Upcoming budget.

If the Gov sat down and really looked at where money is being used foolishly I think they would not only make savings but also get a lot of plaudits from the public.

OK so the savings may not be massive, but its the principle of the thing and if Joe Public seen little things being cut that are not really necessary then it might ease the pain a bit.

One thing that comes into my head is the car/driver and security for likes of Bertie. All this "I used to be Taoiseach so need my perks" nonsense. Let him drive himself around. And lets be honest, its hardly as if his life is under threat to warrant full time security.

Anyone else any simple ideas that might please the public?
 
RMCF said:
One thing that comes into my head is the car/driver and security for likes of Bertie. All this "I used to be Taoiseach so need my perks" nonsense. Let him drive himself around. And lets be honest, its hardly as if his life is under threat to warrant full time security.
Click to expand...

All the former Taoisigh have this privilege.

Cosgrave
Fitzgerald
Reynolds
Bruton

And, possibly, former President Robinson, too.

Anyway, that's small change. Anyone else see Shane Ross shilling his latest book on the Late Late ? The salaries that are paid to the CEOs of the various semi-state quangos are a disgrace. And, I assume, the other salaries cascade down from the amount paid to the CEO.
 
RMCF said:
Anyone else any simple ideas that might please the public?
Click to expand...

Well they could implement some of the ideas from ABS in relation to the government for a start. Didn't Colm Mc Carthy recommend the abolition of one department?
They could also reduce the number of TDs from 166. Even 150 TDs would be plenty.
Small change, but if they are serious about stream-lining the public sector they could start at the top.
 
Shawady said:
Small change, but if they are serious about stream-lining the public sector they could start at the top.
Click to expand...

+1

The actions to reduce the Current deficit will be made over 4 or 5 years. Over the same period, salaries and expenses for all public representatives, higher civil servants and QUANGO CEOs should be reduced accordingly, to a more modest level.

If the argument is used that they could earn more in the private sector, call their bluff and let them leave.
 
TarfHead said:
+1

The actions to reduce the Current deficit will be made over 4 or 5 years. Over the same period, salaries and expenses for all public representatives, higher civil servants and QUANGO CEOs should be reduced accordingly, to a more modest level.

If the argument is used that they could earn more in the private sector, call their bluff and let them leave.
Click to expand...

A major problem with finding leaders in the private sector that would do well in the public sector is that in Ireland we don’t really have an indigenous multinational sector. We have banks and we have foreign MNC’s but we don’t have the big companies with big senior management teams that we can harvest political or public sector leaders from. Government departments are the closest thing we have to big MNC’s, along with semi-states and the laughably named “commercial” semi-states. Therefore when we hear about a departmental secretary earning €250’000 a year there is public consternation which, in my opinion, is misplaced.

The people heading up government departments are controlling budgets of billions. The right person can save tens or hundreds of millions (or at least spend it well). If they earn an extra €50’000 or 100’000 a year then that’s money well spent. The problem is the lack of accountability in the civil service and, more particularly, the semi-state sector and “public bodies” such as FAS. I have no problem with the best of the best in the public sector getting well paid, hell I’d pay them more if they were accountable and could be sacked without a pension if they kept screwing up.
 
Purple said:
The problem is the lack of accountability in the civil service and, more particularly, the semi-state sector and “public bodies” such as FAS.
Click to expand...

+1

According to Shane Ross, the head of the DAA got a performance bonus of 100K last year, when the DAA declared a multi-million loss. I believe that could not have happened in the private sector.

Also, the senior civil servants in the Department of Finance are allowed determine their own performance ratings. Last year they decided that the advice they had provided to theMinister was first-class, which merited a top rating, and attendant bonus.

I rail at the inaction of the Government when it come to rooting out this sort of nonsense, and also think that, if I were given the power, where on Earth would I start :confused: ?
 
Towger said:
It is only chicken feed:
Click to expand...

The NTMA is not, IMHO, the best reference.

Michael Somers had to recruit treasury specialists from the private sector and make sure they were 'incentivised' to stay. And, especially in the early years of their operation, they actively dealt down the cost of Ireland's national debt, i.e. saved the country money.

There was market/competitive sensitivity about the salaries paid, hence the secrecy.
 
TarfHead said:
All the former Taoisigh have this privilege.

Cosgrave
Fitzgerald
Reynolds
Bruton

And, possibly, former President Robinson, too.

Anyway, that's small change. Anyone else see Shane Ross shilling his latest book on the Late Late ? The salaries that are paid to the CEOs of the various semi-state quangos are a disgrace. And, I assume, the other salaries cascade down from the amount paid to the CEO.
Click to expand...


Many people will say that cutting these things aren't going to make a difference, and overall it might not. But there are thousands of cases of wasted money in this country that could be tackled. They all add up.

But I think the point I was trying to make is the principle of it all. IF the Gov we seen to be addressing its own wastage it might help all the cuts that me and you are taking sit better with the public.
 
If they were to bring in a flat rate tax, of 13.5% or even 18%, then I, by my calculations, would be better off. Lower paid people though, would suffer. I know we're talking about being fair, but surely that isn't?
 
PaddyW said:
If they were to bring in a flat rate tax, of 13.5% or even 18%, then I, by my calculations, would be better off. Lower paid people though, would suffer. I know we're talking about being fair, but surely that isn't?
Click to expand...

There will be those who think things are free until everyone is paying at least some bit of tax. One of the advantages of a flat rate is that when people demand a service, and are told it will cost €x, then that will mean y% raise in EVERYONE'S tax.

The trouble with things as they stand is that people think the money for these services come from government. It doesn't. It comes from all of us.
 
shnaek said:
There will be those who think things are free until everyone is paying at least some bit of tax. One of the advantages of a flat rate is that when people demand a service, and are told it will cost €x, then that will mean y% raise in EVERYONE'S tax.

The trouble with things as they stand is that people think the money for these services come from government. It doesn't. It comes from all of us.
Click to expand...

This is a dangerous lie.

The state brings in more in VAT than in income tax. Everyone pays VAT. People on low salaries or on welfare will typically be spending all of their income, and pay a high proportion of their income on VAT.

Everyone pays tax.
 
People don’t see the VAT they pay, the figure is not in their face the way their income tax payments are.
It would be a good idea if all receipts issued in shops gave a breakdown of the VAT payment. That way everyone would see what the state takes directly from them. We will never see the added cost that taxes through the supply chain add to the pre-VAT selling price in the shop but that’s another story.
 
Complainer said:
This is a dangerous lie.

..

Everyone pays tax.
Click to expand...

That's either pedantry, or trolling :rolleyes:.

In the context of this discussion, and from the backdrop of successive FF Minsters for Finance claiming a virtue of removing people from the tax net, the assertion that more people need to pay tax refers to income tax. That should have been clear to all.

The current budget expenditure was engorged by transactional taxes, and not by a sustainable level of income taxation. One aspect of policy should be to rewind to a state where the two are aligned.
 
TarfHead said:
That's either pedantry, or trolling :rolleyes:.

In the context of this discussion, and from the backdrop of successive FF Minsters for Finance claiming a virtue of removing people from the tax net, the assertion that more people need to pay tax refers to income tax. That should have been clear to all.

The current budget expenditure was engorged by transactional taxes, and not by a sustainable level of income taxation. One aspect of policy should be to rewind to a state where the two are aligned.
Click to expand...
How does €8 billion of revenue this year (more than income tax) become 'pedantry'? VAT is a huge issue, and it is paid by everybody that lives in the State. People on low incomes pay a higher proportion of their income on VAT than others, because they spend everything they get.

Don't expect people on low incomes to pay for the embarrassment of past FF Ministers of Finance (one of whom is currently our Taoiseach). People on low incomes are paying a considerable share already via VAT. Why would anyone want to pretend otherwise?
 
Complainer said:
The state brings in more in VAT than in income tax. Everyone pays VAT. People on low salaries or on welfare will typically be spending all of their income, and pay a high proportion of their income on VAT.
Click to expand...

That's why I said the money comes from "all of us". We should reduce the VAT rate, and introduce the flat rate tax for the reasons Purple stated above. People are a lot more conscious of what comes out of their paypacket than what they pay in VAT.
 
Reducing the VAT rate doesn't mean lower prices.

The VAT rate was pushed back from 20% to 21% because the government felt that some retailers weren't passing the reduction onto consumers but were keeping it themselves instead.
 
shnaek said:
That's why I said the money comes from "all of us". We should reduce the VAT rate, and introduce the flat rate tax for the reasons Purple stated above. People are a lot more conscious of what comes out of their paypacket than what they pay in VAT.
Click to expand...
Why should we change our whole tax system just to make people more conscious? What benefit will arise from that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top