My experience as a public sector worker is that most of my colleagues would be prepared to take a pay cut to try to sustain and create jobs to help 'rescue' the economy.
If I expressed my opinion of Liam Doran I would be banned (an opinion I have held for many years).
Suffice to say that Ian Paisley probably has a higher opinion of the Pope than I do of Mr. Doran.
Is Liam Doran expressing the true wishes of the members of the INO regarding pay cuts?
My experience as a public sector worker is that most of my colleagues would be prepared to take a pay cut to try to sustain and create jobs to help 'rescue' the economy.
Surely unions want to help sustain jobs and possibly create new employment. If we were to apply bench-marking now we would have to empty our pockets and hand some of the money back.
S
Far as I know, union subs are calculated on members' basic pay so this should not be the case. Yes, they'll want members' basic pay to increase, but I don't think they have a direct economic incentive to maintain high levels of overtime among the membership.The unions don't want to create jobs. They want more and more and more for union members who are working. That way the subs go up. They prefer 2 workers working 40 hours plus 20 hours overtime than 3 workers doing 40 hours each.
Far as I know, union subs are calculated on members' basic pay so this should not be the case. Yes, they'll want members' basic pay to increase, but I don't think they have a direct economic incentive to maintain high levels of overtime among the membership.
If it is done that way, it is my opinion that it is wrong and gives the wrong incentive.
Any union members here who regularly do overtime and can confirm who's correct on this?
So they prefer to get two subs than three subs? How an earth did you deduce this?The unions don't want to create jobs. They want more and more and more for union members who are working. That way the subs go up. They prefer 2 workers working 40 hours plus 20 hours overtime than 3 workers doing 40 hours each.
By making it up from incorrect assumptions, I surmise.So they prefer to get two subs than three subs? How an earth did you deduce this?
Would an across the board pay cut for public servants not engender (or exacerbate) deflationary pressures?
There is a need to pick a path through a minefield. As things are shaping up at the moment, the exchequer could be spending many thousands of millions more than it receives (opinions seem to range between 14bn and 19bn). You might say that is inflationary, and needs to be adjusted downwards. It needs to be adjusted downwards for other reasons too.
The tax take has fallen greatly, partly because of reduced economic activity, most notably in building and property-related activities. But the tax take is disproportionately down for further reasons
- people are spending less generally (thus VAT is down)
- property prices and the number of property transactions are both greatly down (thus stamp duty down)
- car sales are greatly down (thus VRT down, and also VAT).
What I am saying is that people are making choices, and the choices they make have the effect of reducing the tax take. It is more-or-less neutral if the government deals with that part of the shortfall by a combination of increasing tax and reducing expenditure.
There is a need to pick a path through a minefield. As things are shaping up at the moment, the exchequer could be spending many thousands of millions more than it receives (opinions seem to range between 14bn and 19bn). You might say that is inflationary, and needs to be adjusted downwards. It needs to be adjusted downwards for other reasons too.
The tax take has fallen greatly, partly because of reduced economic activity, most notably in building and property-related activities. But the tax take is disproportionately down for further reasons
- people are spending less generally (thus VAT is down)
- property prices and the number of property transactions are both greatly down (thus stamp duty down)
- car sales are greatly down (thus VRT down, and also VAT).
What I am saying is that people are making choices, and the choices they make have the effect of reducing the tax take. It is more-or-less neutral if the government deals with that part of the shortfall by a combination of increasing tax and reducing expenditure.
where’s it going to come from?
...We need to take a strategic approach which will produce a more sustainable and predictable tax base...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?