Public sector pay freeze for top 40,000 public servants announced

csirl said:
Would it be correct to say that a pure flat rate income tax of 25% - no exemptions, no credits - would clear the deficit and leave cash to spare? To me this is the most painless way of doing it and would be popular with most PAYE workers.
Click to expand...

That would be very hard on low income families and a needless concession to higher earners.

I agree that exemptions and credits should be justified now more so than ever.
 
DerKaiser said:
That would be very hard on low income families and a needless concession to higher earners.

I agree that exemptions and credits should be justified now more so than ever.
Click to expand...

+1

A number of Eastern European countries toyed with flat taxes and failed.

One of the basic cannons of taxation is that taxes should be progressive. A flat rate of tax ends up hurting the poor at the expense of the wealthy.

While I agree that taxes shouldn't rise for the higher rate payers in this country, being one myself, I don't think it would be fair for them to come down either.

The way to reduce the deficet is to substantially reduce spending whilst not impacting front line services, through reduced public sector pay rates, and substantial reductions in welfare payments.

I would suggest that we reduce such payments to an equivalent level to those in the UK, which has recently started to see unemployment falls due, in no small part I would guess, to lower costs and a more flexible economy.
 

You make privatisation sound dirty!
 
There is so much else left to privatise in this country:

Large parts of RTE - speficically Network 2, 2FM, the Montrose land bank
Dublin bus
Some or all of Bord Gais, ESB, and An Post
Fás International Consultancy (!!!)

Thanks to goodness, we flogged off Eircom and Aer Lingus when we did. Could you imagine some gobsheen of a minister trying to deal with the unions there?
 
Selling the state's telecoms infrastructure was one of the most ridiculous and shortsighted privatisations ever. Our broadband is a joke and will remain so, as the state has absolutely no power to enforce its full roll-out. This would have been akin to selling off the ESB before delivering electricity to all houses in the country. The private sector is motivated by profit and therefore will never deliver services to people simply because those people need the services.
That's the state's job, and it failed miserably when it sold off Eircom.
 
There are a whole load of semi-states that we could close or merge tomorrow.

How many tourism, fishery protection, or training semi-state bodies does a small country need?

Anything protecting a sole industry should be paid for by the industry themselves.

My list for closure / merger candidates are:

  • An Bord Bia
  • An Bord Glas
  • An Chomhairle Ealaíon (The Arts Council)
  • Area Development Management Limited
  • Bord na gCon
  • Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge
  • Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited
  • Central Fisheries Board
  • CERT
  • Eastern Regional Fisheries Board
  • Horse Racing Ireland
  • Ireland-US Commission for Educational Exchange
  • Irish National Stud Company
  • National Milk Agency
  • Northern Regional Fisheries Board
  • North Western Regional Fisheries Board
  • Southern Regional Fisheries Board
  • South Western Regional Fisheries Board
  • Údarás na Gaeltachta
  • Western Development Commission
  • Western Regional Fisheries Board



Also, do we really need Forfas, IDA, and Enterprise Ireland all running as separate bodies?

Do we need both the National Archives and the National Archives Advisory Council?

Or both an Information Commissioner and Information Society Commission?

Both the CSO, and the National Statistics Board?

Both the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum?

If you closed half of these quangos, it would save millions. I'm not saying that all of these closures or mergers are feasible, but that they merit consideration before we start cutting front line services or raising taxes.

 

And you really think that the old Dept of Posts & Telegraphs would have done better?

 
I think it is a fair point that a privatised Eircom has not made substantial capex investment in the network.

Perhaps the solution is a state-owned network, but with plenty of private operators using the network (like roads).

Is this off-topic?
 
BeanPole said:
+1

While I agree that taxes shouldn't rise for the higher rate payers in this country, being one myself, I don't think it would be fair for them to come down either.
Click to expand...


Tax rates need to come down, but tax revenues need to go up, by abolishing tax reliefs, esp pension tax relief.

Why give a tax incentive for something that we should all be doing?
 
I love this thread. The national milk agency! Milk! Wonder if any posters here work there.
 
Protocol said:
Tax rates need to come down, but tax revenues need to go up, by abolishing tax reliefs, esp pension tax relief.

Why give a tax incentive for something that we should all be doing?
Click to expand...


Agreed in principle, but I don't think we should cut off pension relief completely, as it might act as a disincentive for saving for retirement. Perhaps it should be capped at a certain level of contibutions, perhaps €2k per annum, so that low earners are not penalised.

Certainly, now that interest rates have gone through the floor this is the time to reduce or eliminate mortgage interest and rent relief.
 
What a load of groundless, paranoid, Marxist rubbish. You sound like a British Leyland union official from the 1960’s.
 
On the Forfas, IDA, EI question, perhaps you might ask whichever genius (private sector) consultant recommended splitting up the old IDA in the early 90's. They were one body up to that time, but the consultants recommended splitting up.

On many of the others, mergers/combinations have already happened or are already in progress, so you might want to check out your facts and then repost.
 
Complainer said:
On the Forfas, IDA, EI question, perhaps you might ask whichever genius (private sector) consultant recommended splitting up the old IDA in the early 90's. They were one body up to that time, but the consultants recommended splitting up.
.
Click to expand...
And with good reason; there is are clear conflicts of interest between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland (as well as many synergies).

I work closely with Enterprise Ireland and my experience of them, as with other state agencies, is that there are excellent individuals at mid-level ranks but there is a serious lack of competence at a senior level. All decisions above the very basic level have to be made by the collective. This means that decisions are not made at all or are made far too late. Things that would happen in hours in the SME sector take weeks or months in the public sector. The net result is that the skills, experience and talents of good people are wasted and their enthusiasm and drive is sapped away. Sided with that they have to work with the wasters who know that they can’t be sacked and just put in the hours but do as little as possible... It must be a very frustrating job for people who genuinely want to do some good.
 
Latrade said:
But as we keep being told, a fair percentage of those will be from natural wastage. What percent exactly: I don't know. All I know is that in previous discussions it has been mentioned that NW alone will give signficant savings.
Click to expand...

Latrade, there was a report in the paper at the weekend that the embargo this year has reduced the the numbers by over 3,500, a 1% reduction. This may not see like a lot but it is not for a full year. I know in my own department there is a lot more retirements this year than last year. I would be interested to see how much the government has reduced the numbers by the end of 2010.
The government should be able to predict how many people in the public sector are due to retire in the next 5 years. I think they could then set some sort of broad target eg. only 1 in 3 jobs will be replaced. In a previous discussion someone suggested that on average 2.5% of people retire every year, which would mean 12.5 % of total staff. If the goverment replaced 1/3 of these this would still result in an 8% reduction.

Alternatively, they could replace 'front line' jobs but put a complete embargo on admin jobs and introduce flexibility between the public sector and civil service. Therefore, when admin jobs are lost in the civil service people from the HSE for example could be moved into these position i.e move people to priority areas rather than take on new staff.

I'm not suggesting this can be the only tool to reduce the PS bill but reducing numbers by natural wastage over their 5 year plan should be looked at.
 
Last edited:
Complainer said:
Famous last words...
Click to expand...
Uh? It’s just based on common sense and simple arithmetic. First, the cuts won’t be as excessive or at the numbers suggested. Looks good on paper, gets good headlines stating so many hundreds of thousands will be out of a job. But that just won’t be the case.

As already stated, the focus will be those at or near retirement age initially and other voluntary redundancies. How do I know this? Because that’s how most employers handle larger scale redundancies, it’s the easiest and most just way. And why do employers do it, again the short term loss of the usually generous redundancies is quickly gained in the medium to long term (sometimes in the same accounting year) savings on payroll and other employment costs (pensions etc).

So most of those who will be out of a job, will be moderately comfortable and live the life of any usual retiree.

How many others need to be let go will come down to the will of the government. I get the impression there is will for reform with a long term view of sustainability. So those jobs that offer no value to the public service provided will have to go. I’m no hard line capitalist, but then my bleeding heart pinko nature doesn’t stop me being disgusted at working my ar*e off to shoulder colleagues who I know offer no value or productivity in my workplace.

I’m sorry but comradeship has limits. And I don’t see how anyone can defend the indefensible, especially when it is mine and your taxes that pays for these people. They exist, we all know it. Why should they be supported?

Ultimately, these few will make little dint in the VAT or other tax intake. As I say nothing in comparison to the current deficit.

It’s utter nonsense to suggest that it’s only the public sector propping up the economy and spending money, because that is the implication with the stupidity of Labour Party Economics.


Yes and again your argument has no basis. It’s another tabloid view that loss of jobs means loss of front line staff and services. Let me spell it out again. The reform and cuts are to look to decrease the unit cost of the same service. It’s your assumption that less administrators means a poorer service. It’s your assumption that less managerial grades means poorer service.

Nothing to do with privatisation again that’s your red herring. It’s to do with first a public service we can afford and an efficient public service. Not a lower service, a better one.

Complainer said:
And indeed this kind of reorganisation has already been taking place right across the public sector - the private sector don't have a monopoly on quick & swift reform.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. I think it’s rich that the accepting such things as performance review shows how understanding the PS/CS has been. As I remember the unions were apoplectic at the time at the very thought of performance reviews. In fact I distinctly remember one official publically stating that it is unthinkable that a public servant would not be promoted if their review showed they were incompetent.

Every single attempt at reform has been met with the heaviest resistance, industrial action and threats of industrial action. To try and pretend that the PS calmly acquiesced to these (completely ineffective) measures is slight tinkering with history. It’s like the British claiming that they acquiesced to Ireland’s request to be Independent and skipping the rather big bit before that.


I do wonder where your economic theories come from. But first, why should the books be balanced by further taxes when it is all too clear that the PS is too expensive? Are you seriously suggesting that we hit people again for more tax just to support the cushie benchmarking scheme?

Second, increasing the taxes for everyone will have the exact impact it is falsely claimed redundancies in the public sector will have. Taxing everyone will hit retail and tax intake even harder. However, the a few thousand PS redundancies won’t. It’s a matter of scale, in your model we have 2 million people who already aren’t spending and already have no confidence as consumers (for example figures for retail this September are actually worse than last year, and last September is when it really went belly up). The idea that taking more money off them is going to bridge the gap wouldn’t even enter the head of a junior cert business studies class.

But the economic loss from PS redundancies is minimal and very quickly recouped not only in payroll savings but in a cut down in borrowing and therefore less debt.

That’s what we mean by the greater good.
 

Shawady, I agree and I don't think many wouldn't. But there is the issue of a larger reform that is need to give a better, efficient service for less. This can't be completely worked through natural wastage. But I agree that the bulk of the losses will naturally come from those at or near retirement age.

Do we have a couple of years? To be honest: yes. Given other aspects going on, such as a reduction in the Live Register, the actual savings needed before in the short term are less that previously thought. However, it is still the government's plan to eventually reduce the cost of the PS and so there will be a medium term look at how this can be achieved through retirements etc.
 

????? It would be more true to say that a lot of Eastern European countries have toyed with a flat rate tax and found it to be an overwhelming success - exceeding all their expectations.

A flat rate tax is progressive - remember its a %, so those who earn more DO pay more. I am not proposing a lump sum tax where every citizen is billed exactly the same amount.

As our minumum wage is more than 25% above the SW rates, it cannot be argued that taxing everyone at this rate would lead to some people not having enough to live on. Every worker, not matter how badly paid, would still take home more than someone on SW. As we all know, our SW rates are extremely generous.

A flat rate tax is the fairest way - hits everyone in direct proportion to their earnings. Doesnt penalise people for working harder. Is low enough that people are more willing to pay it. And is less complex to administer, thus saving the Government costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register