"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

Firefly said:
but we've all heard of farmers getting paid to keep their land in clover, about the wine lakes and butter mountains.
Click to expand...

This is the inefficiency I referred to earlier. But between food abundance or food shortages, I know which problem is more preferable to deal with.

Firefly said:
I doubt that CAP payments cover Pomegranite seeds or Quinoa,
Click to expand...

I don't know either.

Firefly said:
I've read Tim Harfords book called Adapt where he refers to the fact that an average Wallmart in the US has approx. 1m products. How in God's name can we possibly determine the fair price for these products without the market!
Click to expand...

Who said anything about getting rid of the market?
Any issues I raise about the market are to do with the notions that it is 'free' and that it always finds the fair price. This is delusional. There is widespread inefficiency, waste, duplication, rigging, interference, collusion, distortion in the markets that attempt to influence prices to maximize profits to the detriment of the consumer.
 
Firefly said:
Genuinely, I would love to hear your socialist ideas in more detail, outlining how they could be implemented, how they would better our people and in all the time we've been on this planet where it has been successfully implemented in the past.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

The provision of Social welfare, social housing, access to education and healthcare for all etc all originate from socialist ideology.
They are quite common across the developed world, and in the absence of dictators.
 

In a free market inefficiency, waste & duplication would be weeded out if rigging, interference, collusion & distortion weren't left happen. I believe the freer the market the better off the consumer is. It's interesting to see how China has transformed itself since it opened up and whilst the Trumps and Mays of this world are championing isolationist ideals, China is promoting globalisation.



I agree central planning is a lot more left of the welfare state and I am glad you are a proponant of the latter as I thought all of the loons that believed in the former had seen the light at this stage!

For what it's worth, I think the government should provide basic services to all and act as a fail-safe to those in times of trouble or who are unfit to work. Sadly I think the welfare state would end up killing work ethic and create an ever-burgeoning administration (think the HSE on stereoids). Fair enough for very rich countries with large oil & gas reserves, but for a small, open economy like ours it would simply doom us to poverty
 
Firefly said:
In a free market inefficiency, waste & duplication would be weeded out if rigging, interference, collusion & distortion weren't left happen.
Click to expand...

And can you point to examples of such a free market economy?
Is Ireland a free market economy? Is the housing sector a free market economy? The motor Industry? Insurance industry? Energy sector? Communication sector? Food sector? Tourism sector? Transport? Education? Retail sector? Banking sector?

Has all inefficiency and waste been eradicated and weeded out now, or ever, as a consequence of the free market?
 

Sadly, in it's purest sense I can't. I think from the schoolyard to the boardroom it's human nature to protect what's ours and so collusion is inevitable. However that's not an arguement not to try to free up as many markets as we can. Examples where freer markets have helped the consumer would include air travel, bus travel, telecomms, healthcare, energy and others no doubt.
 
Firefly said:
Sadly, in it's purest sense I can't. I think from the schoolyard to the boardroom it's human nature to protect what's ours and so collusion is inevitable.
Click to expand...

So, if collusion is inevitable, a consequence of human nature to protect what we have. Why aspire for a free market?
You can find free market economies in lots of places. Good examples are market days in less developed economies. There, it is first come first served, the highest bidder, no refunds, no consumer protections, no health & safety standards, no licensing, no regulation - totally free.
Of course such freedom is the source of conflict and tension between buyer and seller, given human nature that is inevitable.

So you have cited examples of 'freer' markets, that is, not wholly state controlled but subjected to state regulations all the same.
While the welfare state is primarily directed at the poor. The regulatory state (for want of a better phrase) is primarily directed at providing high standards and quality produce and services.
 
TheBigShort said:
So, if collusion is inevitable, a consequence of human nature to protect what we have. Why aspire for a free market?
Click to expand...

Although a truely free market might never be achievable, the freer the market the better as per the examples I have given. I remember the shambles that was the taxi industry here before de-regulation came in. It has been great for consumers since. MyTaxi has shaken up the taxi providers to no end too. Now it's a doddle to get a taxi. If the drivers were to be listened to we'd all still be waiting forever for a cab.


Using your phrase, I would much prefer the government to restrict itself to regulatory control than provide services that can be provided at a lower cost by the private market. An Post's offering to compete against Parcel Motel comes to mind. They take a slick offering and provide a chunky, restrictive offerring...madness. There are times when private companies won't enter a particular market and I am all for the state stepping here. In fact if the state did not try to spread itself so thinly it would be much better financed to provide these services.
 
I agree with you on this. The "Free Market" is an artificial construct and only maintained by State intervention. That State created free market is a good thing. The State creates a regulatory environment in which sellers and buyers can operate. The problem for me is where the State is the monopoly and that monopoly abuses its position to the detriment of the citizen. That occurs when the monopoly is grossly overpaying its staff and that cost it passed on to the consumer (the average wage in the ESB, including the value of pensions, is over €100,000 a year), or when the monopoly or market domination institution is grossly inefficient and so provides sub-standard services. The public health system is a good example here and the inadequacy of the regulation of the private healthcare system should also be noted.


TheBigShort said:
So you have cited examples of 'freer' markets, that is, not wholly state controlled but subjected to state regulations all the same.
Click to expand...
Exactly; the State should regulate but not run. Other than the services provided by the Civil Service and primary and secondary education I cannot think of any service which the State should provide. There are plenty that it should fund and even more that it should regulate but not that it should run.


TheBigShort said:
While the welfare state is primarily directed at the poor. The regulatory state (for want of a better phrase) is primarily directed at providing high standards and quality produce and services.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That it where State resourced should be targeted.

I am sick of the State (i.e. the people) coming out second best just about every time the State interacts with the Private Sector.
 
Purple said:
The problem for me is where the State is the monopoly and that monopoly abuses its position to the detriment of the citizen.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. Ditto where private corporations hold monopoly positions to the detriment of consumers.

Purple said:
That occurs when the monopoly is grossly overpaying its staff and that cost it passed on to the consumer (the average wage in the ESB, including the value of pensions, is over €100,000 a year),
Click to expand...

This is broad sweeping statement. I'm not sure what the wages are or the hours of work. But considering that the electricity network is of vital strategic importance to the economy as a whole and that the maintenance and delivery of that service is of high standard, I would expect the people who work there to be duly rewarded.
I certainly wouldn't like a situation where employees of a vital national strategic asset were being underpaid. Leading to poor services, threats of strikes etc. The impact on FDI for instance would be hugely detrimental to the country.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, that is true. Ditto where private corporations hold monopoly positions to the detriment of consumers.
Click to expand...
I agree.



The ESB's has done a good job in reducing its payroll costs but from a very high base. The average wage is still nearly twice as high as their UK counterpart. Given that payroll costs account for half their operating costs if they were paid only 50% more than their UK counterparts the cost of electricity could be lowered or the dividend to the State could be increased. I'm surprised that a left-leaning person such as yourself is happy to see a monopoly funding high paid employees by sucking up resources which could be used to tackle homelessness.
Then again there are 3000 employees in Irish Water which Irish Water said they don't have a job for. They cost the people of Ireland €140,000,000 a year in payroll costs (coincidentally about the same cost as fixing the A&E crisis). They will probably be sent back to the local authorities to such up State funds there.
Why do Unions insist that we keep people employed who have no real job, thus sucking up tax payers money which could be used to help those who truly need help?
Why are those on the left happy to see resourced which should go to the poor go instead to middle to high earners who have no real job?
Why is any of that okay?

I agree with much of where you would like to see the country going but with respect you are missing the point. As long as we have a big hole in the bucket there is little point putting more and more water into it. We raise more than enough money in taxes but we waste a staggering amount of it through inefficient systems and processes and duplication of services, not through the cliche of lazy Public Servants; You can work you ass off in an inefficient system and you will still be inefficient.
 
Purple the answer is weak government. We never had a strong Government to test how strong or weak Unions really are . Lots of Unions members Would not support there leaders if the government pointed out the long term harm some of there actions caused .governments reward Union Leaders with soft Jobs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Purple said:
The average wage is still nearly twice as high as their UK counterpart.
Click to expand...

And the assumption is that lower wages are a good thing?
As I've said, I don't know the wages or hours worked, so average comparisons are somewhat redundant. For instance, perhaps in the UK there are on average two people employed to do a job whereas in Ireland there is one? Taking into account the application of the high rate of tax on income at a much earlier point here may have something to do with wage pressure here?
I suspect that there are numerous variables to consider when determining wages, including, are the UK employees underpaid?

Purple said:
if they were paid only 50% more than their UK counterparts the cost of electricity could be lowered or the dividend to the State could be increased.
Click to expand...

Again, you could apply the concept of cutting wages across the entire public sector. You could also apply it across the entire private sector. That is called a race to the bottom. That is not a good thing.

Purple said:
I'm surprised that a left-leaning person such as yourself is happy to see a monopoly funding high paid employees by sucking up resources which could be used to tackle homelessness.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence, or very little evidence, that additional resources would ever be used to help the homeless. Compare the resources used to keep private banks afloat against the resources used to help the homeless.
One of the factors of homelessness is the inability to pay for a home. This could be a result of a job loss, or result from a 50% drop in income as you suggested.

Purple said:
Why do Unions insist that we keep people employed who have no real job, thus sucking up tax payers money which could be used to help those who truly need help?
Click to expand...

Again it is a broad sweeping statement. Firstly, unions do not hire and fire, employers and management do. So you should really be asking why are management trying to lay off these worker's? The unions are mandated to protect their members interests. If they do that, they are doing a good job. It's management's role to protect the interests of the shareholders, in this instance the State.

Purple said:
Why are those on the left happy to see resourced which should go to the poor go instead to middle to high earners who have no real job?
Click to expand...

Making 3,000 people redundant, is to effectively make them poor. They will be reliant on social protections, job seekers, rent supplement, etc.
I don't know all the in's and outs of the situation at Irish Water, but I suspect that a long-term winding down of the commercial side of Irish Water will be implemented. This is preferable than dumping on people, some of who made plans with mortgages etc on the fair assumption that they had a steady career ahead of them.
 

Are you advocating a reduction in marginal tax rates on average to high earners in order to reduce wage pressures? If so; good idea!




TheBigShort said:
Again, you could apply the concept of cutting wages across the entire public sector. You could also apply it across the entire private sector. That is called a race to the bottom. That is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
I hate the term "race to the bottom". It is a lazy phrase used by the cossetted and coddled in order to justify the truly poor of this world getting their day in the sun. When we took jobs from people in America nobody complained but now that those jobs are going to Southeast Asia suddenly it is a race to the bottom. What we should be saying is that everyone deserved the same opportunities we have. The same applies in the semi-State and Public Sectors.

Anyway, I am not advocating pay cuts across the State sector. We should strive for an efficient Public Sector. It is far easier and more productive to engineer out costs than to squeeze margins. Let's look at productivity; fewer people providing the same services by only carrying out value added activities.



TheBigShort said:
There is no evidence, or very little evidence, that additional resources would ever be used to help the homeless.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t. I am surprised by your defeatist attitude.

TheBigShort said:
Compare the resources used to keep private banks afloat against the resources used to help the homeless.
Click to expand...
So what?

TheBigShort said:
One of the factors of homelessness is the inability to pay for a home. This could be a result of a job loss, or result from a 50% drop in income as you suggested.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that giving everyone a pay rise would reduce the homelessness problem? (Here’s a hint; “look up supply and demand”)



Unions prevent management from firing people and prevent mobility of labour which causes inefficiency and duplication of processes and well as inefficient employment structures which cost vast amounts of money to administer. Are you suggesting that weakening Unions is a good thing from the prospect of the National interest? If so I strongly agree. Weaker Unions = less homelessness and fewer people dying on trolleys.





Do you think the State should just employ everyone, even if they have no gainful job for them to do? Or do you think that the State should spend its resources providing essential services in the most efficient way possible? You can’t have it both ways.
 
TheBigShort said:
Making 3,000 people redundant, is to effectively make them poor. They will be reliant on social protections, job seekers, rent supplement, etc.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are suggesting they are unemployable!


That's the way of the world in the private sector - companies close down / relocate / expand all the time and people move on - why should it be different at Irish Water? Again, if the staff had marketable skills they could quite easily have a steady career ahead of them!
 
Irish water workers either directly employed or seconded under service level agreements from local authorities cannot be made redundant other than on a voluntary basis.
Compulsory redundancies were precluded under the Croke Park Agreement as a quid pro quo to ensure industrial peace.
Natural attrition has reduced staffing levels in Irish Water in recent years ( apparently the average age of those recruited from local authorities is over 50 ) & will continue to do as will a long mooted voluntary redundancy programme.
 
Thanks Deise, for highlighting the restrictive work practices and labour inflexibility which ensures we waste billions each year which would be better spent on essential services for the sick, old and vulnerable. The Unions which negotiated that agreement serve the well-off to the detriment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular. Shame on them and those who support them.
 
Can anyone show me where it was the Unions Who propose this It was the government of the day that came up with this proposal.
 
JJM , of course it was the Government who initiated this - they realised that to get the Croke Park Agreement across the line they had to offer certain guarantees .
The same applied to Irish Water - the service level agreements were initiated by the company.
Jeez , you'd swear that Unions were the only party involved in binding Agreements.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
Are you advocating a reduction in marginal tax rates on average to high earners in order to reduce wage pressures? If so; good idea!
Click to expand...

Not in isolation. An increase in CT to fill the void in public finances would be a fair trade off.

Purple said:
I hate the term "race to the bottom".
Click to expand...
I like it. It exposes the true nature of the capitalist system we live in. The narrow vision of maximising profits regardless of the social consequences.

Purple said:
When we took jobs from people in America nobody complained
Click to expand...

American worker's did / are complaining. Now we are complaining, others will too. The race to the bottom is a recipe for conflict and tension.

Purple said:
There is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t. I am surprised by your defeatist attitude.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence. See bailouts for BoI, AIB, Irish Permanent etc. Compare with bailouts for homeless people.

Purple said:
So what?
Click to expand...

It's evidence that available resources will not necessarily be used to help homelessness or vulnerable in society.

Purple said:
Are you suggesting that giving everyone a pay rise would reduce the homelessness problem? (Here’s a hint; “look up supply and demand”)
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting that your suggestion of a 50% pay cut for ESB worker's may be somewhat flawed.

Purple said:
Weaker Unions = less homelessness and fewer people dying on trolleys.
Click to expand...

Trade Union membership has been in decline for decades. Homelessness and hospital waiting lists are increasing. There is no correlation.

Purple said:
Do you think the State should just employ everyone, even if they have no gainful job for them to do?
Click to expand...

No. You referenced 3,000 jobs at Irish Water with nothing to do. As far as I know, Irish Water is still a functioning entity with a hugely significant role to play in managing the infrastructure of water in this country.
I suggested that the commercial side of Irish Water may be somewhat redundant. I suggested an orderly winding down as preferable to pushing people out en masse.

Firefly said:
That's the way of the world in the private sector
Click to expand...

Firefly said:
why should it be different at Irish Water?
Click to expand...

For one, it's not in the private sector.

Purple said:
The Unions which negotiated that agreement serve the well-off to the detriment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular.
Click to expand...

They serve their members to the empowerment of society in general and the most vulnerable in particular. Credit to all those who are members and those who support them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register