go on to say that PS pay should be cut, there are many in the PS that earn far less than 33k and who are part of a couple earning less than 66k.

Do you want to cut their pay or leave it alone and cut those that earn more than this?

You seem to differentiate between the wages and services the PS employee receives and the wages and services the Private Sector employee receives even if their wages are the same.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I see little point in cutting pay on lower paid in the public service however my defination would be different to SIPTU. done.

What would be your definition of low pay in the public sector given that it is different from SIPTU? For example would you think someone on €60k is highly paid while someone on €59,999 is a low paid worker.

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Godge it is nearly impossible to increase taxes on lower and lower middle income workers. These workers would need little incentive to exit the workforce as a lot of them would be better off on welfare. Our middle income earners hit the high rate of tax faster than most other EU countries and receive less services. In this country you hit an effective marginal tax rate of 52% when you go beyond 33K or 66K for a working couple. None of these people are earning massive wages.

The Couple would bring home about 1060/week and the single earner about 530/week. That is before expenses attached to work. The level of services they receive from the state compare to other countries is minimal.

There is little room for tax increases, if CA is reduced to these working families they will continue to exit the workforce and be slow to attempt to re-enter.

In reality the government has little choice but to cut PS pay. The PS employ's too may workers many in the wrong places and we have failed to redeploy, even with that we outsource too much from the PS because we cannot get it done within because of the failure to change workpractices and get more bang for our money.

The pay of our PS is out of kilter with the rest of Europe as is the hours that some sections work. The reality is that we need massive reform of Social Welfare, taxation ( without increasing overall tax take) and the PS.

Farmer, do you have anything to back this up?

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/03/effective-tax-rates.html

Here is some data on effective tax rates - admittedly it leaves out the USC. The second link is more informative

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

Here is the most important quote from this independent analysis:

"For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

Even if you disagree with some notion of the figures (taken from 2010, other assumptions) getting from bottom of the EU15 to near the top in terms of taxation of average income would be difficult no matter how you twist the statistics. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to back up an assertion that the average income person pays too much income tax. The opposite is indeed the case.

Your other point is more pertinent about the fact that if you tax them higher they will drop out of the workforce (that applies to public servants too if you cut their wages).

So we have clear evidence on two points:

(1) We are at the bottom of the league for income tax/social contributions on average income
(2) Social welfare levels are so high that there is a disincentive to work.

The solution you propose to these two problems is not raising income tax and cutting social welfare, it is cutting public service pay. Brilliant. Cutting off your hands to cure the gangrene in your legs. Absolutely brilliant.

Dannyboy83

barneystinson wrote: »

Why should their contracts be treated differently to those of existing staff?

A genuine reason and a cynical one.

A) The genuine reason is that, if you are still in employment - you can leave and go elsewhere, if you are unhappy with your terms and feel private industry will offer you more.
But it's unrealistic for a retiree to expect to regain employment. Businesses do not want to take the chance, any more than they would hire a pregnant woman.

The cynical reason is that it's a convenient way to reduce the amount we are required to pay.

It's sufficient to examine the way in which the tracker mortgage has become a national curse word - especially to those on standard variable mortgages.

Godge

noodler wrote: »

I thought we agreed the CSO data on the private sector didn't say this.

Christ, we had mountains of posts on it.

no, we hadn't agreed and the only reason I haven't come back to you on this point is that I am waiting for the latest quarterly data from the CSO, due out later this month, to see which trend it confirms.

The IBEC report, albeit not completely scientific, backs up my position though.

ardmacha

"For average earners Ireland is a low-taxed, low-social-insured economy. A chart ranked by total deductions is here. Ireland is at the bottom."

As was pointed out last week, if we had the same tax structure as Denmark we'd have a surplus even at present.

Geuze

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I am against the retrospective changes of public service pensioners who are currently drawing their pension.
it.

I disagree.

PS workers took two cuts:

(1) a straight cut to gross pay (% cut increases as gross increases)
(2) PRD levy, this is a substantial cut

In normal times, PS pensions increased in line with PS pay.

But, when PS gross wages fell, PS pensions were not cut. Where is the solidarity?

OK, there was a small PRD levy put on PS pensions, but they could take more of a cut.

A typical teacher's pension of 700 pw could be cut by more, especially as income tax is lower if over 65.

donalg1

Godge wrote: »

So we have clear evidence on two points:

(1) We are at the bottom of the league for income tax/social contributions on average income
(2) Social welfare levels are so high that there is a disincentive to work.

The solution you propose to these two problems is not raising income tax and cutting social welfare, it is cutting public service pay. Brilliant. Cutting off your hands to cure the gangrene in your legs. Absolutely brilliant.

vinylbomb

Godge wrote: »

(1) We are at the bottom of the league for income tax/social contributions on average income
(2) Social welfare levels are so high that there is a disincentive to work.

There was quite a lot of good information in your post, but one thing re: tax raises was missed - any raise at a lower wages level also impacts adversely to those on a higher wage bracket, which you have shown to be unsustainable as upper taxation rates are already towards the higher end of EU averages - without providing the social benefits of other countries.

Welfare does need to go down, it is unsustainable, but in my opinion so are PS wages. Bear in mind that CP2 didn't advocate a direct cut on lower paid wages, only those above 65k - so in a way you're cutting off your nose to spite your face in this argument.
You wish to protect lower paid from wages cuts but in effect you are protecting higher paid from them.