Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
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

Public sector pay increase

1…4243454748…57

Comments

  • #1322
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    mariaalice wrote: »
    Another issue is the way the negotiation are done via the media and you have the likes of Ingrid Miley with breathless excitement reporting on the public services unions then you have the various political discussion programs on both television and radio.

    If you looked at political programs in the Uk how many of them are about public servants pay? in comparison to the here? The Uk has huge public debt just like we do.

    I acutely think that is one of the issue holding Ireland back from having a mature political culture, clientism is another one.

    I'd agree - there way too much political theatre that goes on here that passes for political discourse.


  • #1323
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Er no, everyone did not get the same pay cut, those on higher salaries have been cut by 20%+, those on lower salaries by less. But when you conduct some comparison with the private sector, it is at lower levels that the PS is better paid.

    This is the thing I don't get so what if some clerical employee in the public services gets say 27k and the same job in a bank or what ever pays 22k ( I made up the figures ) cutting the lower paid public services pay is not going to lower my taxes it doesn't work like that. I would be far more interested in efficient public services than in making every public servant lower paid. I also thing perhaps maybe some of the conditions of employment might need to be looked at.


  • #1324
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Yes , but it was blanket across the categories..

    Instead of reducing the wage bill by X amount through targeted redundancies and variable pay cuts based on role etc. They just cut everyone.

    Making it unfair and inefficient.

    absolutely - a targeted redundancy programmed aimed at reducing the pay bill and re-shaping public services for the 21st Century would have been the way to go, but every poxy little town in the country has to have its hospital, its Garda station, its FAS office, its Social Welfare Office, its HSE facility, its Teagasc centre etc......there's no votes in closing any of those in the interests of efficiency and the greater public good.

    Then there was the debacle over de-centralisation and the PCCs - I must have missed the people protesting them arriving into their towns and suggesting that the public purse would be better served if they were placed elsewhere:rolleyes:


  • #1325
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    mariaalice wrote: »
    This is the thing I don't get so what if some clerical employee in the public services gets say 27k and the same job in a bank or what ever pays 22k ( I made up the figures ) cutting the lower paid public services pay is not going to lower my taxes it doesn't work like that. I would be far more interested in efficient public services than in making every public servant lower paid. I also thing perhaps maybe some of the conditions of employment might need to be looked at.

    Much better to pay 2 really good people €40k each then pay 3 mediocre people €30k each for example..

    It's not about absolute numbers it's about value for money..

    The current system does not lend itself to value for money and efficiency


  • #1326
    daithi7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭daithi7


    List of National Debt by Country

    General gross government debt. Mostly using CIA from April 2014.Debt levels for 2013.

    Pos Country Debt % of GDP

    1 Japan 226 Japan debt
    2 Zimbabwe 202.4
    3 Greece 175
    4 Italy 133 Italy debt
    5 Iceland 130.5
    6 Portugal 127.8 Portugal debt
    7 Ireland 124.2 Ireland debt
    8 Jamaica 123
    9 Lebanon 120
    10 Cyprus 113
    11 Sudan 111
    12 Grenada 110

    I wonder do other members of the illustrious forever indebted club above, also have a government that feels they can now pay the public service and the government members themselves of course even bigger salaries with ever growing national debts!?


    Check out the scary

    The Finance Dublin Debt Clock of Ireland

    The Republic of Ireland's national debt, a measure of the legacy the Government bequeaths to the children of Ireland:

    € 182,484,167,058

    Ireland's national debt (NTMA definition - see 'Composition of 'National Debt' table) as a percentage of estimated 2014 GDP (€183.6 bn)* (on the left, below), and as a percentage of 2014 GNP (€155.6 bn)* (on the right):

    GDP GNP
    99.3922479%

    117.2777423%

    The key to a country's economic recovery and the restoration of financial normalcy is the stabilisation of the National Debt. The national debt rises if the Government spends more than it takes in, mostly in the form of taxes. If the Government balances its books, like most households, the national debt stops rising.

    This situation is ultimately desirable in all countries, because it means that the Government is in harmony with the households of the country it governs. If not, the households in that country will ultimately lack economic confidence in that Government, because everyone intuitively knows that the Government will ultimately have to tax the earnings/wealth of those households to make its ends meet. When such fears prevail beyond the short term, countries' economies begin to implode because households and companies domiciled in the jurisdiction begin to lose confidence in the economic system of that country, and leave it, or at least export their wealth from it, with negative impacts on the economy's growth and ultimate economic prospects.

    Countries which, on the other hand, have surpluses on their Government accounts, as Ireland did from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, enjoy the confidence of its resident households and enterprises and enjoy superior growth, superior tax revenues, and falling debt - in short, a virtuous economic and debt cycle.

    As long as a country's debt as percentage of its GNP and GDP remains on a rising trajectory, its economic prospects are worsening. However the Finance Dublin Debt Clock is rising at a slower rate than in 2010-2013, and this is bolstered by improvements in GNP growth and Government finances, with debt as a percentage of national income rising at a diminishing rate.

    The return to growth of Ireland in 2013 (+3.4% GNP growth), followed by an expected year on year growth rate of over 5 per cent in 2014 indicates that Ireland is experiencing an earlier than anticipated return to financial stability, due entirely to the growth effect in bolstering national income (thus reducing the debt as a percentage of GNP).


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Mr. teddywinkles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,727 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Most if not all I would say, I have worked in a well known one, They are also moving into the free internships as well. Pretty much if you are not meeting your metrics set by you manages for a while you get the boot.

    There's also a good chunk of temporary agencies staff employed throughout these companies


  • #1328
    daithi7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭daithi7


    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qH83_0mR8ug/UHWaNSPqCTI/AAAAAAAAJLY/rS0rgkfKWmg/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.38.png

    We are the most indebted people in the world according to the imf, at 650% of GDP, we don't need more debt, no more than a junky needs more heroin.

    We simply can't afford to pay more for public services. We already pay far too much.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6NjjsSiirbg/UHWaOLTwQhI/AAAAAAAAJLg/TLG9ARf3GuQ/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.48.png


  • #1329
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Jawgap wrote: »
    well don't let my figures get in the way.....

    About two years ago I published details of my salary on another discussion.....

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84781410&postcount=4570

    It wasn't you in particular because every interested party has their own way of spinning it.


    What you linked shows NO cuts to your gross pay.


  • #1330
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Issues such as looking at public services pensions are how they are funded are far more important than how much they are paid and really needs to be sorted.


  • #1331
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    bjork wrote: »
    It wasn't you in particular because every interested party has their own way of spinning it.


    What you linked shows NO cuts to your gross pay.

    Excellent! My gross pay was fine but my take home was down nearly 30%.

    If gross pay is what matters no doubt then, you'll have no problem with the government retaining and even increasing USC, income tax, PRSI, and deducting property and water taxes at salary source?

    EDIT: incidentally, how can I spend gross salary?


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Excellent! My gross pay was fine but my take home was down nearly 30%.

    If gross pay is what matters no doubt then, you'll have no problem with the government retaining and even increasing USC, income tax, PRSI, and deducting property and water taxes at salary source?

    EDIT: incidentally, how can I spend gross salary?

    Newsflash: Not only public sector pay these things


    All that shows is your pay "adjustment" has been made up of pay rises and increments and no pay cuts.

    Originally Posted by Jawgap View Post
    Let's put it another way......

    I worked in the PS for 10 years, and got about 6 increments - as well as the various pay rises and pay cuts. Each increment was worth (before tax) about €1,100.....

    FYP


  • #1333
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    bjork wrote: »
    Newsflash: Not only public sector pay these things


    All that shows is your pay "adjustment" has been made up of pay rises and increments and no pay cuts.




    FYP

    Yeah, makes you wonder why I ever left if my gross pay was so brilliant ;)

    ....and gross pay when I left was about €6,200 - down 8% in two years.

    In gross salary terms I'm back to about where I was three years ago, but in disposable income I'd say I'm easily exceeding anything I ever enjoyed in the PS.

    And the point about the property and water taxes are that they are non-discretionary for everyone. Therefore, like all taxes, they eat into your gross.

    Is anyone really bothered by their gross salary? It's nett income and disposable income that people prize, I'd imagine. No point in having a 'generous' gross salary if the bulk of it is taken in tax, charges and non-discretionary commitments.

    But I supposed high gross salaries would facilitate the begrudgers to begrudge.


  • #1334
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 12,694 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Yeah, makes you wonder why I ever left if my gross pay was so brilliant ;)

    ....and gross pay when I left was about €6,200 - down 8% in two years.

    In gross salary terms I'm back to about where I was three years ago, but in disposable income I'd say I'm easily exceeding anything I ever enjoyed in the PS.

    And the point about the property and water taxes are that they are non-discretionary for everyone. Therefore, like all taxes, they eat into your gross.

    Is anyone really bothered by their gross salary? It's nett income and disposable income the people prize, I'd imagine. No point in having a 'generous' gross salary if the bulk of it is taken in tax, charges and non-discretionary commitments.

    But I supposed high gross salaries would facilitate the begrudgers to begrudge.

    You are fantastic to keep at it and I love you posts, however even you would have to concede the pension is big issue favouring public servants particularly at higher levels. That's my big issue..a public servants pension fund should be set up funded the way every pension is funded I,e a mix of employee and employer funding and then the public servants are the treated the same as any pension fund that's only fair.


  • #1335
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    mariaalice wrote: »
    You are fantastic to keep at it and I love you posts, however even you would have to concede the pension is big issue favouring public servants particularly at higher levels. That's my big issue..a public servants pension fund should be set up funded the way every pension is funded I,e a mix of employee and employer funding and then the public servants are the treated the same as any pension fund that's only fair.

    Kind of - a few years ago I tried to extract my pension contributions from the scheme in the PS. I wanted to extract them as credits to re-invest in my private pot from an earlier job. Unfortunately there's no mechanism for doing so - and there's no mechanism for porting your pension credits / contributions with you when you go.

    From my position, I reckon I'd be better off being able to take my contributions with me - but I agree at more senior levels (PO, A/SecGen and beyond) the public pension is a significant bonus.


  • #1336
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    daithi7 wrote: »
    List of National Debt by Country
    ...
    'Public Debt vs GDP' doesn't determine the sustainability of a countries finances, it is 'Interest Payments vs GDP' which determines that.

    You also reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP' the fastest, by increasing GDP faster - and we increase GDP the fastest, when the entire country is at full employment - and this can only be done through much greater public spending in the present (which in the medium/long run, leads to lowered 'Public Debt vs GDP' as GDP reaches its maximum growth potential).

    We currently have the lowest interest rates ever on newly issued public debt, so it's the most suitable time available, to engage in a sustainable public spending boost.

    Looking at 'Public Debt vs GDP' and ignoring 'Interest Payments vs GDP', gives a completely misleading look at the sustainability of a countries finances.


  • #1337
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,370 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    'Public Debt vs GDP' doesn't determine the sustainability of a countries finances, it is 'Interest Payments vs GDP' which determines that.

    You also reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP' the fastest, by increasing GDP faster - and we increase GDP the fastest, when the entire country is at full employment - and this can only be done through much greater public spending in the present (which in the medium/long run, leads to lowered 'Public Debt vs GDP' as GDP reaches its maximum growth potential).

    We currently have the lowest interest rates ever on newly issued public debt, so it's the most suitable time available, to engage in a sustainable public spending boost.

    Looking at 'Public Debt vs GDP' and ignoring 'Interest Payments vs GDP', gives a completely misleading look at the sustainability of a countries finances.

    Nobody can be this economically illiterate. You must be taking the p. I just refuse to believe that even the most deluded trade union member in the country would believe that.


  • #1338
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    daithi7 wrote: »
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qH83_0mR8ug/UHWaNSPqCTI/AAAAAAAAJLY/rS0rgkfKWmg/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.38.png

    We are the most indebted people in the world according to the imf, at 650% of GDP, we don't need more debt, no more than a junky needs more heroin.

    We simply can't afford to pay more for public services. We already pay far too much.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6NjjsSiirbg/UHWaOLTwQhI/AAAAAAAAJLg/TLG9ARf3GuQ/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-10-10+at+16.51.48.png
    This shows a lack of understanding of the significant differences between 'Public Debt' and 'Private Debt' - and how government spending is the best way to help alleviate the problems with 'Private Debt'.

    High levels of Private Debt is actually far more of a problem with a countries economy, than high levels of Public Debt - as it can hold a country in debt deflation, where paying down private debts, holds down aggregate demand and prevents GDP from reaching its maximum potential.


  • #1339
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Nobody can be this economically illiterate. You must be taking the p. I just refuse to believe that even the most deluded trade union member in the country would believe that.
    :rolleyes: There's nobody more economically illiterate, than someone who can't even think-up/form a counterargument, laying out their economic position, and just resorts to spewing condescending comments at posters they disagree with.

    That's not just economically illiterate, that's the kind of harmful ignorance, that tries to shut down discussion of opposing economic views, without any actual counterargument.


  • #1340
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,370 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    :rolleyes: There's nobody more economically illiterate, than someone who can't even think-up/form a counterargument, laying out their economic position, and just resorts to spewing condescending comments at posters they disagree with.

    It's deserving of condescension because it is absolute rubbish. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay for public services?

    It comes from citizens working in the private sector. They are generating the wealth and that is where the money comes from. And your solution for this busted state is to borrow more money and take more from private workers to pay public sector wages.

    The public sector generates no wealth. It consumes the wealth of the productive side of the economy which is the private sector.

    It's total delusion.


  • #1341
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Citation, Public service was 20% higher than average. Why do I need to keep saying that ? If it is not true I am dam sure someone would have given figures by now that the public service was not 20% higher than the private sector. Private sector has received what about 3% over the entire after boom that still leaves the public service old level 17% over current pay if it's restored. Figures people ?

    Figures people!!
    fact public sector workers have higher levels of education.
    And now the shocker, more education = mo money... on average.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Figures people!!
    fact public sector workers have higher levels of education.
    And now the shocker, more education = mo money... on average.

    Citation ? Someone doing secrtarial work should not be paid more becasue of a degree for example.


  • #1343
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    It's deserving of condescension because it is absolute rubbish. Where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay for public services?

    It comes from citizens working in the private sector. They are generating the wealth and that is where the money comes from. And your solution for this busted state is to borrow more money and take more from private workers to pay public sector wages.

    The public sector generates no wealth. It consumes the wealth of the productive side of the economy which is the private sector.

    It's total delusion.
    You're just spouting more bollocks here: If it's rubbish, provide a counterargument.

    Posters who try to justify condescension in place of argument, are usually just obnoxious and ignorant - and are mainly just trying to shout someone down out of discussion (and good luck with that, because it just guarantees I'll engage more - not less - to pick apart your nonsense).

    You state in one sentence 'where does the money come from?' for rhetorical effect - knowing full well my post explained that - and then go on to even reference my explanation of that in the next sentence.
    You're displaying not just a willingness to engage in condescension to try and shout down a post, but deliberate/wilful ignorance and selective reading of the post - i.e. openly dishonest arguments - to try and bash it.

    You also don't have a clue of what 'wealth generation' is - you just use it as a nebulous/unexplained term without any understanding of it - anyone with a basic understanding of economic accounting, of sectoral balances, knows that public spending is by definition a net flow of money into the private sector, increasing aggregate demand and allowing private industry to profit, and for private wealth to increase.

    The whole 'wealth generation' line of nonsense, is just a flimsy argument to try and paint it as 'government = bad/wealth-consuming', 'private sector = good/wealth-generating'; it's a childish view of economics.


  • #1344
    daithi7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭daithi7


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    'Public Debt vs GDP' doesn't determine the sustainability of a countries finances, it is 'Interest Payments vs GDP' which determines that.

    You also reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP' the fastest, by increasing GDP faster - and we increase GDP the fastest, when the entire country is at full employment - and this can only be done through much greater public spending in the present (which in the medium/long run, leads to lowered 'Public Debt vs GDP' as GDP reaches its maximum growth potential).

    We currently have the lowest interest rates ever on newly issued public debt, so it's the most suitable time available, to engage in a sustainable public spending boost.

    Looking at 'Public Debt vs GDP' and ignoring 'Interest Payments vs GDP', gives a completely misleading look at the sustainability of a countries finances.

    I hope this isn't too condescending for you, my precious public one.

    1. Interest is transient, low rates rise. So if & when world economic growth picks up, and when interest rates revert to their norm, then our debts will become truly unsustainable. This could be any time over the next 30 to 50 years!! We have stupidly indebted ourselves for that long, imagine hey!?

    2. Debt to GDP is the only measure that matters over the long term. Ours is the highest in the world (HELLO) and growing, and yet still the public sector unions are looking for more & hence far more unsustainable debt to pay for this unnecessary extravagance!

    3. If Ireland has the ability to allow some fiscal easing, the obvious way to do this is tax cuts for all the workforce, especially the squeezed middle. I.e Cut USC. This would benefit all tax payers, and lift the economy right across the board, not just increase the overpay of a permanent, protected, pampered section of the workforce I.e. The public sector

    4.You're saying that by borrowing even more to pay public servants even more will do the economy good is laughable if it wasn't so damaging. It's just the heroin addict crying out for another fix to stave off cold turkey. We know this type of public sector union delusion economics just leads to bust. yet still after 2 public finance busts in 30 years, we have fools who try to peddle this nonsense. Again sorry if you find that condescending, but I'm not.!

    5.Yes,we could borrow to pay for things like broad band, better schools, roads, etc if and only if these things can be shown to give a greater economic payback over the medium term. Swelling public sector salaries further at the expense of all other tax payers, or by doing things like raiding private sector pensions,as is being done currently, is just dumb, counter productive, auction politics in conjunction with self interested public sector unions. It's a proven conspiracy of incompetents.

    It's time to call a halt to this lunacy.


  • #1345
    daithi7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭daithi7


    Gebgbegb wrote: »
    Figures people!!
    fact public sector workers have higher levels of education.
    And now the shocker, more education = mo money... on average.

    Ehh no. Studies done by the European Union, CSO & others, allowing for education &other factors find that equivalent workers in the public service are paid 20% more than their private sector equivalents, and that is before pensions you simply could not buy in the private sector, permanency, and other benefits such as holidays, increments, sick leave ' entitlements?', etc, etc, etc

    So for example an accountant with 15 years experience will earn more than 20%more in the public sector on average, before pension, permanency, holidays,and other benefits, etc

    http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/stats-dont-lie-public-sector-is-still-mollycoddled-29907776.html


  • #1346
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    daithi7 wrote: »
    Ehh no. Studies done by the CSO & others, allow for education &other factors find that equivalent workers in the public service are paid 20% more than their private sector equivalents, and that is before pensions you simply could not buy in the private sector, permanency, and other benefits such as holidays, increments, sick leave ' entitlements?', etc, etc, etc

    So for example an accountant with 15 years experience will earn more than 20%more in the public sector on average, before pension, permanency, holidays,and other benefits, etc

    You will be told that is wrong with no evidence to back it up only veiled remarks to not everyone is on it...


  • #1347
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    daithi7 wrote: »
    I hope this isn't too condescending for you, my precious public one.

    1. Interest is transient, if & when world economic growth picks up and when interest rates revert to their norm, then our debts will become truly unsustainable. This could be any time over the next 30 to 50 years!!

    2. Debt to GDP is the only measure that matters over the long term. Ours is the highest in the world and growing and yet the public sector unions are looking for more & hence far more unsustainable debt to pay for this extravagance

    3. If Ireland has the ability to allow some fiscal easing, the obvious way to do this is tax cuts for all the workforce especially the squeezed middle. I.e Cut USC. This world and benefit all tax payers, and lift the economy across the board, not just increase the overpay of a protected pampered section of the workforce I.e. The public sector

    4.You saying that by borrowing even more to pay public servants even more will do the economy good, is just the heroin addict crying out for another fix to stave off cold turkey. We know this type of public sector union delusion economics just leads to bust, yet we still after 2 public finance busts in 30 years, have fools who try to peddle this nonsense. Again sorry if you find this condescending but I'm not.!

    5.Yes,we could borrow to pay for things like broad band, better schools, roads, etc if and only if these things can be shown to give a greater economic payback over the medium term. Swelling public sector salaries further at the expense of all other tax payers, or by doing things like raiding private sector pensions,as is being done currently, is just dumb, counter productive, auction politics in conjunction with self interested public sector unions. It's a proven conspiracy of incompetents.

    It's time to call a halt to this lunacy.
    Well you've provided arguments, which is infinitely better than solely-condescension - the latter of which adds nothing to discussion.

    1: Debt is not re-issued for 10 years, in some cases lately, not for 30 years. Increases in interest rate, don't affect current debt, only debt taken out after the interest rate change.

    2: If you claim 'Public Debt to GDP' is the only measure that matters in the long term, then what you say doesn't counter my arguments, as what I put forward reduces long-term 'Public Debt to GDP'.
    You are speaking as if an increase in 'Public Debt to GDP', used to increase GDP, leads to a long-term increase in 'Public Debt to GDP' - when instead, the increase in GDP reduces it.

    3: You can do both tax cuts and public spending increases, and there's no reason not to do both.

    4: This is just emotive nonsense. Do the math. 'Public Debt vs GDP', means that if you increase GDP, you're improving the overall debt levels - and the sustainability of public spending is what matters, and is determined by 'Interest Payments vs GDP'.

    5: What I advocate, is aimed at increasing GDP, that doesn't have to involve stealing pensions or whichever - that's a straw man - government finances do not work like business finances, where profits must match costs.
    The stability of government finances, is largely determined by debt sustainability - which in turn is largely determined by the interest rate on the debt - and increasing GDP helps make government finances more sustainable, so maximizing GDP growth is a good measure of what government finances should aim for (so long as it is within debt sustainability).


  • #1348
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Well you've provided arguments, which is infinitely better than solely-condescension - the latter of which adds nothing to discussion.

    1: Debt is not re-issued for 10 years, in some cases lately, not for 30 years. Increases in interest rate, don't affect current debt, only debt taken out after the interest rate change.

    2: If you claim 'Public Debt to GDP' is the only measure that matters in the long term, then what you say doesn't counter my arguments, as what I put forward reduces long-term 'Public Debt to GDP'.
    You are speaking as if an increase in 'Public Debt to GDP', used to increase GDP, leads to a long-term increase in 'Public Debt to GDP' - when instead, the increase in GDP reduces it.

    3: You can do both tax cuts and public spending increases, and there's no reason not to do both.

    4: This is just emotive nonsense. Do the math. 'Public Debt vs GDP', means that if you increase GDP, you're improving the overall debt levels - and the sustainability of public spending is what matters, and is determined by 'Interest Payments vs GDP'.

    5: What I advocate, is aimed at increasing GDP, that doesn't have to involve stealing pensions or whichever - that's a straw man - government finances do not work like business finances, where profits must match costs.
    The stability of government finances, is largely determined by debt sustainability - which in turn is largely determined by the interest rate on the debt - and increasing GDP helps make government finances more sustainable, so maximizing GDP growth is a good measure of what government finances should aim for (so long as it is within debt sustainability).


  • #1349
    Letree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Letree


    I for one am looking forward to getting this pay rise. Who's going to begrudge me.. come on who?


  • #1350
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Letree wrote: »
    I for one am looking forward to getting this pay rise. Who's going to begrudge me.. come on who?
    Everyone who has to pay for it I would imagine.


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    daithi7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,636 ✭✭✭daithi7


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Well you've provided arguments, which is infinitely better than solely-condescension - the latter of which adds nothing to discussion.

    1: Debt is not re-issued for 10 years, in some cases lately, not for 30 years. Increases in interest rate, don't affect current debt, only debt taken out after the interest rate change.

    2: If you claim 'Public Debt to GDP' is the only measure that matters in the long term, then what you say doesn't counter my arguments, as what I put forward reduces long-term 'Public Debt to GDP'.
    You are speaking as if an increase in 'Public Debt to GDP', used to increase GDP, leads to a long-term increase in 'Public Debt to GDP' - when instead, the increase in GDP reduces it.

    3: You can do both tax cuts and public spending increases, and there's no reason not to do both.

    4: This is just emotive nonsense. Do the math. 'Public Debt vs GDP', means that if you increase GDP, you're improving the overall debt levels - and the sustainability of public spending is what matters, and is determined by 'Interest Payments vs GDP'.

    5: What I advocate, is aimed at increasing GDP, that doesn't have to involve stealing pensions or whichever - that's a straw man - government finances do not work like business finances, where profits must match costs.
    The stability of government finances, is largely determined by debt sustainability - which in turn is largely determined by the interest rate on the debt - and increasing GDP helps make government finances more sustainable, so maximizing GDP growth is a good measure of what government finances should aim for (so long as it is within debt sustainability).

    1.So debt is reissued, and it needs to be refinanced at the going rate at that time, so when rates go up,as they undoubtedly will, the cost of our debt will spiral too. (e.g. a1% interest rate rise may equal a 30% interest servicing cost rise) See we agree on this. Interest costs!!

    2. I said total debt to GDP, the 650% the imf quoted is total debt.so we agree again the Irish are the most indebted race in the world currently by nearly a factor of 2! Now that's scary!!

    3. No you can't do both tax cuts &public pay increases unless of course you can actually afford it. Patently Ireland can't, as we're still borrowing more than the growth rate I.e. IRELAND IS ALREADY BORROWING FOR CURRENT EXPENDITURE.

    So it's choices, if there is any fiscal wiggle roomat all it should all go towards tax cuts not, public salary increases cos they're already overpaid, CAPICHE!? Tax cuts are fairer & help all workers and hence the whole economy.

    4. Governments don't increase GDP,they create the conditions that can allow for increases to occur e.g. infrastructure, productivity, lower taxes (=>more spending), etc, etc

    5. Bollocks. Private pensions are already being raided (.6% levy each year) to help pay for over expensive public service salaries and pensions. Do with all due respect Your ' Plan' (ha,ha) is bogus, delusionary, toss. You do not increase your GDP by further overpaying your public servants with other people's money that you have to pay interest on for circa 30 years. Because that interest payment acts as a damper on public spending &GDP every year hereafter going forward!!

    Further the salary &pension overpayment rate holds, every year after so you have stupidly committed to borrowing more each yearjust to pay your wage bills!? In so doing you also bend the economy more out of shape by stupidly overpaying a section of the workforce even more at the expense of the others. You're deluded if you think by borrowing to pay public servants more you increase the GDP of the country when our economic history and so many others show completely the opposite.

    This is the deceit that is being sold to the Irish people currently. I sincerely hope labour get shafted for this, they fully deserve it imho.

    P.S. Love the video you posted tho, class!


Advertisement
Advertisement