But it's not as simple as that. The Government doesn't have the money to meet all its current public expenditure committments, of which pay is just one (albeit a sizeable one). Welfare makes up another huge proportion with programme expenditure (principally health) accounting for the rest.
If it's a good idea, therefore, to slash people's pay simply because you don't have the money, one could argue that it's an equally good idea to slash social welfare payments and withdraw whay might otherwise be regarded as essential public services. Equally, one could argue that we should let the banks fail "because we haven't got the money to save them. It's as simple as that".
I would agree that in an era of tight resources, tough choices have to be made but there comes a point at which it becomes unreasonable to further tap into any single area of expenditure. I would contend that we've well reached that point.
Perhaps the money that can somehow be "found" to support failed entities like Anglo and Nationwide should be put to better use with a consequential relief of more normal aspects of public expenditure.
All of those points are true. Social welfare should be cut, because we can't afford these rates. And some services (non essential ones - if agreement can ever be reached on serivces which aren't essential) should also be cut.
Nobody is happy about paying for the banks.
And yet - even if the bank bailout costs us 30bn - we are borrowing 20bn EVERY YEAR to pay for the running of the country.
Scary.
Will we have to borrow €4 billion this year alone just to pay back the interest on previous borrowings?
Surely the only "relevant factors" in claiming there's been a 20% net decrease in pay due to government intervention, are tax, levies and pay cuts. In some cases hours and overtime could be down but you weren't claiming that.
Forget about your payslips which we clearly can't and don't want to see. You may as well tell us you've a secret document which proves the earth is flat.
However the paycuts and levies are well known so if you give us a salary level that would be down by about 20% net over 18 months then we can see if particular pay grades have somehow been hit much harder than the average ones. If it's just the lads on 200k then to be honest that's fine.
You either take pride in your work, or you don't. It's as simple as that. This is something we need to foster in our citizenry, along with a sense of responsibility, if we ever want to have a mature society.
I don't feel the need to prove my point beyond all doubt.
What I'm referring to is the differnce between my net pay in early/mid 2008 and my net pay now. Taking account of deuctions for other purposes (VHI, etc), my net pay, as a consequence of the pension levy, income levy, tax hikes, etc. is down 20%. I don't need to consult a third party website to confirm this.
Whether you choose to believe me is your own business. Frankly, I'm past caring.
Just to be clear, this loss is down to investment decisions. You made a decision to invest in equity and/or property funds, with the objective of achieving substantial growth. You read the blurb from your employer or the pension provider telling you the risks involved in these choices. You had options to choose cash or bond funds with much lower or no risk, and much lower expected return. But you chose (as I chose) the high-risk, high-expected-return option.My pension fund is down about 35-40% with no guarantee that it will recover before I am due to retire. And everyone else in my company did the same despite the fact that we made money.
Just to be clear, this loss is down to investment decisions. You made a decision to invest in equity and/or property funds, with the objective of achieving substantial growth. You read the blurb from your employer or the pension provider telling you the risks involved in these choices. You had options to choose cash or bond funds with much lower or no risk, and much lower expected return. But you chose (as I chose) the high-risk, high-expected-return option.
Source please?many of the unions did the same thing which is why they are now short of funds.
Just to be clear, this loss is down to investment decisions. You made a decision to invest in equity and/or property funds, with the objective of achieving substantial growth. You read the blurb from your employer or the pension provider telling you the risks involved in these choices. You had options to choose cash or bond funds with much lower or no risk, and much lower expected return. But you chose (as I chose) the high-risk, high-expected-return option.
Source please?
I've done plenty of voluntary work over the years, maybe not thousands but certainly over a 1000. As it is voluntary and not directly related to my job I don't seek to get some sort of indirect payment for it... otherwise it wouldn't really be voluntary, would it?
We have the best paid teachers in the OECD. Only Greece has a shorter school year. It can be a stressful job but the very long holidays, short hours, good pension, paid sick leave, career breaks and (still) very high pay should at least make up for that.
Specifically
I know some people have issues reading the Indepedent so may not click through.Mr O'Connor's union has suffered losses on world stock markets where its speculative bets have tumbled, according to the 2008 accounts. The union lost €2.8m on what it called "impairment of investments" -- meaning losses on the stock market.
Siptu's losses have straddled falls in the US, European and United Kingdom stock markets. The union also dabbled unsuccessfully in Pacific and Japanese equities.
At year-end, its portfolio was worth €10.7m against €13.4m in 2007. After the end of 2008, Siptu took a loss on an equity fund and switched into cash instead. Siptu employed BoI's, AIB's and Irish Life's investment arms as managers of its portfolios. The accounts reveal that the bosses maintain a fine fleet of motor cars.
Last year Siptu still owned cars to the value of €1.8m and spent more than €500,000 on new vehicles. It sold €712, 000 worth of cars .
And your point is? I get a pension based on what I put in and on investment returns. I accept the risks. But that's the point. It's my risk.
I would gladly pay a pension levy etc if at the end of the day, I was guaranteed a defined pension and I could remove that risk.
That doesn't say anything about the union being 'short on funds' as Caveat has claimed.
That doesn't say anything about the union being 'short on funds' as Caveat has claimed.
It's not really a matter of 'what I like to call it'. I didn't bring up the issue. You claimed that the unions were short on funds. It is now clear that you had no justification for this claim, beyond some idle speculation from right-wing media. I suspected that this was yet another of those idle claims about unions that frequently appear here on AAM, so I just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that there was nothing of substance behind it.Call it what you like. Losses, less money than they would have hoped, short on funds...
They have lost millions. As has been stated on many occasions their losses have led to much speculation as to whether they could afford sustained strike pay, should circumstances require this.
So, when asking for a source which part did you need clarification on
- that the unions gambled on high risk investments - whilst hypocritically criticising the actions of those same banks & investors?
- or that they lost millions?
QUOTE=Deiseblue;1039442]Perhaps I wasn't quite clear , the two men in question ran the soccer teams on a purely voluntary basis for 20 years and never expected any pay for it.
They mowed and lined pitches , picked up kids and dropped them off and organised refs etc. if anything it cost them a fortune in petrol costs and these guys raised thousandsby fundraising.
While they certainly expected little thanks they did not expect to be denigrated in the media or by members of the public for simply being teachers.
Is it any wonder that after 20 years they have decided to call it quits ?
Indeed it is a stressful job but aas you saw the compensatory elements of the job are very good , these however are the terms and conditions that Government as employer signed up to and which the teachers are entitled to defend.".
It's not really a matter of 'what I like to call it'. I didn't bring up the issue. You claimed that the unions were short on funds. It is now clear that you had no justification for this claim, beyond some idle speculation from right-wing media. I suspected that this was yet another of those idle claims about unions that frequently appear here on AAM, so I just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify that there was nothing of substance behind it.
Oh and she on her teachers hours also has more spare time than anyone else in the family to do little jobs around the house,that should be houses as she has two..
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?