Can we have no more threads about public sector pay

[Lex Foutish]

I asked my kids today was there any reaction from their teachers or discussion about the budget in school today..

2 teachers made snide comments and one said that the sweets she gave out would have to stop to make up the difference in pay..

Now this is 3 different schools ,so much for the caring/concerned teacher who just wants to look after the pupils..

Im aware emotions are high today but having said that I never mentioned to my kids what I think of their teachers and the public service yet they seem contented enough to let the kids know..

You never mentioned to your kids what you think of their teachers???? You probably don't have to. I think that if they were the most "caring/concerned teachers" in the world, you still wouldn't be happy with them. This isn't the first or second anti-teacher or anti-P.S. post you've put on AAM, as is your right, but there's very little balance in a lot of them.

I think that this post really shows you up and does you little credit. You sound like you waited in the long grass for the evidence you needed to share with us. And I'm sure that, if the teachers did give out sweets, you'd be posting here straight away, telling us that they were unfit to do their job because of the anti healthy eating signals they were sending to your children.

Why not go into the schools and speak to the teachers in question?

Oh, maybe you can't because those awful teachers would then take out their anger on your children...........

 

[boris]

Hopefully, when the dust settles in years to come we will have a more robust, efficient, manageable public service and a more competitive, export driven private sector.

VOR a damned interesting post and speaking as a CS I did not think your comment was anti public service but there has been such a barrage of abuse against us lately that we cannot help to go on the defensive first. There are people out there who are completely insensitive about the situation that we are now in.

Over your comment above I do think the Government were handed the large part of reform of the CS/PS last week and foresaked it for other gains. I would suffer the pay cuts that we got yesterday if it had incorporated the reforms that are badly need but I do think that other parties probably interfered out of hysteria etc.

 

[DonDub]

VOR a damned interesting post and speaking as a CS I did not think your comment was anti public service but there has been such a barrage of abuse against us lately that we cannot help to go on the defensive first. There are people out there who are completely insensitive about the situation that we are now in.

Over your comment above I do think the Government were handed the large part of reform of the CS/PS last week and foresaked it for other gains. I would suffer the pay cuts that we got yesterday if it had incorporated the reforms that are badly need but I do think that other parties probably interfered out of hysteria etc.

Speaking as someone who had advocated for PS reform for many years, I take no joy in seeing people taking a hit to their income. However, I believe that these cuts were absolutely necessary - based on the simple premise that the country is effectively broke.
Its interesting to hear PS union reps wax lyrical about the major reforms that 'would' have been implemented had the deal been done last week - this gives the lie to the self-same unions' mantra over decades, that 'their' members were, flexible, efficient etc, and that they warranted significant pay increases to catch-up with their private sector equivalents.
If PS employees fight the cuts through industrial action, they are effectively making the point that someone else should carry the cost of the required fiscal adjustment - the mythical hordes of millionaires, or more likely, many more 'real' private sector employees....

 

[Complainer]

All the same oul guff on this thread as on all the other - no alternative - cant afford it - no other option etc.

The Minister had plenty of other options - like cutting the €2bn tax relief on pensions, most of which goes to high earners, or cutting the €500m mortgage interest relief to landlords, or cutting any of the 100+ tax reliefs used by high earners to avoid tax (as detailed in the Commission on Taxation report. But instead, he hit social welfare and public servants, including those earning under €30k. This is not about sharing of pain or putting shoulders to the wheel. Big man, Brian.

 

[DerKaiser]

All the same oul guff......€2bn tax relief on pensions...€500m mortgage interest relief to landlords...Big man, Brian.

yep, same old guff from all the usual suspects

 

[orka]

The Minister had plenty of other options - like .... or cutting any of the 100+ tax reliefs used by high earners to avoid tax (as detailed in the Commission on Taxation report.

I agree it would be better and would simplify the taxation system if all reliefs were abolished but he has taken a big step in reducing the effectiveness of these as a way of avoiding all/most tax. By ensuring that all very high earners must pay a minimum 30% effective tax rate (up from less than 10% by the looks of the most recent 2006 data), he is forcing higher earners to either use fewer reliefs or else invest in whatever schemes (can't say I know much about them) attract reliefs but not get the actual reliefs. It's actually not the worst of an idea. If the reliefs are supposed to be of some benefit (encourage investments in certain areas maybe?), then maybe they should be left but the overall use by individuals capped as is now happening.

 

[DonDub]

All the same oul guff on this thread as on all the other - no alternative - cant afford it - no other option etc.

The Minister had plenty of other options - like cutting the €2bn tax relief on pensions, most of which goes to high earners, or cutting the €500m mortgage interest relief to landlords, or cutting any of the 100+ tax reliefs used by high earners to avoid tax (as detailed in the Commission on Taxation report. But instead, he hit social welfare and public servants, including those earning under €30k. This is not about sharing of pain or putting shoulders to the wheel. Big man, Brian.

Same oul poor PS guff here, insulate the insulated.....why not ask the 420,000 unemployed (+ the 50,000 expected to lose their jobs in 2010) - not one of whom was a permanent PS employee, what they feel about this guff.
Or ask the thousands of private sector employees, whose pension funds are in deficit, of which many will have to wind-up, or slash benefits - what they feel about this guff.
We simply cannot afford a boom time PS infrastructure - 54 billion into 32 billion, will not go.....basic maths....basic economics....

 

[Complainer]

Same oul poor PS guff here, insulate the insulated.....why not ask the 420,000 unemployed (+ the 50,000 expected to lose their jobs in 2010) - not one of whom was a permanent PS employee, what they feel about this guff.
Or ask the thousands of private sector employees, whose pension funds are in deficit, of which many will have to wind-up, or slash benefits - what they feel about this guff.
We simply cannot afford a boom time PS infrastructure - 54 billion into 32 billion, will not go.....basic maths....basic economics....

It's not an either/or choice. He has explicitly chosen to put the entire burden of our Govt finances onto public sector staff.

This will come back to haunt him, and FF/Greens.

 

[Mpsox]

It's not an either/or choice. He has explicitly chosen to put the entire burden of our Govt finances onto public sector staff.

This will come back to haunt him, and FF/Greens.

Should he not have done both? That would have made an even better dent in the state of the public finances.

I do have some sympathy for those on a lower salary, but against that, I look at some of the jobs they do and have to ask, are you getting paid €30K a year for that?

 

[Purple]

The judgement was made that increasing taxes further would be counterproductive. I think this was the correct decision.

 

[haminka1]

It's not an either/or choice. He has explicitly chosen to put the entire burden of our Govt finances onto public sector staff.

This will come back to haunt him, and FF/Greens.

with the elections approaching one might suspect he relies on two alternatives :

1. it's nice for a political party to be in opposition from time to time - there's always someone else to blame, you don't need to be constructive for a while and with all the stress from the crisis cowen simply might feel like a nice vacation in opposition seats and let somebody else take the blame
2. look at FG - they have never been a constructive opposition, they lack a proper leadership, they did not grasp the chance to get to power when it was there. is this really the opposition anyone should be afraid of?

 

[Sunny]

This will come back to haunt him, and FF/Greens.

Do you mean that FF might not win the next election?

 

[Shawady]

The judgement was made that increasing taxes further would be counterproductive. I think this was the correct decision.

I think they have gone as far as they can with actual tax rates but they could bring more people into the tax take.
I can't understand why taking 10 or 20 euro a week of people on minimum wage would be any worse for econmoy than taking 8 euro off unemployed.
In saying that, I agree social welfare rates have to be reduced but I am not convinced nothing could be done on the taxation side.

 

[Purple]

All the same oul guff on this thread as on all the other - no alternative - cant afford it - no other option etc.

The Minister had plenty of other options - like cutting the €2bn tax relief on pensions, most of which goes to high earners, or cutting the €500m mortgage interest relief to landlords, or cutting any of the 100+ tax reliefs used by high earners to avoid tax (as detailed in the Commission on Taxation report. But instead, he hit social welfare and public servants, including those earning under €30k. This is not about sharing of pain or putting shoulders to the wheel. Big man, Brian.

The only substantial thing that you mention above is the €2 billion in tax relief on pensions. If that relief were not there people would just not put their money into pensions so the state wouldn't get it either way. The rest isn't worth a damn in the context of the problems we face so what, in detail, are you proposing as an alternative? … or is it just bar-stool socialist economics?

 

[Sunny]

I think they have gone as far as they can with actual tax rates but they could bring more people into the tax take.
I can't understand why taking 10 or 20 euro a week of people on minimum wage would be any worse for econmoy than taking 8 euro off unemployed.
In saying that, I agree social welfare rates have to be reduced but I am not convinced nothing could be done on the taxation side.

It will be done but I think FF have been quiet clever and have learnt the lessons from last years debacle. People would have been reluctant to accept higher taxation if no effort or a limited effort was made to cut expenditure. Property taxes, water charges, lower paid people are coming into the tax net, pension tax relief will be changed (b.t.w. I won't be investing at 30% tax relief), PRSI ceiling will be abolished etc etc are all coming. This was just the first step.

 

[VOR]

All the same oul guff on this thread as on all the other - no alternative - cant afford it - no other option etc.

The Minister had plenty of other options - like cutting the €2bn tax relief on pensions, most of which goes to high earners, or cutting the €500m mortgage interest relief to landlords, or cutting any of the 100+ tax reliefs used by high earners to avoid tax (as detailed in the Commission on Taxation report. But instead, he hit social welfare and public servants, including those earning under €30k. This is not about sharing of pain or putting shoulders to the wheel. Big man, Brian.

Welcome Complainer! You have some valid points but I believe he dealt with all three.

Lenihan announced that the tax treatment of the lump sum available at retirement and the rate of tax relief available on an individual’s pension contributions will be dealt with in the Government’s National Pensions Framework, which is soon to be published by the Minister for Social & Family Affairs. He accepted the Commission on Taxation’s recommendation that pension lump sums below €200,000 should not be taxed. Consolidated 33% rate of relief will be considered. Hopefully, that will increase pension contributions and not cause a bigger problem as Purple outlined.

Mortgage Interest Relief for Landlords was reduced at the last budget.

Orka has closed off the tax relief treatment.

 

[ashambles]

€2 billion in tax relief on pensions

The unions used be big supporters of axing pension relief, until it was explained to them that the most egregious tax relief is the one that operates on tax free lump sums. This is used by the wealthy but mostly as it happens by retiring public servants (think it's a tax giveaway of around 200m+ per annum).

Average private sector workers aren't too pushed about the lump sum, a big tax free lump sum even if they've managed to accumulate it means a smaller annuity. Personally I'd have no trouble at all seeing the tax free lump either reduced to 0 or to the average industrial wage - let alone the figures of 200k mentioned.

Also the tax relief on contributions if changed will have a larger short term impact on public sector workers, i.e they'll have to pay the extra tax while the private sector worker will see a smaller amount going into the fund. I'd see this as a huge problem if I was a public sector worker.

Same thing of course in the long term but in the short term - very different.

The proposals mooted of a 33% tax relief mean that average public servants will be need to pay another 700 euro or so a year in tax. (49%-33%) * (7.5% of 50,000. Drop it to 0% tax relief and public sector workers will have to pay almost 2000 a year extra in tax.

In theory private sector workers might increase contribution to make up the shortfall but I'd expect if anything they'd contribute less - not an option open to the public sector. Ouch.

 

[Firefly]

Hi VOR.

Superb post. Your wife will find something I'm sure as anyone who tries this hard IMO will. Give her a hug.

Complainer...Some of the reliefes could have been looked at I agree, but these are there to encourage investment/growth etc so need to be examined carefully. Also, given the lack of any investment at the moment, cutting these would IMO have no material impact on tax revenues anyway.

Firefly

 

[thedaras]

You never mentioned to your kids what you think of their teachers???? You probably don't have to

.

What are the question marks for? And No I dont speak ill of their teachers..

I think that if they were the most "caring/concerned teachers" in the world, you still wouldn't be happy with them. This isn't the first or second anti-teacher or anti-P.S. post you've put on AAM, as is your right, but there's very little balance in a lot of them.[/QUOTE)

Some of them are,very caring and concerned so where did you come up with that retort?
And I suppose your posts are all very rational and balanced?

I think that this post really shows you up and does you little credit. You sound like you waited in the long grass for the evidence you needed to share with us.

And I'm sure that, if the teachers did give out sweets, you'd be posting here straight away, telling us that they were unfit to do their job because of the anti healthy eating signals they were sending to your children.

Ah wrong again,This happened in a secondary school where they do not give out sweets,the teacher used the anology to make a point
Why not go into the schools and speak to the teachers in question?

Oh, maybe you can't because those awful teachers would then take out their anger on your children........... [/QUOTE

Ha ha well it wouldnt be the first time!!

 

[liaconn]

[


Ah wrong again,This happened in a secondary school where they do not give out sweets,the teacher used the anology to make a point

Em, I think maybe it was a joke Thedaras. God, and we get accused of being over sensitive.
What were the 'snide remarks' the other two teachers made?