Vinne Browne on Gilmore & Rabbitt

Firefly said:
That's probably a good idea actually, as your net salary is exactly what has to be raised via taxation from the private sector.
Click to expand...
And how much of that tax take comes from the pocket of Public Servants when they pay VAT, VRT, etc. So how is it 'exactly' the amount?
 
Purple said:
You'd have to include allowances and the cost of pension funding to get that figure. It may be higher than the gross figure! :D
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the lumpsum payments the other day. 1.5 times final salary...that's 100k for someone on 60k. I would seriously doubt that the salary deductions for pensions brought in last year / 2 years ago would even pay for the lumpsum never mind the pension itself.

The writing's on the wall. Jersey is looking very attractive to me I must say.
 
Bill Struth said:
And how much of that tax take comes from the pocket of Public Servants when they pay VAT, VRT, etc. So how is it 'exactly' the amount?
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. More money is returned via VAT, VRT. However, as Purple points out I didn't include pensions which will dwarf all that anyway..

Every civilised country in the world has a public sector that has to fund from taxation. The function of the public sector is not to make a profit for the taxpayer in economic terms. The point I am making though, is that, IMO, the public sector should be funded from current taxation (what we can afford) as opposed to putting it on the credit card.
 
Firefly said:
That's a fair point. More money is returned via VAT, VRT. However, as Purple points out I didn't include pensions which will dwarf all that anyway..

Every civilised country in the world has a public sector that has to fund from taxation. The function of the public sector is not to make a profit for the taxpayer in economic terms. The point I am making though, is that, IMO, the public sector should be funded from current taxation (what we can afford) as opposed to putting it on the credit card.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like public servants make no contribution whatsoever.

My gross pay for last week was 628.49.

Out of that came 107.49 in PAYE, PRSI and USC.
Pension related deductions amounted to 53.94.

If I was to retire tomorrow at the top of my gold plated pay scale, my rolls royce pension would amount to not much more than the state old age pension.

Put it this way, if my pay is cut again, I'm off. I've a mortgage and a six month old daughter, We'd be better off on the dole.
 
Bill Struth said:
You make it sound like public servants make no contribution whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

I'm not making that point at all and no offense intended. The point I am making is that your net pay, plus you pension etc minus the taxes you pay are funded by the private sector (either currently via taxation or from borrowings which will be paid from future taxation).

Bill Struth said:
My gross pay for last week was 628.49.

Out of that came 107.49 in PAYE, PRSI and USC.
Pension related deductions amounted to 53.94.

If I was to retire tomorrow at the top of my gold plated pay scale, my rolls royce pension would amount to not much more than the state old age pension.
Click to expand...

That is probably true for you, but if you watched the Prime Time program on pensions last year, you will have seen how a worker in the private sector would need a pension pot of over 1 million euro to have a comparable pension as an average retired Garda.


Bill Struth said:
Put it this way, if my pay is cut again, I'm off. I've a mortgage and a six month old daughter, We'd be better off on the dole.
Click to expand...

Please don't take this the wrong way and it's not directed at you specifically, but is unemployment & emigration the preserve of the private sector?
 
Firefly said:
I fully agree..the unions have done a great job for their members. For real proof, all you have to look at is ballooning in our national debt. Who cares though right, cos it's our kids/grand kids that will have to pay for it eh?

Croke Park has resulted in Services rather than Salaries being cut. This protects those in the PS in the short-term, but when say someone who retires from the PS gets sick and ends up on a trolley in A&E for a few days, or when their disabled grand son can't get special care or if God forbid they are burgled and beaten in the middle of the night but their nearest Garda station has been closed? Would it not be better to reduce pay and maintain services?
Click to expand...

That's life , the PS have suffered two arbitrary paycuts - I would imagine that those employees feel that they have given enough & the Unions will have a massively difficult time in selling such employees any further Agreement that includes cuts to core pay.

Maintaining services has never been an option since the last Government decided to tackle matters by introducing a voluntary redundancy scheme which has been further extended by the current Government.

Granted this was done to guarantee Industrial peace - something that given the measures apparently being sought by the Government under CP2 may prove more difficult , I sure the Unions have been heartened somewhat by Minister Howlin's comments that he doesn't expect to achieve everything sought.
 
Deiseblue said:
That's life , the PS have suffered two arbitrary paycuts
Click to expand...

I know one "cut" was where the PS have to make a contribution to their pension (as I've already posted...this cut probably won't even cover the lumpsum that they'll get on retirement, nevermind the pension itself).

What was the other paycut?


Deiseblue said:
Maintaining services has never been an option since the last Government decided to tackle matters by introducing a voluntary redundancy scheme which has been further extended by the current Government.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Firefly said:
I know one "cut" was where the PS have to make a contribution to their pension (as I've already posted...this cut probably won't even cover the lumpsum that they'll get on retirement, nevermind the pension itself).

What was the other paycut?




Exactly.
Click to expand...

Brian Lenihan's 2010 Budget introduced further paycuts arbitrarily across the Public Sector.
 
Deiseblue said:
That's life , the PS have suffered two arbitrary paycuts - I would imagine that those employees feel that they have given enough & the Unions will have a massively difficult time in selling such employees any further Agreement that includes cuts to core pay.

Maintaining services has never been an option since the last Government decided to tackle matters by introducing a voluntary redundancy scheme which has been further extended by the current Government.

Granted this was done to guarantee Industrial peace - something that given the measures apparently being sought by the Government under CP2 may prove more difficult , I sure the Unions have been heartened somewhat by Minister Howlin's comments that he doesn't expect to achieve everything sought.
Click to expand...
That shows the real gulf between the public sector and the commercial sector. In a business operating in an open market that had to make a profit the idea that the services they offer could be cut in order to reduce costs is nonsense. Would a shop stop selling things because the cost of employing sales staff was too high or would they reduce staff costs while still providing enough staff to satisfy customer needs?
 
Firefly said:
Please don't take this the wrong way and it's not directed at you specifically, but is unemployment & emigration the preserve of the private sector?
Click to expand...
Certainly not, a clerical officer colleague of mine emigrated to Australia recently with her husband and three kids.
 
Purple said:
That shows the real gulf between the public sector and the commercial sector. In a business operating in an open market that had to make a profit the idea that the services they offer could be cut in order to reduce costs is nonsense. Would a shop stop selling things because the cost of employing sales staff was too high or would they reduce staff costs while still providing enough staff to satisfy customer needs?
Click to expand...

That in reality merely reflects the fact that the commercial sector exists to make profits whereas the Public Sector exists to provide services to the public.

A further reality is that the previous Government & the current Government accepted the fact that PS employees had made major sacrifices in terms of pay & the blunt implement of major voluntary redundancy was essential to guarantee Industrial peace & indeed to play to the generally held belief that the PS was massively over staffed - unfortunately as anybody with any sense would have foreseen this led to a dimunition of services .
 
Firefly said:
I know one "cut" was where the PS have to make a contribution to their pension (as I've already posted...this cut probably won't even cover the lumpsum that they'll get on retirement, nevermind the pension itself).

What was the other paycut?
Click to expand...


Firefly,

one cut is called the PRD or Pension levy, where PS workers make more pension conts.

NB: this is on top of existing 6.5% pension conts, i.e. it is an additional pension payment of approx 6-8%

So public servants pay up to 14% of pay in pension conts and PRD.

The PRD levy does not entitle you to any benefits.

The other cut was a straight cut to gross pay.
 
The Enda Kenny interview on RTE seems to suggest that the government is considering imposing a palty €1bn pay cut over the next three years:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0120/enda-kenny-twip.html

Too little, too late in my opinion.

At a bare minimum all the "increments" should be frozen, and "flexi" eliminated, in addition to a round of benchmarking. The unions seems very keen on the concept a few years ago. Why are they so reluctant to do it now?
 
Including "flexi-time" in your eliminations just speaks to me of someone who hates civil and public service workers, I'm not sure what benefit you think will accrue from having people work a strict 9-5.
 
celebtastic said:
At a bare minimum all the "increments" should be frozen, and "flexi" eliminated, in addition to a round of benchmarking.
Click to expand...
I worked in a private sector organisation who operated a pay scale system similar to the public service. When the company was in financial difficulties the increments were frozen for about 4 years. Back increments were never paid but some got double increments on promotion.

Flexi time as operated in the civil service (and parts of the public service) is used by many private sector companies. Do you have any evidence that the elimination of the flexi time system would lead to net gains in productivity or significant net savings? If so why do many large private sector organisations use the system for its employees?

Finally in relation to reverse benchmarking, I am aware of a small number of public service employees who got 0% increase (or less than 1%). Would these employees only get a 0%-1% cut?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top