Iwasfrozen wrote: » Actually I wasn't talking about you but since you did mention you would you kindly say how much you think the government should have lowered their own wages by? To what level? Please and thank you.
Woodville56 wrote: » Where did I say public servants should be prevented contributing from their own salaries by way of voluntary donations to political parties - show me , cos I didn't say that !! What I did say is that in principle I have a problem with the taxes I pay being used to support political parties and by inference indirectly supporting their policies with which I don't agree ! I have no issue with what public servants or anyone else for that matter does with their personal salaries ! What I said was that Politicians should be paid a standard mid public service salary and any related expenses they incur refunded by way of a predetermined scale if allowances.
Bannasidhe wrote: » A poster said a State of Emergency could have been declared and wages capped for the duration as part of a discussion on actions government could have taken immediately which would have demonstrated their intention to lead by example . Please do not take what I said out of context to try and bolster your points.
Dan_Solo wrote: » So you haven't answered, whining "hyperbole" instead. How predictable. Now, please explain, short of what I outlined above, how you plan to prevent all public employees from "wasting your tax" on voluntary donations from their own salaries to political parties.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Oh yes, I agree austerity has worked, we were living far beyond our means and wages needed to come down across the board. My post was in response to a poster who said the public service should be capped at a level equivalent to the average industrial wage.
Idbatterim wrote: » Let me clarify that I dont for one second think politicians salaries should be reduced to the average industrial. What look like fantastic salaries here, look a hell of a lot different when you look at the figure that actually matters, i.e. your take home pay, i.e. your net pay.
My post was in response to a poster who said the public service should be capped at a level equivalent to the average industrial wage.
Idbatterim wrote: » the answer is simple then, lets start paying them more or why did we cut them in the first place. Austerity has worked, it was applied across the board, explain how keeping wages at levels they were in the public sector would actually have us in a better position? yes there would be less demand, of course, that is obvious. But you can apply that to any bloody cut or new tax. I have seen that claim, being absolutely destroyed on the irish economy forum before, if I can find the posts, I will post them here. Let me clarify that I dont for one second think politicians salaries should be reduced to the average industrial. What look like fantastic salaries here, look a hell of a lot different when you look at the figure that actually matters, i.e. your take home pay, i.e. your net pay.
Woodville56 wrote: » Where I say that ??? Can anyone express an opinion around here without getting smart ass hyperbole response in response ?? I know ye SF guys are on a bit of a high these days but ease off on the glib responses ! I note a similar "Way to go FF" was closed down by the moderator because of the standard and tone of the postings - maybe this one has run it's course too - about 1732 posts ago ! Come to think of it is there a Mod on this thread ?? Must be a SF supporter !
Dan_Solo wrote: » What do you propose then? Freezing all newly elected TDs' assets, feed and water them three times a day and ban them from having any money in case their use if for party purposes?
Not if the money saved was diverted to building/upgrading infrastructure.
Idbatterim wrote: » yes there would be less demand, of course, that is obvious.
Lowering public sector wages lowers aggregate demand in the economy which lowers output which would have compounded our problems. This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.
Woodville56 wrote: » That's fine so - cool if you"re happy to have your taxes used to promote political parties or ideologies you don't agree with ! Lesser of two evils I suppose . And yes, I have thought for a minute or two or more even, thought enough to have an objection in principal to indirectly funding parties that, through their policies, have brought this this country to its knees, others who have kept us there and a few other outfits who just want to get into power !
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » You are right, it is made up of half baked ideas conjured up by the political & financial masters of the universe & brown envelopes
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Lowering public sector wages lowers aggregate demand in the economy which lowers output which would have compounded our problems. This is why public policy is not made up of half baked ideas conjured up on an internet forum.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Suggest that one measure which could have been taken was public representatives and public sector workers have their wages temporarily capped at the average industrial wage during a time of national emergency (which would affect me too) and people lose their minds.
Karl Stein wrote: » ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Karl Stein wrote: » Only temporarily and only for those paid from the public purse and only if it was brought in overnight rather than phased. Wtf? Are we really witnessing the 'blame the unions/government' crowd defending civil/public servant, public purse funded wages at €~150,000 PA +. Is this really happening?
Bannasidhe wrote: » It is
Iwasfrozen wrote: » The central bank takes a rather more optimistic view.http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland/central-bank-predicts-2-1-growth-in-economy-in-2014-1.1672045 "Gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to grow by 2.1 per cent this year, GDP growth will rise to 3.2 per cent next year." "Gross national product (GNP), is expected to grow 2.2 per cent this year and 2.5 per cent in 2015." "The debt-to-GDP ratio has peaked at a slightly lower level than previously expected, the Central Bank’s projections indicate, with latest estimates suggesting the deficit for 2013 will come in below the 7.5 per cent GDP target set under the European Commission’s “excessive deficit procedure” monitoring system" Given the lack of evidence I don't think it's justified to say our debt is unsustainable and indeed defaulting now would severely damage our reputation on the markets.
Idbatterim wrote: » The number of cuts is irrelevant, the whole welfare system here is a joke from start to finish. Say your pay is cut 3 times, from 200 to 199 to 198 to 197, what matters, the amount of cuts or what a "fair" rate actually is in the first place? and this is where the how long is a piece of string argument comes in, how have we gotten to exactly where we are on every bit of state expenditure and is it reasonable, given the rates paid out, circumstances, contribution to society of said individual etc Or was it based on buying off various sectors of society at the time and only ever tinkered with after that? The only ones I have any compassion for on welfare are the GENUINELY vulnerable and those that lost their jobs, the young also to an extent as they arent coming into a great jobs market. Who else deserves compassion, pensioners, the long term wasters? LOL!
Who is this vocal group calling for SW cuts? If they exist they should be satisfied already since there have been no increases since 2010
Iwasfrozen wrote: » "Social welfare is to provide a person with a basic standard of living while they are between jobs. To ensure that they are fed, housed and clothed. It is not a substitute for wages and neither should it be seen as such."
comongethappy wrote: » Which would still cause the average Ind wage to fall!
Donkey Oaty wrote: » Sorry for sounding pedantic, but that's unemployment benefit you are thinking of - which is a much smaller percentage of social welfare than people think.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Social Welfare payments are also spent in the economy yet there is vocal group calling for those to be cut but suggest one cuts the salaries of the upper echelons and people lose their minds. Imagine if I suggested the minimum wage should be raised to ensure that no one in a full time job should be forced to apply for Family Income Supplement(thereby lowering our SW bill) - there would be howls of protest. How bizarre.
