Public sector pay increase

barneystinson · 28-04-2015 11:48PM

Kelly06 wrote: »

I see the pension levy as a tax purely for the reason that it doesn't relate to your pension. You are actually charged it on your wage regardless if you are entitled to a pension at all. For example if you get a 1 year contact in the ps the pension related deduction is deducted but you are not eligible to be a member of the pension scheme and draw down benefits with less than two years service ...That is a fact. Most of the public servants I know feel the same.

Well I'm a public servant paying it too, and I don't feel the same, nor AFAIK do the people I work with.

It's not a tax, because it's not levied under the taxes acts, but under the FEMPI legislation. It is a deduction from pay.

Kelly06 · 28-04-2015 11:55PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Well I'm a public servant paying it too, and I don't feel the same, nor AFAIK do the people I work with.

It's not a tax, because it's not levied under the taxes acts, but under the FEMPI legislation. It is a deduction from pay.

We will have to agree to disagree. Either way they take it, thats all I care about ! Personally I don't need a pay rise I manage on my wage so don't care if I get it or not! I just think that people should know that there's a big difference between the take home pay on a wage of say 30,000 in the private sector and ps.

barneystinson · 28-04-2015 11:56PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The overwhelming amount of stats says otherwise. They have been brought in line the last while with the pay cuts. Now I guarantee they want that completely reversed and increases on top. Do some deserve pay rises I'm sure a lot do in line with private sector and inflation nothing more. But that's not how it works everyone or no one is the norm. Turning the tap back on from the glory days will just be a kick in the face to those that helped get this country back on it's feet.

Here's a statistic for you - the average person in this country has 0.99 testicles.

Now, let's say there's someone in the next room and you don't know their gender.

If I ask you to guess how many testicles they have, to the nearest whole nut, and if you get it right you'll win a grand, will your guess be 1, because the available stats tell you so...???

I've offered to show you the nuts, but you'd rather stick to the clearly irrelevant stats...

28-04-2015 11:58PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Well I'm a public servant paying it too, and I don't feel the same, nor AFAIK do the people I work with.

It's not a tax, because it's not levied under the taxes acts, but under the FEMPI legislation. It is a deduction from pay.

As far as I'm concerned everything in the deduction list of my payslip is a tax bar the pension deduction. The pension levy is nothing but another tax and the fact its more than the actual pension deduction is even more disgusting.

darkpagandeath · 28-04-2015 11:59PM

barneystinson wrote: »

Here's a statistic for you - the average person in this country has 0.99 testicles.

Now, let's say there's someone in the next room and you don't know their gender.

If I ask you to guess how many testicles they have, to the nearest whole nut, and if you get it right you'll win a grand, will your guess be 1, because the available stats tell you so...???

I've offered to show you the nuts, but you'd rather stick to the clearly irrelevant stats...

:pac:

Kelly06 · 29-04-2015 12:01AM

barneystinson wrote: »

Here's a statistic for you - the average person in this country has 0.99 testicles.

Now, let's say there's someone in the next room and you don't know their gender.

If I ask you to guess how many testicles they have, to the nearest whole nut, and if you get it right you'll win a grand, will your guess be 1, because the available stats tell you so...???

I've offered to show you the nuts, but you'd rather stick to the clearly irrelevant stats...

Show us the nuts already will ye

barneystinson · 29-04-2015 12:02AM

Kelly06 wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree. Either way they take it, thats all I care about ! Personally I don't need a pay rise I manage on my wage so don't care if I get it or not! I just think that people should know that there's a big difference between the take home pay on a wage of say 30,000 in the private sector and ps.

Agreed. I took a 15% drop in gross pay, and about 20% in net pay, on joining the civil service a few years back.

jcon1913 · 29-04-2015 12:03AM

barneystinson wrote: »

Agreed. I took a 15% drop in gross pay, and about 20% in net pay, on joining the civil service a few years back.

Barney would you ever resign and come to the private sectir. That way youd be too tired for these late night debates

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 12:26AM

jcon1913 wrote: »

How many times? This is voodoo. Who is going to pay these loans?

Heres a few gems of wisdom for you from down the ages:

''As a country we are living way beyond our means''

Link:
http://www.thejournal.ie/charlie-haughey-were-living-way-beyond-our-means-1755468-Nov2014/

''Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery'' - Charles Dickens

We cannot continue to borrow money - no amount of mumbo jumbo is going to change that, and you should desist when you cannot explain how borrowing more money is going to help this country, beyond waffling using terms no-one here understands, unless they have studied Ecomonics. You clearly have, and yet cannot explain how this theory of spending your way out of an economic trough works.

Heres a quick summary:

John Keynes an economist in the early 20th century had a theory that governments should borrow to boost demand, since markets on their own could never guarantee full employment, which was viewed as ideal.

Keynes' theories gained popularity after the start of World War 2, and afterwards became the assumed best practise i.e. that markets only worked well when governments interfered in them by spending large amounts of a country's money.

From 1979 these ideas were questioned by people and politicians who believed the theories of an economist called Milton Friedman who predicted in his 1963 book that Keynesian policies would lead to unemployment and inflation - what Friedman called Stagflation. Friedmans ideas became fashionable for a while, although there was a return to Keynes theories after the crashes of 2007 and onwards.

Personally I don't think the ''spend your way out of a recession by borrowing'' theory is suitable to a small open economy like Ireland because so much of consumer spending leaves the country being spent on imported consumer goods. As mentioned by previous posters spending on infastructure eg roads, schools, hospitals may be the exception, as the period the benefit accrues to the community is matched by the period of the loans taken to build improvements.

If the quality of your last post was:

jcon1913 wrote:

Stop cutting and pasting rameis from wkipedia. Try the English language.

If you cant explain why we should borrow to spend on day to day items then admit you cant and stop posting.

Why did you think I would bother with your further posts?

If you can't even get the interest rate on our public debt right, and then just come up with above-quoted garbage when that is pointed out to you, then that's a pretty heavy signifier that you're a waste of time to try and debate with - as it just gives the impression you're trying to fling shít rather than debate.

Our interest rate on government debt is presently 0.65% - I was actually wrong earlier, this isn't the lowest of the last 30 years, seems it is the lowest public debt interest rate ever for Ireland.

At an interest rate that low, your claims about unsustainability of funding through increased debt, are just unsubstantiated nonsense.

twowheelsonly · 29-04-2015 12:33AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Again using the fact that we have high wages here to justify even higher PS worker wages is ridiculous or is the hyperbole more important ?

'Even Higher' ???? You still have to provide the real life examples of that despite being asked by many here to do so. You're apparently the expert on hyperbole BTW.

barneystinson wrote: »

You never PM'ed me after my invitation last night... not interested in specific real world examples of where the private sector worker is better paid than their PS equivalent...?

..... I get the feeling that you'll be waiting.....

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's the point we have been told again and again either.

Comparing public service to private is impossible.

Or it's because private sector wages is high. So that's why theirs is higher again.

Or some other reason. That's not really factually related to PS being paid more.

It's not impossible. A direct comparison may be difficult in a lot of cases but 'value of the job' is not impossible to compare to another.
For instance, if you tell us what you do and how much you get paid then maybe we can decide if you're worth that.
Otherwise we can just come out with ridiculous sweeping and unfounded statements.

All Private Sector workers are overpaid BTW. They're lazy and unmotivated and just want loads of money for doing nothing. They get the highest wages in Europe for equivalent work but they still want more but want to keep everyone else down.

I'm done here......

bobbysands81 · 29-04-2015 12:48AM

barneystinson wrote: »

No Kelly, you don't pay more tax, that's a bit of a silly statement TBH.

I presume you're talking about the PRD. That's not a tax, it's a paycut by another name...

No, it's a tax on Public Sector workers.

If it was a tax it wouldn't appear as a deduction from our gross pay on our wage slips. As it stands it increases our gross pay and reduces our net pay. It exists.

bobbysands81 · 29-04-2015 12:51AM

twowheelsonly wrote: »

All Private Sector workers are overpaid BTW. They're lazy and unmotivated and just want loads of money for doing nothing. They get the highest wages in Europe for equivalent work but they still want more but want to keep everyone else down.

I'm done here......

Wow!

Looks like someone failed the Civil Service exams!

strobe · 29-04-2015 12:54AM

What's the median wage in the public sector?

barneystinson · 29-04-2015 12:54AM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Barney would you ever resign and come to the private sectir. That way youd be too tired for these late night debates

No thanks, I prefer being a gamekeeper than a poacher. Helps me sleep better for those few hours each night...

Also, this assumption that all PS jobs are somehow a cushy number is hilarious - it's labour force snobbery! - I never worked as many hours in the private sector as I have for the last couple of years in the PS, and I've spent more than half of my working life to date in the private sector.

In fact there's simply no way I'd work the hours I presently do, for a private sector employer, I'd tell my employer to feck off and hire to replace at least one of the two people who retired and whose jobs I'm now also doing a substantial chunk of...

But since that's largely outside of the control of my boss and I in the PS, I just get on with it.

(And if I do get fed up of it I can always get a cushy job in the private sector, or go self employed, and make easier money using the skills and knowledge my PS career has helped me acquire...)

barneystinson · 29-04-2015 12:56AM

strobe wrote: »

What's the median wage in the public service?

I dunno, but the median Irish person has no balls! :eek:

(Hey Darkpagandeath, you have my permission to introduce that stat over on the Irish Water thread

)

barneystinson · 29-04-2015 12:58AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

No, it's a tax on Public Sector workers.

If it was a tax it wouldn't appear as a deduction from our gross pay on our wage slips. As it stands it increases our gross pay and reduces our net pay. It exists.

It exists, but that doesn't mean it's a tax. That's just silly. A tax is a tax, and it's not a tax. Saying a thing doesn't make it true Robert.

It appears as a deduction from your gross pay, because the first FEMPI Act 2009 says so. Show me where the statute says it's a tax and you win the internet.

The FEMPI Act did also make changes to Income Tax, but this wasn't one of them.

barneystinson · 29-04-2015 01:00AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Wow!

Looks like someone failed the Civil Service exams!

Yeah, you. :pac:

Hint: Reread the post and see who he/she is actually referring to...

jank · 29-04-2015 03:15AM

It seems people have not even mentioned or at least barely mentioned what would be given in return for wage increases? The state would get much better ROI if they invested in Infrastructure and facilities. Better roads, a metro, better funded classrooms, IT systems in the HSE that talk to each other and work, IT systems in the social welfare office that brings us to the 21st century, better Garda cars, computers in the Garda cars that can make crime detection and prevention more efficient. The list is endless.

We spent the 10 years of 1998 to 2008 shoveling money into the pockets of PS workers with no regard for work place changes, productivity, reform or practices. The whole thing was a con and a scam even today defenders of the PS recognise this. What did Joe o'Toole say to perpetual complaining Teachers, Bench-marking was like walking up to an ATM!

If we are going to be increasing spends in departments then it should be done where the best ROI can be gotten, not where the votes are. Hence why Public sector pay should be brought out of the hands of the government like in a lot of other OECD countries.

al22 · 29-04-2015 05:51AM

Jobs should be paid for what one actually doing, salaries should not depend on education, age and money available to pay for that work.

Otherwise I see a job of cleaning can start from say 15,000 pa in one case and the same job be paid over 150,000 just because a person has 20 years of experience, old age, 5 universities graduated and speek 10 languages.

But finally it is the same job to sweep a floor.

ardmacha · 29-04-2015 06:15AM

It seems people have not even mentioned or at least barely mentioned what would be given in return for wage increases?

Presumably it will be the reverse of what happened with the pay cuts.

The state would get much better ROI if they invested in Infrastructure and facilities. Better roads, a metro, better funded classrooms, IT systems in the HSE that talk to each other and work, IT systems in the social welfare office that brings us to the 21st century, better Garda cars, computers in the Garda cars that can make crime detection and prevention more efficient. The list is endless.

Funding all of these things is the responsibility of all citizens, not just the PS.

Hence why Public sector pay should be brought out of the hands of the government like in a lot of other OECD countries.

But this would spoil the rants on Boards.ie.

jank · 29-04-2015 07:01AM

ardmacha wrote: »

Presumably it will be the reverse of what happened with the pay cuts.

That just means following a failed model which to begin with does not make sense. One should be asking if the money is better off spent elsewhere. Just because gave out pay rises in the past with no concept of infrastructure investment or any thought about footing a bill does not mean we should continue on a false road.

ardmacha wrote: »

Funding all of these things is the responsibility of all citizens, not just the PS.

Through taxation, yes which the government then gets to redistribute to various departments. Indeed we should be having a mature talk now about how to fund government services and what is best for the country rather then engage in vote buying and pandering to union types. Other countries do this yet we seem to struggle. Then ironicly people are quick to give out about things like education and health services and teachers and Gardai will complain about class sizes and their banged up Garda cars. Well why not give up pay rises for 3-5 years and instead accept smaller class sizes and better Garda cars and modern IT systems for crime prevention.

There are choices to be had here, yet PS workers are ultimately self entitled and will almost always put % wage increase in front of captial expenditures. The government should frame it this way. Wage increase vs captial spending and new jobs.

ardmacha wrote: »

But this would spoil the rants on Boards.ie.

Maybe but it would also spoil the lobbying efforts from union members too though which is much more important and destructive to Ireland than AH on boards.ie

Jawgap · 29-04-2015 08:40AM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Jog on my friend. You dont know what your talking about. You never factored in the foreign excgange loss over the last few months.

Still you have enough contributions to fund 2/3rds of final salary? Do the maths - in Ireland

I'll jog wherever you want, but when I tried to extract my credits from my public pension 'pot' the Euro was trading at over 90p - if I'd been able to stuff my sterling pension pot then, I'd be doing even better as the returns on that fund have always exceeded what I'm due from my public pension.

Unfortunately, as I rapidly found out - there is no mechanism for withdrawing notional credits from a PS pension.

Also, as I'm no longer in the PS my final pension will have nothing to do with my salary.

bobbysands81 · 29-04-2015 09:08AM

barneystinson wrote: »

It exists, but that doesn't mean it's a tax. That's just silly. A tax is a tax, and it's not a tax. Saying a thing doesn't make it true Robert.

It appears as a deduction from your gross pay, because the first FEMPI Act 2009 says so. Show me where the statute says it's a tax and you win the internet.

The FEMPI Act did also make changes to Income Tax, but this wasn't one of them.

It's a compulsory deduction from gross pay which effects only PS workers. The money collected goes into the general taxation pot.

If it looks like a duck...

jcon1913 · 29-04-2015 09:21AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If the quality of your last post was:

Why did you think I would bother with your further posts?

If you can't even get the interest rate on our public debt right, and then just come up with above-quoted garbage when that is pointed out to you, then that's a pretty heavy signifier that you're a waste of time to try and debate with - as it just gives the impression you're trying to fling shít rather than debate.

Our interest rate on government debt is presently 0.65% - I was actually wrong earlier, this isn't the lowest of the last 30 years, seems it is the lowest public debt interest rate ever for Ireland.

At an interest rate that low, your claims about unsustainability of funding through increased debt, are just unsubstantiated nonsense.

If I were you I moderate my lanuguage.

If you could write posts in English instead of spouting jargon like GDP and GNP from first year Economics then perhaps you'd be taken more seriously.

Talking about the interest rate on money we cant afford to pay back is like talking about the deck chairs on the Titanic. Now do you get it? Why cant we have savings like the German model, where we produce stuff and services the rest of the world wants to pay us for?

No amount of GDP, GNP, and all that can take that away.

This is not a classroom its a debate, so if you know something more please share - I'm all ears. But I wont hold my breath based on your previous posts.

jcon1913 · 29-04-2015 09:24AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'll jog wherever you want, but when I tried to extract my credits from my public pension 'pot' the Euro was trading at over 90p - if I'd been able to stuff my sterling pension pot then, I'd be doing even better as the returns on that fund have always exceeded what I'm due from my public pension.

Unfortunately, as I rapidly found out - there is no mechanism for withdrawing notional credits from a PS pension.

Also, as I'm no longer in the PS my final pension will have nothing to do with my salary.

Fair enough - nothing as galling as losing money like that.

KomradeBishop · 29-04-2015 10:05AM

jcon1913 wrote: »

If I were you I moderate my lanuguage.

If you could write posts in English instead of spouting jargon like GDP and GNP from first year Economics then perhaps you'd be taken more seriously.

If you don't understand and are unwilling to Google basic economic terms - and indeed take the anti-intellectual route of bashing someone for using 'big words'/jargon - then it really isn't possible to have a meaningful debate on economics with you.

If you want to discuss a topic like economics, you need to use economic terms...that should seem really obvious.
If you don't know what those terms mean, you need to Google them, to learn about them first - and as you do you'll learn more about economics and be able to debate it better - it's not going to take you long to look up and read a quick definition of those terms either, so there's no excuse for not doing it.

jcon1913 · 29-04-2015 10:18AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you don't understand and are unwilling to Google basic economic terms - and indeed take the anti-intellectual route of bashing someone for using 'big words'/jargon - then it really isn't possible to have a meaningful debate on economics with you.

If you want to discuss a topic like economics, you need to use economic terms...that should seem really obvious.
If you don't know what those terms mean, you need to Google them, to learn about them first - and as you do you'll learn more about economics and be able to debate it better - it's not going to take you long to look up and read a quick definition of those terms either, so there's no excuse for not doing it.

I wont take a lecture or abusive language from you - nor should anyone else.

Please read my earlier posts - you will need to explain in laymans terms, which I have attempted to do, trying to interpret what you mean, what your logic is.

You consistently refuse to set out what it is you are driving at, but come on here asking me to learn more about Economics. I know about Economics but I am not going to take the lazy way out and exhort people to study it.

Instead I have attempted in my hamfisted way to explain why a government might decide to spend in a recession and what that would mean for society. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you'd explain in simple language what you are getting at?

By the way, this is not the Economics forum, its the Social & Fun > After Hours part of Boards. You'll find the Economics part of Boards at Science Health and Environment.

Jawgap · 29-04-2015 10:23AM

jcon1913 wrote: »

Fair enough - nothing as galling as losing money like that.

I think it would be better (but I would say this wouldn't I) if PS workers could port their pensions around, but they can't.

......anyway, it's swings and roundabouts - when I returned from the UK I was advise to 'repatriate' my pension pots - damn glad I didn't take that advice......

.......likewise when I left the PS I took up employment with a UK firm but am based here - the choice was get paid in sterling or Euros - I chose Euros because it seemed like a good idea at the time

On the plus side, when your touting for business across the water our rates are a lot more competitive so a lot of work is getting channeled through the Irish end of the firm's operation

joe swanson · 29-04-2015 10:37AM

ItS not a pay rise - its restoration of pay.

All emergency services unions should strike on the same day if full restoration is not granted.They have given enough.

Jawgap · 29-04-2015 10:53AM

joe swanson wrote: »

ItS not a pay rise - its restoration of pay.

All emergency services unions should strike on the same day if full restoration is not granted.They have given enough.

Absolutely not - and I doubt even among the most militant members of those unions would you find support for a unilateral and complete withdrawal of labour for any period.

They may have over forms of action planned, and I'd be confident they'd be more interested in focusing on the employers rather than putting the public at risk.

Public sector pay increase

Comments