"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[TheBigShort]

I'm not advocating an increase in tax, you are

I think an increase in income tax would be more appropriate.

Or, then again, maybe you aren't?

We are paying enough at the moment

So which is it?

I have no issue with increasing taxes if it provides for better public services. But, as is argued by you and others, increasing taxes will not provide better services. So, taking your word for it for the moment (I would broadly disagree, but accept there is inefficiency in the public sector), then I would not support tax increases.

 

[TheBigShort]

It shows that private sector worker's are being screwed by their employers. "Your lucky to have a job", is the typical self-serving mantra used to belittle working people as if their individual, and collective worth, is nothing more than an 'cost' entry in accounts to be beaten down and beaten back at every juncture.
According to the OECD we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but God forbid the people who actually get up in the morning, in both public and private sectors, should even contemplate incomes exceeding the average of the OECD.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.html

Toilet paper.

 

[Purple]

It shows that private sector worker's are being screwed by their employers. "Your lucky to have a job", is the typical self-serving mantra used to belittle working people as if their individual, and collective worth, is nothing more than an 'cost' entry in accounts to be beaten down and beaten back at every juncture.

Everyone who works is a working person. That includes employees and employers who work in the businesses they own or run. I have never heard anyone being told they are lucky to have a job and paying someone the market rate is not screwing them, it is simply paying them their economic worth. The fact that we have 365,000 people employed by the State, earning 50'000 a year and receiving pensions which they only partially fund is a major contributing factor to the cost of living for those working in the open sectors of the economy. Again, I am not saying that individuals should be paid less but labour mobility and efficiency should mean we can deliver the same services with fewer people.

According to the OECD we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but God forbid the people who actually get up in the morning, in both public and private sectors, should even contemplate incomes exceeding the average of the OECD.

Many do have incomes exceeding the OECD average. They just get punished by the State for working hard and being smart; over half of anything extra they earn is taken from them.

http://www.independent.ie/business/...-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/jobs/public-sector-pay-report-ignores-earnings-abroad-35712027.htm
Toilet paper.

Why, because it tells you the inconvenient truth? What bit of it is incorrect?
That truth is that Public Sector Unions, the strongest vested interest group in the country, screw private sector workers, both employees and management, (whatever "Management" means) in order to protect their middle and high income members. Solidarity me This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language, as O'Casey might have said. The Public Sector Unions are the Pigs in Animal Farm. Stop blaming employers and business owners when the chief perpetrators of social injustice are the Comrades in ICTU. Not only that but they drive down standards and frustrate change and improvement. I know people who have left the Public Sector because of that. Most people want to do a good job and don't want to do things which are a waste of time but they are barred from being proactive. As a close friend put it "You don't rock the boat because that could threaten the job of someone who doesn't do any work. You don't get on the wrong side of the Union because there is no bullying like Union bullying". He'd know, he tried and had to leave his job because of Union intimidation.

 

[Purple]

I'm not advocating an increase in tax, you are


Or, then again, maybe you aren't?



So which is it?

Yes, I was unclear so, to clarify; Increase taxes on low and middle earners and decrease them on moderate to high earners. The net tax take should remain the same.
Improve public services through efficiency and higher standards. Pay people more who are good at their jobs. Pay people less who are not good at their jobs. If 6 people can do what 9 people used to do (due to better ITC or more efficient processes) then pay them more.

I have no issue with increasing taxes if it provides for better public services. But, as is argued by you and others, increasing taxes will not provide better services. So, taking your word for it for the moment (I would broadly disagree, but accept there is inefficiency in the public sector), then I would not support tax increases.

Do you think it is fair that we have such a socialist taxation system where so few are net contributors? Is it fair that the many live off the few?

 

[TheBigShort]

Everyone who works is a working person. That includes employees and employers who work in the businesses they own or run

I agree, and I retract the remark that generalized employers screwing their employees. Most employers themselves are hardworking, decent and only intent on making a better life for themselves. No different to anyone else.

I have never heard anyone being told they are lucky to have a job

I have, and I don't think you would be too long on this site to find such comments of that nature. Although I stand to be corrected on that.

and paying someone the market rate is not screwing them, it is simply paying them their economic worth.

Well, that didn't take long.
The 'market rate' and 'their economic worth' is flowery language for 'you are lucky to have a job'.
Can I ask where is the market rate for a cleaner? Or security guard? Or bus driver? Or mechanic? Or any other job?

What is the 'economic worth' of a garda? Or a baker? Or a farmer? Particularly the farmer, relative to say, a surgeon? We have had this discussion before. As far as I can recall, you attribute greater economic worth to the surgeon. I would attribute greater economic worth to the farmer. Who is right, who is wrong? How is the economic worth determined?

The fact that we have 365,000 people employed by the State, earning 50'000 a year and receiving pensions which they only partially fund is a major contributing factor to the cost of living for those working in the open sectors of the economy.

Yes, I agree their is an issue there. But the pension levy imposed goes someway to redressing that.
On the other hand, a compulsory pension contribution, similar to what they have in countries like Australia (around 8% of income) payable by employers could go some way also to funding the pension deficit.

Many do have incomes exceeding the OECD average. They just get punished by the State for working hard and being smart; over half of anything extra they earn is taken from them.

Higher incomes is what attributes to our higher than average position in the wealthiest countries list. You stated you don't want to reduce incomes, but when it comes to wages, all discussion points to how public sector wages are above OECD averages. As if somehow that is a bad thing.

 

[Purple]

I agree, and I retract the remark that generalized employers screwing their employees. Most employers themselves are hardworking, decent and only intent on making a better life for themselves. No different to anyone else.

Fair enough.

I have, and I don't think you would be too long on this site to find such comments of that nature. Although I stand to be corrected on that.

I would not be surprised if people did make those comments here but have you ever heard an employer say it to their employee?

Well, that didn't take long.

The 'market rate' and 'their economic worth' is flowery language for 'you are lucky to have a job'.

Can I ask where is the market rate for a cleaner? Or security guard? Or bus driver? Or mechanic? Or any other job?

No, it’s nothing like telling someone they are lucky to have a job.

When the wage offered is sufficient to attract a sufficient number of suitable people to fill the jobs on offer; that’s the market rate. If we as a society decide that people should have more than that then we can increase their income through welfare payments. I’ve no problem with that as long as it doesn’t act as a deflationary effect on wages.

What is the 'economic worth' of a garda? Or a baker? Or a farmer? Particularly the farmer, relative to say, a surgeon? We have had this discussion before. As far as I can recall, you attribute greater economic worth to the surgeon. I would attribute greater economic worth to the farmer. Who is right, who is wrong? How is the economic worth determined?

The economic worth is different from the market rate. Farmers are very valuable because farming draws such high levels of subsidies from the EU. The social impact of that is good for Ireland but devastating for the most vulnerable people in the world. I have long argued that the Common Agricultural Policy and trade barriers in general cause millions of people to die each year.

Yes, I agree there is an issue there. But the pension levy imposed goes someway to redressing that.

Some way but less than 25% of the way.

On the other hand, a compulsory pension contribution, similar to what they have in countries like Australia (around 8% of income) payable by employers could go some way also to funding the pension deficit.

Where I work we make about 8% net profit a year. Labour accounts for about 60% of our costs. An 8% levy would half our profits and starve us of the capital we need to continuously invest and remain viable in a very competitive international market. That’s the reality for many businesses in the SME sector.

Higher incomes is what attributes to our higher than average position in the wealthiest countries list. You stated you don't want to reduce incomes, but when it comes to wages, all discussion points to how public sector wages are above OECD averages. As if somehow that is a bad thing.

It’s bad if the services we offer are below the OECD average due to incompetence and inefficiency. If you want batter than average wages then you need to be better than average, you need to provide services that are better and more efficient than average. The problem here is that relative wage levels between the private and public sectors are way out of kilter with the rest of the OECD. That’s not sustainable, especially when we consider the knock-on pension cost implications.

 

[Firefly]

On the other hand, a compulsory pension contribution, similar to what they have in countries like Australia (around 8% of income) payable by employers could go some way also to funding the pension deficit.

Would you be in favour of converting public sector defined benefit pensions to this model also?

 

[jjm]

Purple Are you sure labour is 60% of your cost .Love to know what % is your overhead cost.love to know gross /net profit .I don't believe any Manufacturing engineering company could survive and be that inefficient.I would say 10% at most you must not have upgraded in 20 years .(love to know labour cost as a % of your shipping product)

 

[jjm]

Purple Are you sure labour is 60% of your cost .Love to know what % is your overhead cost.love to know gross net profit .I don't believe any Manufacturing engineering company could survive and be that inefficient.I would say 10% at most you must not have upgraded in 20 years (Love to know labour as a % of your shipping product

 

[Purple]

Purple Are you sure labour is 60% of your cost .Love to know what % is your overhead cost.love to know gross net profit .Are you telling me if you shipp 1000 euro worth of product payroll takes 600 euro.I don't believe any engineering company could survive and be that inefficient.I would say 10% at most you must not have upgraded in 20 years .

Wages in general, not just direct manufacturing labour cost. We ship to China and Eastern Europe as well as Central America, the USA, the Middle east and Africa. Given that I take it we are efficient.

 

[jjm]

We shipp to all of the above locations also.

 

[Purple]

We shipp to all of the above locations also.

Well you must be competitive too.

 

[TheBigShort]

If we as a society decide that people should have more than that then we can increase their income through welfare payments. I’ve no problem with that as long as it doesn’t act as a deflationary effect on wages.

??? Family Income Supplement, Child Benefit etc, you are in favour of this??

Farmers are very valuable because farming draws such high levels of subsidies from the EU.

I would consider that a somewhat shallow perspective of the economic worth of a farmer.
Farmers, like Fishermen, are food producers. Without food we die. Without farmers and fishermen, we will have to farm and fish for ourselves. If we are all farming and fishing for ourselves, then we will be too busy to do all the other things we would like to do.
The economic worth of a farmer is effectively incalculable.

Where I work we make about 8% net profit a year. Labour accounts for about 60% of our costs. An 8% levy would half our profits and starve us of the capital we need to continuously invest and remain viable in a very competitive international market. That’s the reality for many businesses in the SME sector.

You are highlighting the elephant in the room. Employers(most) couldnt afford this contribution on top of wages. Most employees cannot afford the significant contribution required to start a private pension, and taxpayers cannot afford long-term to sustain old-age and public sector pensions.
The answer is clear to me, we are going to have to stay working for longer, until early '70's.
I think the Tory party in England have floated this idea. It was shot down when it transpired that their proposed retirement age (72) was greater than the life expectancy of men in some of Britain's most deprived areas.

It’s bad if the services we offer are below the OECD average due to incompetence and inefficiency.

You are having a free ride in your broadsheet derision of public services. To generalise the entire public service in this manner is no different to me generalizing about all employers ripping off their employees. It's not true, it's way off the mark.

The problem here is that relative wage levels between the private and public sectors are way out of kilter with the rest of the OECD.

There is alternative viewpoints in the article posted by Firefly in this regard. One argument is that, relative to qualifications and experience, public sector wages are catching up with private sector wages.
To compare average public sector wages with private sector wages is a false comparison. The private sector includes a vast amount of industries and trades, many of which are typically low paid, that the public sector does not engage in. These industries will have the effect of reducing average incomes in the private sector.

 

[Purple]

??? Family Income Supplement, Child Benefit etc, you are in favour of this??

Yes. The problem is at what point does welfare act as a subsidy to employers of low skilled employees. I’m not in favour of the State subsidising employers in that way. I don’t know what the answer is though.

I would consider that a somewhat shallow perspective of the economic worth of a farmer.

Farmers, like Fishermen, are food producers. Without food we die. Without farmers and fishermen, we will have to farm and fish for ourselves. If we are all farming and fishing for ourselves, then we will be too busy to do all the other things we would like to do.

The economic worth of a farmer is effectively incalculable.

... or we could buy it from cheaper producers. We don’t make clothes or cars or TV’s but I don’t remember ever hearing about shortages.

You are highlighting the elephant in the room. Employers(most) couldnt afford this contribution on top of wages. Most employees cannot afford the significant contribution required to start a private pension, and taxpayers cannot afford long-term to sustain old-age and public sector pensions.

The answer is clear to me, we are going to have to stay working for longer, until early '70's.

I agree though it’s a tough ask of a bricklayer or a teacher who has to stay in touch with kids and their interests in order to hold the attention of the class.

You are having a free ride in your broadsheet derision of public services. To generalise the entire public service in this manner is no different to me generalizing about all employers ripping off their employees. It's not true, it's way off the mark.

Inefficient businesses go bust, or should do. Inefficient public sector organisations just suck up more money. I see no evidence of improvements in efficiency or better value for money from any public sector organisation, possibly with the exception of Revenue. I have looked for data but I can’t find any. The fact that Irish Water needed 3000 fewer people to run the national water infrastructure than the combined local councils is a good case in point. That doesn’t mean that the people in the local councils were/are not working hard. It means that there are massive structural inefficiencies and duplication of services in how the State is run. We argue about how much those 3000 employees are paid. We should be talking about why those 3000 people are employed in the first place. At €50,000 a year each that’s €150,000,000 a year. What would that do for the A&E crisis or supports for special needs children or homeless people?

There is alternative viewpoints in the article posted by Firefly in this regard. One argument is that, relative to qualifications and experience, public sector wages are catching up with private sector wages.

To compare average public sector wages with private sector wages is a false comparison. The private sector includes a vast amount of industries and trades, many of which are typically low paid, that the public sector does not engage in. These industries will have the effect of reducing average incomes in the private sector.

The differential is 40%. The employment profile accounts for half of that. Pension values are not taken into account.

 

[Firefly]

To compare average public sector wages with private sector wages is a false comparison. The private sector includes a vast amount of industries and trades, many of which are typically low paid, that the public sector does not engage in. These industries will have the effect of reducing average incomes in the private sector.

How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?

 

[Purple]

How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?

I was thinking about that and the employment profile may be a factor. The UK may employ more low skilled people in the public sector for jobs which are now done by the private sector here. Without better information it's hard to tell.

 

[Firefly]

I was thinking about that and the employment profile may be a factor. The UK may employ more low skilled people in the public sector for jobs which are now done by the private sector here. Without better information it's hard to tell.

Maybe, but there's been a lot of privatisation in the UK also. I think it must be that we are just so much more highly educated and experienced here

 

[Purple]

Maybe, but there's been a lot of privatisation in the UK also. I think it must be that we are just so much more highly educated and experienced here

Maybe...

 

[Firefly]

I would consider that a somewhat shallow perspective of the economic worth of a farmer. Farmers, like Fishermen, are food producers. Without food we die. Without farmers and fishermen, we will have to farm and fish for ourselves. If we are all farming and fishing for ourselves, then we will be too busy to do all the other things we would like to do.
The economic worth of a farmer is effectively incalculable.

I agree, they are vital to our existence and the wonder that is the free market with the law of Supply and Demand ensures that they keep producing what we need at a price we can afford. For some (fortunate) people this could be fillet steak and lobster, for others it could be spag bol and mackerel. When an "in" ingredient like Quinoa comes along and the price rises, more farmers are drawn into the market and the increase in supply causes the price to fall. If a food goes out of fashion, the farmer will produce something else.....as is the case with every other business trying to sell something. All this happens naturally and has done so since the dawn of the ages via bartering before even currencies existed.

Do you have another method to calculate what a farmer should be paid?

 

[TheBigShort]

How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?

Probably because the British government has been a lot better at devaluing and demeaning the efforts of their own employees?
Hence, The greater levels of privatisation.
If you look at healthcare from sole perspective of value for money in an accounting sense, as opposed to economic sense, then it's easy to see why there are waiting lists that never clear, crisis in A&E etc.
It's because the money is spent in the wrong areas. But this is policy. Create crisis, make sure things don't work, then demotivated staff, defined and then privatise.
From Tatcher, New Labour and now Cameron and May. The NHS is under attack.
We haven't had to endure this level of privatisation yet.