The Irish Times doesn't know what Neoliberalism means

[Purple]

Presumably you must think that all UK parties are lefty wing because they believe in free GP care?

I don't care what UK Parties do or are; I don't live in the UK. The Tories have plenty of right wing policies as well. I think their taxes on nigh earners are too low.

The effect of this policy is to decrease taxation with the greatest decreases in taxation going to above average earners and also going to the highest earners. Do you really not think that tax cuts for people earning over 200k per year is a Centre Right policy?

A tax cut for someone on a low income also benefits those on a higher income. The tax cut FG proposed does not benefit someone on €200k a year any more than someone on €50k a year. A decrease in the rate would but that's not what they are proposing.
The British Labour Party supports the current tax bands in the UK, bands which place a lower tax burden on those on higher income than the FG policy would here. Do you think that the British Labour Party is right wing?

Anyway I've come to the conclusion that you must simply be either on the far right or delusional to think that:

And you are perfectly entitled to do so. It's a free country after all.

 

[Leo]

Do you really not think that tax cuts for people earning over 200k per year is a Centre Right policy?

Now that would be centre right, but who has introduced a tax cut for those earning more than 200k?

The Centre Left WIki definition pretty much sums up our whole political system.

 

[Baby boomer]

More Shinner sycophantery from Una in todays Irish Times.
It's like reading the Daily Telegraph's opinions on the UK Tory's. I hope Una's on a retainer from the Boys in Belfast.

The article is quite hilarious. Could have come direct from Shinner HQ. Obviously SF strategy is to love bomb (ahem) the lower ranks of the public service while intimidating / disempowering the higher ranks. Something potentially very sinister there.....

 

[Purple]

The article is quite hilarious. Could have come direct from Shinner HQ. Obviously SF strategy is to love bomb (ahem) the lower ranks of the public service while intimidating / disempowering the higher ranks. Something potentially very sinister there.....

They seem to be lumping them in with the 'rich'.
What's the Shinner version of "Four legs good, two legs bad"?

 

[Carnmore]

That's risible-if they were in any way neoliberal they'd be edging towards dissolution of the public sector unions so the public service could be made fit for purpose

 

[RetirementPlan]

That's risible-if they were in any way neoliberal they'd be edging towards dissolution of the public sector unions so the public service could be made fit for purpose

I think that's more Putin level of neo-liberal that you're thinking of there, Or Kim Jong-un level maybe.

 

[Carnmore]

I think that's more Putin level of neo-liberal that you're thinking of there, Or Kim Jong-un level maybe.

We're heading towards those leader's countries level of service due to the pernicious actions of the unions

 

[Purple]

We're heading towards those leader's countries level of service due to the pernicious actions of the unions

I don't think Unions are as bolshy as they were a few decades ago. The real problem is that when it comes to the State Sector the people on both sides of the table are in Unions.

 

[Carnmore]

I don't think Unions are as bolshy as they were a few decades ago. The real problem is that when it comes to the State Sector the people on both sides of the table are in Unions.

They don't need to be as no government has or will take them on.

Do you mean the public sector officials seeking changes are also in a union?

 

[Purple]

They don't need to be as no government has or will take them on.

True, mostly.

Do you mean the public sector officials seeking changes are also in a union?

Yes.

 

[Carnmore]

Making public sector employees meet the full actuarial contribution cost of their defined benefit superannuation, rather than a small percentage with the taxpayer funding the majority, would soon test the Unions' lack of bolshiness.

 

[RetirementPlan]

Making public sector employees meet the full actuarial contribution cost of their defined benefit superannuation, rather than a small percentage with the taxpayer funding the majority, would soon test the Unions' lack of bolshiness.

You are aware of the changes brought in with the Single Pension Scheme in 2013, right? And of the additional costs imposed earlier as the PRD, now ASC, right?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that public servants accepted an overall remuneration package including salary and pension. Why would you think that an employer could randomly change one key aspect of remuneration? In broad terms, many public servants accepted lower salaries than they could get elsewhere, with the upside of the DB pension scheme compensating.

You might want to take a trip to North Korea something to help you to understand what you're talking about.

 

[Purple]

You are aware of the changes brought in with the Single Pension Scheme in 2013, right? And of the additional costs imposed earlier as the PRD, now ASC, right?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that public servants accepted an overall remuneration package including salary and pension. Why would you think that an employer could randomly change one key aspect of remuneration? In broad terms, many public servants accepted lower salaries than they could get elsewhere, with the upside of the DB pension scheme compensating.

I agree with this but,

You might want to take a trip to North Korea something to help you to understand what you're talking about.

That's more than a bit over the top. Oh, and it was the Unions and their whiskered Brethren who loved North Korea not so long ago, not the evil capitalist pigs.

 

[RetirementPlan]

I agree with this but,

That's more than a bit over the top. Oh, and it was the Unions and their whickered Brethren who loved North Korea not so long ago, not the evil capitalist pigs.

Just to be clear, that was in response to this post. Oh, and most recently, wasn't it uber-capitalist Trump was was love-bombing North Korea, rather than the Irish trade unions?

 

[Purple]

Just to be clear, that was in response to this post. Oh, and most recently, wasn't it uber-capitalist Trump was was love-bombing North Korea, rather than the Irish trade unions?

I agree that Trump and the Trade Unions are suitable bedfellows in that they have a warped sense of reality, attack the man rather than the ball, think they are perfect, are very divisive, damage broader society and hurt the people they claim to represent.

 

[Baby boomer]

I agree that Trump and the Trade Unions are suitable bedfellows in that they have a warped sense of reality, attack the man rather than the ball, think they are perfect, are very divisive, damage broader society and hurt the people they claim to represent.

Would you say trade unions are any different to other sectional interest groups in terms of their intent to advance and protect their members interests? I'm thinking IFA, Law Society, CIF, IBEC, ISME etc. And also in fairness the quangos (rather than membership organisations) who advocate for homeless, refugees, migrants, tenants, the poor and so on.

 

[Purple]

Would you say trade unions are any different to other sectional interest groups in terms of their intent to advance and protect their members interests? I'm thinking IFA, Law Society, CIF, IBEC, ISME etc. And also in fairness the quangos (rather than membership organisations) who advocate for homeless, refugees, migrants, tenants, the poor and so on.

The sectoral interest groups are the same as Trade Unions. The advocacy groups less so in that they are generally not advocate for themselves, though many within the homeless industry are certainly more interested in making political points and generally politicising the issues than actually finding solutions. They are driven more by ideology than results.

 

[Baby boomer]

The sectoral interest groups are the same as Trade Unions. The advocacy groups less so in that they are generally not advocate for themselves, though many within the homeless industry are certainly more interested in making political points and generally politicising the issues than actually finding solutions. They are driven more by ideology than results.

Yeah, I'd broadly agree. However, I think that any democratic civil society can and must allow sectoral interest groups to function freely. You will find that regimes that crack down on trade unions don't stop there and quickly crack down on everyone else too!

The advocacy groups are a peculiar animal. They largely exist on public money and grants of one sort or another. They are basically paid by the taxpayer to advocate for even greater taxpayer spending on their chosen cause! Not a great bargain for said taxpayers!

 

[Carnmore]

You are aware of the changes brought in with the Single Pension Scheme in 2013, right? And of the additional costs imposed earlier as the PRD, now ASC, right?

Yes, I am aware that public servants contribute slightly more towards their own superannuation than they did prior to the introduction of the PRD/ASC hence stating "meet the full actuarial contribution cost".

You seem to be ignoring the fact that public servants accepted an overall remuneration package including salary and pension. Why would you think that an employer could randomly change one key aspect of remuneration?

Because it's placing an unsustainable burden on the public finances and depriving much-needed funds from public services. The successive reforms for new entrants are still unsustainable and inequitable for the taxpayer; the term "pension" is a misnomer as it's actually just reduced pay and suggests there's a pension fund when it's just paid out of day-to-day taxation.
There should be a choice of two schemes, either Defined Benefit, with the full cost met by the eventual recipient, or a Defined Contribution pension scheme.

In broad terms, many public servants accepted lower salaries than they could get elsewhere, with the upside of the DB pension scheme compensating.

That was the nonsensical argument made for the benchmarking abomination when there was no "elsewhere" equivalent for many of the jobs. Regardless, no private-sector remuneration package could match the lack of accountability, virtually nonexistent prospect of dismissal, immunity from redundancy and Unionised cosseting of the public service employees and public service salaries used to reflect this until benchmarking when they overtook any tenuously comparable private-sector equivalent.

You might want to take a trip to North Korea something to help you to understand what you're talking about.

The public sector unions are doing just that without me having to leave home, thanks all the same.

 

[Purple]

In broad terms, many public servants accepted lower salaries than they could get elsewhere

That's just not true for the vast majority of public servants. At the top end it is true and I'd support significant pay rises for senior Civil Servants in particular, but mid to low ranking public servants are paid more than their private sector counterparts.