Pat Kenny's new show

liaconn said:
I wasn't impressed with McCarthy, I have to say, and had really thought I would be when I heard he was going to be on.
Click to expand...

McCarthy didn't stand a chance and fair play to him for agreeing to do it. People just didn't get it. Its like the guy who decided we could solve our €400m a week deficit by putting a levy but not a tax on property developers!!!

People know the public finances are in bits but no-one has the stomach for the fight. We can't touch the vunerable, we can't touch teachers, guards, nurses, paramedics, civil servants. We can't cut services, we can't reform work practices in the public sector.

What's left except taxation? Even if we introduce a 48% tax band like labour and the unions want, it won't even get close to €400m a week.

Like I say I am beat. I have accepted our fate!
 
I was always against the IMF getting involved but if people insist on burying their head's in the sand, I don't think we have an option. Borrrowing €400 million a week isn't sustainable, so it's only a matter of time before the country goes bankrupt and no one gets paid.
 
I thought the research underpinning the whole debate showed signs of laziness: One very basic pie-chart, and away we go!

At no stage was it made clear that the figures shown for each category (I have no idea if they were correct) were Gross figures. It would have been useful to see the equivalent Net figures.
I am assuming that for Social Welfare, the Gross figure of €21bn is equal to the Net figure, as this is not subject to Tax, (ie this full amount is paid out to recipients) and similarly for Public Services, the Gross figure of €15.8bn = Net is a safe enough assumption. However for public sector pay & pensions the Gross figure shown of €19.8bn must be considerably higher than the Net figure. I have no idea of the Net however it would likely be less than half of that, given the amounts withheld in the form of Paye, PRSI, Health Levies, Incomes Levies, Pension Contributions, W&O contributions, Pension Levies.
I would have thought that this was crucial to any sensible analysis of what might be cut from this piece of the pie.
For instance, if (big IF!) the Net PS pay & pensions is actually €9bn, then this is the amount of "pie" available from which cuts can be made, not the higher figure.


On another point, I think it finally dawned on me last night that the governments plan of reducing the deficit by successive annual amounts of, IIRC, 4bn, 4bn, 3bn, 3.5bn, is totally dependant on a return to growth providing the room for such cuts. Otherwise its totally unachievable.
 
csirl said:
... For someone who is a financial expert, Eddie Hobbs was very unknowledgeable about the most common levels of pension contributions and benefits in both public and private sector employments. I think he was way of the mark on both counts.
Click to expand...

I think Eddie Hobbs more than met his match on last nights program. Maybe he might consider address the following which is from a recent OECD report...

"Pension funds, which account for most private pension assets, have been hit hardest in OECD countries where equities make up over a third of total assets invested. Irish pension funds experienced the worst investment performance, losing just over 30% of their value in nominal terms (33% in real terms).
The losses to both defined benefit and defined contribution plans underline the urgent need for further reforms of private pension systems, according to this research."
 

That's not correct.
teh only figure to concern ourselves is teh bottom line deficit - which is a net figure !

Teh deficit of 20bn which we are running includes tax receiopts from teh public sector.

So if you want to include only after tax figures in your figures for the cost of PS, then teh overall income tax reduces accordingly.

So this is the correct figure to be starting any arguments with as displayed on the pie chart last night.
i.e.overall incomings versus overall outgoings.

And that figure leaves us with an annual deficit of 20bn - and this is the gap we need to bridge.
 

That was the point he was making. Public sector workers are guaranteed their pension irrespective of losses on the investment. The "reforms" mentioned above include moving the remaining DB pensions to DC.

The fact is that the PS pension bill is now over €100bn. It is twice what NAMA is. One way or another, numbers have to be cut.
 
The point is public sector pension contributions are not invested full stop! csirl has explained in quite a lot of detail the exact situation with regard to pensions for plain vanilla PS/CS staff in other threads.

The question is why did/do Irish pension funds have the worst performance in the OECD, and don't get me started on the charges and commissions!
 

+1
Exactly, sooner the better.
 
How would such a process play out. Would it be the IMF? Or would it be the ECB? Or, the IMF under the dictate of the ECB? No eurozone country has gone bust before, we’d be the first. The ramifications, not just for Ireland, but for the Euro would be huge I’d imagine.
 
lightswitch said:
This is the first time I have seen a debate take place on TV re NAMA where the view of "Joe Public" was to the front of the agenda.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but who wants to hear that? The view of Joe Public is rarely based on in-depth knowledge. In fact, Joe Public has to take some of the blame for landing us in the current situation by democratically voting FF in election after election, and preferring short term gain over long term goals.
 
For my money one of teh few people that made any sense last night was mcarthy.

The main points he made were :

This current problem is not related to the banking issue.

And that basically, mathematically, the problem we are faced with cannot be solves by taxes - therefore cuts must apply.
And given that social welfare and public sector wages account for nearkly 70% of that then these areas cannot remain untouched.

Everyone in the audience was only looking at their own personal situation with a poor mouth as opposed to the big picture.

People will sooon stop loaning to us if we carry ion like this. That is teh reality of the situiation. That is not some idle talk.

There is no other alternative to public wage cuts.

THey will definitely happen.
And i also expect strikes to definitely happen.

This is gonna get nasty i reckon.
I've no idea how it will be resolved because the government simply cannot afford to give in. THey have no plan B because a plan B simply does not exist.

Out of curiosity - can anyone on this thread that is opposed to public wage cuts put forward an alternate solution please as i am curios what these peopel are thinking.
For those that do decide to offer an alternative, before you post can you please keep in mind that applying extra taxes, be it a wealth tax or whatever, will not nearly narrow the deficit.
 
Out of curiosity - can anyone on this thread that is opposed to public wage cuts put forward an alternate solution please as i am curios what these peopel are thinking.
Click to expand...

The alternative to pay cuts is to cut numbers. You're better having a smaller number well paid staff doing necessary productive work than a larger number of poorly paid staff, many of whom are surplus to requirements. And a numbers cut should not be a recruitment embargo or pro rata across all public services. It should be cutting those who's jobs are not needed.
 

I would certainly agree with that - and also have pay cuts on top of that would be my solution.
 

You say "that's not correct" in response to a post with more than one point - what are you saying is incorrect?

I understand the point you are making regarding the deficit already including tax receipts, however you seem to misunderstand my point. The amount of money withheld by the state in respect of taxes etc from its public sector employees, cannot be withheld again. There is no contribution that can be made from this pot of money to any narrowing of the deficit. Simple as that. The only contribution which can made from this sector must come from the balance, which the state it does not withhold.
 
I think P.K. has a lot of learning to do to get the format right, could be my imagination but the man appears to give more time to those who are saying what he wants to hear instead of taking on the role of impartial chairman.

Regarding last nights show it was an excellent opportunity to get both Public and Private sectors to agree on even one point, instead he allowed it to become a fight among the people instead of finding some common ground.

McCarthy held his own, if anything I think he held his counsel instead of expanding on what his report may have contained if he wasn't relying on the heads of the different Government Departments to provide the information that was used to put the report together, maybe a proper audit of each department is needed.

I think another opportunity was lost when the Lady disclosed her home had been repossesed, at the very least the point could have been made that if nobody bought her house and the others like it the lenders would have to negotiate, even if the mortgage period doubled they would have a home and the lender would be getting an income.

The important point being the borrowing by people from all sectors for over priced houses were covering the excesses and instead of looking at the level of private debt our Government were only looking at a diminishing level of national debt and clapping themselves on the back all the time instead of controlling spending.

The bonds were issued by the private banks to fuel the bubble so now the very people who paid some 40% of the house cost in indirect tax must pay again either in pay cuts or raised taxs while still keeping up the mortgage payments which should be some 40% less.

Imagine if the level of private borrowing could be reduced by 40% how easy it would be to roll back all the pay rises and make our country competitive once more.

I believe while we have the big mortgages to service nobody can afford pay cuts or more tax's, I also believe it is wrong to demeen people because their employer is a Government Department, they work hard for their pay maybe when we respect each other the solution will be found.

Sorry if I am not getting my point across it's late and I'm all FF'd out.
 

sorry but I have to pull you up on this point as it doesn't make sense.

What exactly are you saying here?
That there should be a ban on buying houses ?

As in - a house can always sell regardless of the market conditions if attractively priced.
 
What I am saying is do not buy repossesed homes. The reason being the lender will be more inclined to renegotiate the terms of the loan. While the borrower may have taken on too much (not a good idea) banking by its very business plan should have been more careful where lending for buying a home was concerned. There are plenty of empty houses available at knock down prices all around the country why take advantage of someone elses misfortune ?
 
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register