Who speaks for the taxpayer?

I think perhaps part of the problem here is that the topic title is a loaded question. Implied in the title is that there is cohort of taxpayers who are effectively disenfranchised from the system by virtue that they have no apparent influence on how taxes are spent, and, in some cases they being the largest contributors of tax (in monetary terms at least) that this is wholly unjust.

Firstly, it should be noted, that according to the Dan O’Brien article upon which this topic is based, teachers appear to be the highest paid category of worker in the country. It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.

Teachers have the right, either individually or collectively, to have whoever they choose and is willingly to do so represent their views on the issues that are affecting them.

That is all that is going on here, high earning (and high paying taxpayers) its no different for any other individual or collection of individuals, who choose to, or not, to have their view represented.

We can argue the toss until the cows come home about whether one particular decision is right or wrong (cutting teachers pay or cutting VAT rates for restaurants who are citing the shortage of chefs in the industry)…

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/state-relaxes-rules-on-work-permits-for-foreign-chefs-1.3428432

(is it odd, that from the whole of the EU, restaurants cannot source good chefs? Or is this simply a subsidy to restaurant owners still availing and benefitting of the 4% reduction in VAT but not willing to transfer those benefits to good chefs via better wages?)

…but there is no argument as far as I am concerned with taxpayers having their views represented by whomever they choose.

Secondly, it is inferred or implied all too frequently that increasing wages always means increasing taxes (or increasing debt through borrowing). This is only through if the productivity or output levels fall short of the increases in the cost of delivering those outputs or increased productivity. So then we go into the nitty-gritty of examining outputs, cross-referencing pay rates, examining teaching methods, hours of teaching, curriculum’s, class sizes, SNA’s, etc and it becomes a complex business with arguments for and against the quality of teaching and results and arguments against.

But a point should be made that regardless of our position on the education 'league tables', a distinction should be made between the application of the most appropriate methodologies and curriculums etc against whether or not teachers themselves are fulfilling their obligations under those methodologies.
 
TheBigShort said:
Firstly, it should be noted, that according to the Dan O’Brien article upon which this topic is based, teachers appear to be the highest paid category of worker in the country. It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect and you know it is. Teachers are very well paid for the hours they work. It's just that they work far fewer hours than just about every other full time employee in the country. I accept that they prepare classes, correct homework etc but they get 17 to 19 weeks holidays a year. In the private sector most people get 4 weeks.
 
Purple said:
That's incorrect and you know it is. Teachers are very well paid for the hours they work. It's just that they work far fewer hours than just about every other full time employee in the country. I accept that they prepare classes, correct homework etc but they get 17 to 19 weeks holidays a year. In the private sector most people get 4 weeks.
Click to expand...

No I didn't know Dan O'Briens article was incorrect. Are you saying that that article, upon which this topic is based, is a waste of all our time?
 
Gordon Gekko said:
What’s required is real courage to deal with the systemic issues in the economy.

For example, use the current low interest rate environment to borrow at close to 0% with a view to offering existing public servants transfer values; this could form part of a broader plan to end the current defined benefit schemes. All public service defined benefit schemes should be shut down and converted to DC schemes with the State making generous employer contributions.
Click to expand...
Gordon
I think what you are proposing in mad,
Since 1995 which is 23 year ago public servants pensions are made up off the state pension which is close to 13000 euro per year when you take this from the average public service pension it is not the biggest problem we have when it comes to pensions
The bigger Problem is the government is not putting away any of the money it takes in PRSI they should be putting away the 10.75% employer payroll contributions paid on behalf of there employees,
 
TheBigShort said:
I'm not. What is your issue?
Here is a quote from the OP



What part of the first two posts am I not understanding? It implies that teachers are already highly paid? Are you saying that they are not?
Click to expand...

You said;
TheBigShort said:
It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that while teachers enjoy a very high hourly rate of pay (though not as high as Dan suggested given that they have lots of non-classroom work to do such as setting and correcting work) they also enjoy exceptionally long holidays so their overall income doesn't place them into an income bracket where they "pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors" because employees in those other sectors work 45% more weeks a year.
You already know that but went ahead and constructed a post on the completely false premise that they paid very high rates of income tax.

If I work 5 hours a week and get €50 per hour am I a low paid worker?
If you work 48 hours a week and get €20 an hour are you a high paid worker?
Should some of your income be taken and given to me because I choose to work much fewer hours than you?
 
This is what I said, which you have already quoted;

TheBigShort said:
Firstly, it should be noted, that according to the Dan O’Brien article upon which this topic is based, teachers appear to be the highest paid category of worker in the country. It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.
Click to expand...

I have not claimed that teachers are overpaid or underpaid. I am merely referencing an article upon which this topic is based that implies that teachers are better paid, on average per hour, that working people in all the other sectors listed.

The article is also lead by a headline "If teachers are so badly paid, why are more youngsters signing up?" The underlying assumption to me is that they are in fact very well paid.

I can only go with what is put in front of me. If you are saying that DOB has his figures wrong (which it appears you are) then there is no point in referencing his article is there?
 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
This is what I said, which you have already quoted;



I have not claimed that teachers are overpaid or underpaid. I am merely referencing an article upon which this topic is based that implies that teachers are better paid, on average per hour, that working people in all the other sectors listed.

The article is also lead by a headline "If teachers are so badly paid, why are more youngsters signing up?" The underlying assumption to me is that they are in fact very well paid.

I can only go with what is put in front of me. If you are saying that DOB has his figures wrong (which it appears you are) then there is no point in referencing his article is there?
Click to expand...
You suggested that as they were so well paid per hour that it followed that they also paid high levels of income tax;
TheBigShort said:
It therefore stands to reason, that in individual monetary terms, teachers pay more tax than all the other workers listed in the other sectors.
Click to expand...
How does it stand to reason that someone on a very high hourly rate who works short hours would pay high taxes?

Your assertion is incorrect and you know it. It was disingenuous of you to suggest it. You are now doing the same thing in your replies to me.
 
TheBigShort said:
Here are some secondary teacher pay scales

https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/common-basic-scale-wef-1110.5776.html

Starting at €34,000 up to €62,000.

Third level

https://www.tui.ie/welcome-to-our-website/third-level-salary-scales-.2167.html
Click to expand...
So if they worked the same amount of weeks as most people (50% more than they do now) then their pro rata rates would be €51,000 up to €93,000.
Of course nobody stays on their basic rate; they get positions of responsibility, assistant principleships etc so in reality the rates are higher.
 
Purple said:
You suggested that as they were so well paid per hour that it followed that they also paid high levels of income tax;
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest they were so well paid, Dan O'Brien is suggesting they are so well paid. How else do you read into the headline of his article? Or to the general tone of the opening posts, based on that article?

Clearly I have even pointed out to you using underline and bold and italic what it is I posted. Its not hard to understand.

I didn't make any reference to how that €40ph was calculated or to the number of hours they work. I made reference as to what the article infers.

The topic is about "Who speaks for Taxpayers"...teachers are taxpayers. Their actual annual rates of pay are included above. For someone who claims that the marginal rate of tax starts at too low a base (which I agree), then you will admit that teachers pay taxes on their incomes like everyone else....and are therefore as entitled to air their views and opinions as much as anybody else, and are entitled to have whoever they wish to represent those views for them. That is the general gist of the point I made from which you quoted me.

Purple said:
Of course nobody stays on their basic rate; they get positions of responsibility, assistant principleships etc so in reality the rates are higher
Click to expand...

So which is it? Are they high paid or not?
If they are high paid, they pay high taxes, right?
If they are not high paid, how are they paid? Are they paid fairly? Are they underpaid?
Is there any justification for them seeking better pay for new recruits on the basis of equality?
 
TheBigShort said:
Is there any justification for them seeking better pay for new recruits on the basis of equality?
Click to expand...
Yes, they should do it by suspending increments for all teachers on the higher rates and using that money to increase pay levels for those on lower rates until everyone is on the same rate. Then, and only then, should increments be re-introduced.
 
You are being obtuse now, and not even deliberately so.

Perhaps best you try answer the OP question "Who speaks for the taxpayer?" rather than bringing the topic down a rabbit hole about how teachers increments are to be paid and structured, which has nothing to do with the topic.
 
Deiseblue said:
I would suggest that in order to meet this “ justifiable “ demand the 200 million euro required will be funded from the monies available from the next budget .
The same argument that funds were not available did not wash when the Gardai situation was resolved .
As I previously stated the fact that the Labour Court have referred the equality of pay matter to the European Court of Justice must be of huge concern to this Government particularly when they require the support of parties that have come out strongly in favour of such equality.
The negotiations on a new contract for GP’s is also going to be very interesting.
Click to expand...
Yep, just give everyone everything they ask for. Sure Bertie did that and everything worked out just fine!
It's not as if we have a massive national debt at the same time as living in a period of historically low interest rates, our biggest neighbour is leaving the EU and there is massive global political uncertainty.
 
TheBigShort said:
You are being obtuse now, and not even deliberately so.

Perhaps best you try answer the OP question "Who speaks for the taxpayer?" rather than bringing the topic down a rabbit hole about how teachers increments are to be paid and structured, which has nothing to do with the topic.
Click to expand...
You asked me a specific question and I gave you a specific answer with a method of funding that pay increase. How is that being obtuse?
If teachers unions were really interested in lower paid young teachers they wouldn't have sold them down the river to start with. If older teachers were really interested in their younger colleagues they would give a tiny amount in order to level the pitch, content in the knowledge that they will still get a pension they never came close to paying for that their younger colleagues, and everyone else their age, will never enjoy.
 
Purple said:
You asked me a specific question and I gave you a specific answer with a method of funding that pay increase. How is that being obtuse?
Click to expand...

I accept in normal discourse you can of course provide your views on related matters that are not necessarily central to the discussion. You weren't asked to provide your preferred method of funding that pay increase, but seeing as you have I neither agree nor disagree. Nor is the topic about the TUI's preferred method of funding that pay increase to which I neither agree nor disagree with - because the topic is supposed to be about the purported lack of representation that taxpayers have with regard to decisions relating to topics such as teachers demands for pay rises or farmers looking for fodder imports.
From the start, I have argued that that notion to be somewhat a fallacy.

Perhaps you would like to contribute in that regard?


Purple said:
If teachers unions were really interested in lower paid young teachers they wouldn't have sold them down the river to start with. If older teachers were really interested in their younger colleagues they would give a tiny amount in order to level the pitch, content in the knowledge that they will still get a pension they never came close to paying for that their younger colleagues, and everyone else their age, will never enjoy.
Click to expand...

All very well and good to have your opinion in that regard, but perhaps you could address the OP for once? It's hard to understand why you are hung up about my inference from DOBriens article that teachers are highly paid when from the OP...

Brendan Burgess said:
And the teachers who are already very highly paid want more money.
Click to expand...

...you have had no comment to make? Either you are deliberately trying to provoke or you can't grasp the topic discussion?
 
Purple said:
Yep, just give everyone everything they ask for
Click to expand...

Another example of how you fail to grasp the point made in the post you quoted. If the ECJ finds in favour of the equality claim by INTO the Irish government will be legally obliged to pay, not "just give everyone everything they ask for".
The only way that INTO will be successful in their claim is if they manage to argue successfully that their rights under various equality legislation, European Directives and ECJ judgements have been contravened.
Do you think that if a government is found to have contravened the rights of the person, or persons, that an appropriate redress should be administered, regardless of whether or not you agree with the judgement of the court?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top