Do governments ever have enough?

[Firefly]

That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind.

I was referring to the items below

What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society?

Granted resource teachers and special needs assistants have increased, but as Purple has highlighted numerous times, we have seen a reduction in same as well as increases in class sizes so that increases for teachers pay can be made.

 

[Purple]

That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind.

As someone who was in need of such resources as a child and didn't get them I have to agree with Complainer (I had/have what is now described as high functioning Asperger syndrome, back then it was called being stupid and made me fair game for physical and psychological bullying by teachers). My second son also suffers from this. He had a classroom assistant 'till the teachers took the funding that the state was providing and stuffed it into their own pockets instead. Luckily Mrs. Purple is a qualified primary school teacher (as well as being a doctor) so she has been able to fill in most of the gaps. I am painfully aware of how inefficient the state is as spending my money on my behalf. The teachers are just as useless as they were 30 years ago but now they smile a little more.

I have no problem paying taxes and no problem paying the amount of tax I pay but I fail to understand why the government spends so much on things that are none of their business and is so bad at providing the core services that should be within their remit.

 

[Deiseblue]

I was referring to the items below

What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society?

Granted resource teachers and special needs assistants have increased, but as Purple has highlighted numerous times, we have seen a reduction in same as well as increases in class sizes so that increases for teachers pay can be made.

We have indeed seen a reduction in special needs teachers & an increase in class sizes but not to increase teacher's pay - over the same period teacher 's pay has decreased significantly.

 

[Purple]

We have indeed seen a reduction in special needs teachers & an increase in class sizes but not to increase teacher's pay - over the same period teacher 's pay has decreased significantly.

Teachers pay continued to increase right up to the IMF and EU took over. They were told that support services would have to be cut in order to pay their last round of increases and they took it anyway. They are paying more taxes now though and they have been hit with the pension levy but both happened after they took the money from the support srvices budget for themselves.

 

[Deiseblue]

Teachers pay continued to increase right up to the IMF and EU took over. They were told that support services would have to be cut in order to pay their last round of increases and they took it anyway. They are paying more taxes now though and they have been hit with the pension levy but both happened after they took the money from the support srvices budget for themselves.

Could you possibly clarify as to when teachers received their last round of pay increases that so impacted on support services ?

 

[Complainer]

What we heard is that services would not be affected

I didn't hear this from anybody this time round. If anything, there was a bit of a macho thing going on to see who could be the tough guy delivering the worst news.

there is a limited role for government to serve certain needs of the public. But providing nice places to go for a walk is certainly not one of them.

Perhaps you're having difficulty in seeing the full benefits of providing nice places to go for a walk. This encourages physical health and (very importantly in the current environment mental health. It provides an outlet for relaxation and entertainment for those who don't have spare cash. It keeps families together. It saves money down the line on health services. It is a lot more than just 'a nice place to go for a walk'.

The basis for my claim that people are not getting their money's worth lies in the fact that funding government services is not voluntary. If people were getting such great service and value for money, then why not make taxation voluntary. Surely if we are getting such good value for our money we would continue to pay for the service.

Let's stay in the real world.

What we have these days is a situation where politicians believe that things cannot be left to individuals to decide and that money has to be taken from people so that they can enjoy certain things.

No - we have a situation now where people VOTE for those politicians that believe that a basic level of public services is essential for our country.

But how do you explain that so many things now monopolised by government were enjoyed by everyone before the state took control?

Such as?

we have seen a reduction in same as well as increases in class sizes so that increases for teachers pay can be made.

This is just spinning. Why do you choose 'increases in teachers pay' as the one aspect of Govt spending that caused increases in class sizes? Why didn't you supports provided to businesses by Enterprise Ireland, or County Enterprise Boards, or tax reliefs given to property investors, or the cost of the Govt jet? It's just tabloid spinning, and I don't think many people fall for it.

 

[Chris]

I didn't hear this from anybody this time round. If anything, there was a bit of a macho thing going on to see who could be the tough guy delivering the worst news.

I did, both from local SF and Labour candidates that called to my door during the election.

Perhaps you're having difficulty in seeing the full benefits of providing nice places to go for a walk. This encourages physical health and (very importantly in the current environment mental health. It provides an outlet for relaxation and entertainment for those who don't have spare cash. It keeps families together. It saves money down the line on health services. It is a lot more than just 'a nice place to go for a walk'.

People do not need a state to take their taxes in order to have somewhere nice to go for a walk.

Let's stay in the real world.

Could you explain how I am not in the real world with that statement? It is very very simple, if government services were that great, and so many people were happy with value for money then there would be no need for them to not be voluntary.

No - we have a situation now where people VOTE for those politicians that believe that a basic level of public services is essential for our country.

Do you really think that people know what they are going to get when they vote? Politicians have been given the power to influence and command 1000s of aspects of people's lives. It is impossible to dissect what you are actually going to get. Saying that people are voting for services it just plain and simple nonsense.
Politicians' interpretation of basic levels of service change as much as they want them to change. And they are given full power to add to those services without asking the public for approval.

Such as?

Walks in the country side as you mention. People didn't suddenly start going for walks in nice places because the government spent money on them, did they?
Increasingly large numbers of children went to school during the industrial revolution when there were no state run schools in western countries. Same for healthcare. Most state monopolies were only introduced in the late 19th century in most western societies.

Governments never see an end to the powers they want to have, whether right or left or center. The problem is that in order to fund their policies they have to take money that is not their property from other people by threat of force. It is a blatant disrespect and disregard of private property rights at a massive scale; the very rights that propelled the western world from the dark ages into modern affluence. The more that governments increase their appropriations the worse the effect will be on the overall wealth of society.

 

[Firefly]

This is just spinning. Why do you choose 'increases in teachers pay' as the one aspect of Govt spending that caused increases in class sizes? Why didn't you supports provided to businesses by Enterprise Ireland, or County Enterprise Boards, or tax reliefs given to property investors, or the cost of the Govt jet? It's just tabloid spinning, and I don't think many people fall for it.

I was replying to your earlier post where you said "That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind."

By the way, I agree with your latter point - I don't think the goverment should be interfering in the market at all. If corporate tax remains low and the government gets out of the way, we'll find out pretty quick whatever comparative advantage this country has to offer. (Which I believe is agriculture (at the higher end), Tourism and financial / IT services).

 

[Purple]

Could you possibly clarify as to when teachers received their last round of pay increases that so impacted on support services ?

November 2008.
For general information on just how good they have it see here.

 

[daithi]

do govts ever have enough??

Cost of Benchmarking to State: 1-2 billion euro
Cost of Banking Bailout to State 70 billion euro

enough said.

daithi

 

[Firefly]

Cost of Benchmarking to State: 1-2 billion euro
Cost of Banking Bailout to State 70 billion euro

enough said.

daithi

We're borrowing 20bn a year to meet the current deficit. That's 50bn since the banking crisis of Sept 2008....it will overtake it this time next year with no sign of slowing....

 

[Shawady]

..

 

[Purple]

Cost of Benchmarking to State: 1-2 billion euro
Cost of Banking Bailout to State 70 billion euro

enough said.

daithi

Cost of benchmarking €2 Billion + per year.
Cost of Bank Bail-out €70 Billion once.
Cost of exchequer over-spend €18 Billion per year.

Enough said.

 

[Shawady]

The budget deifict is down to the irresponsible spending and taxation policy of the previous government. The majority of people financially benefited from this so it is fair enough that we have to contribute to fixing it.

The bank bailout is down to the reckless behavior of a small number of bankers and the failure of the government to regulate them, but the taxpayers are being forced to contribute to this as well.

 

[Purple]

I’m inclined to agree with you on the banking issue.
The downside of not fixing the banks is that we will have to pay a much higher rate on borrowings (I don’t buy the argument that nobody would lend us money), there would be even less credit in the economy, savings may be wiped out, or at the very least people would have restricted access to their money and pensions would take a hit. The contagion from that would spread throughout the Eurozone and internationally and our exports would suffer. I’m still not convinced that the above scenario would be worse that what we have now. We would have at least a decade of extreme economic contraction and social hardship; people would die because of cuts in services, houses would be repossessed, children would not get support services, crime would increase, strikes, riots, etc but it would be over and we would have a chance to grow at the other side of it. What we have now is the slow death of this country as we know it over decades.

What government would have the balls to tell us that the old and the vulnerable will suffer and the poor would be hungry for the first time in over 50 years and those left working will be even harder hit with eve more taxes? I ask because that’s probably the best solution to our current problems.

 

[Deiseblue]

November 2008.
For general information on just how good they have it see here.

The last pay increase Teachers received was 2.5% due on 1st September 2008 , I cannot find any evidence that leads me to conclude that they were requested to forego such increase to facilitate provision of support teachers etc.

I was more impressed by Ernie Balls rebuttal of Mr. Lyons treatise which seems to contain a degree of statistical manipulations - not the first time Mr. Lyons use of stats has been questioned - lies , damn lies & statistics perhaps ?

 

[Purple]

With all due respect , Teachers did not receive pay increases in Nov 2008 or subsequently

Ok, I was going by the ifo on the TUI website that said the pay rise due from September 2008 (under the "Towards 2016" carve-up) was being given in November 2008. Did this not happen?

 

[Deiseblue]

Ok, I was going by the ifo on the TUI website that said the pay rise due from September 2008 (under the "Towards 2016" carve-up) was being given in November 2008. Did this not happen?

I actually edited my post.

The last increase teachers received was in September 2008 under the 2006/2008 agreement which ceased in Nov. 2008.

this agreement was replaced by the National Wage Agreement towards 2016( or carve up - as you refer to it. )

No Public Sector employee received any pay increases under this agreement - the only beneficiaries were the many thousands of Private Sector workers whose companies paid the first tranche of 3.5% including the major Banks and of course some semi states such as the ESB also paid this first tranche.

 

[Purple]

I actually edited my post.

The last increase teachers received was in September 2008 under the 2006/2008 agreement which ceased in Nov. 2008.

this agreement was replaced by the National Wage Agreement towards 2016( or carve up - as you refer to it. )

No Public Sector employee received any pay increases under this agreement - the only beneficiaries were the many thousands of Private Sector workers whose companies paid the first tranche of 3.5% including the major Banks and of course some semi states such as the ESB also paid this first tranche.

Yes, I accept that but the damage was done by that stage.
The pay increases that the banks gave were disgraceful, considering that they were just about to fall over the precipice at that stage. Equally the notion that “commercial” semi-states that were “profitable” should also have paid them is disgraceful considering that they are required to make a profit, i.e. the more wasteful they are the more they charge and so the more money they make.

 

[RoyRover]

... beneficiaries were the many thousands of ... workers [in] some semi states such as the ESB also paid this first tranche.

All the more reason to privatise most, if not all, of our semi-states. With a bit of competition, and reduced political interference, these companies really can thrive. Just look at Aer Lingus