Who speaks for the taxpayer?

Gordon Gekko said:
So if a country is in hock and bankrupt, with the grippers coming up the garden path, the pay and conditions of new entrants to the public service shouldn’t be affected?
Click to expand...

Nope, new entrants should be paid the same rate, then all civil servants molly-coddled, allowed slack off all they want, permitted to ramp up the sick days, perhaps throw in a bit of work to rule or the odd strike, then given some concessions to appease them ... well, that's what quite a few civil servants seem to think anyway

Ireland desperately needs to unite it's private sector employees under one lobby group and show some real muscle, to help counteract the influence that public servants have over government. Until this is done, the madness will sadly continue imho.
 
I Agree the problem is the Lobby Group would be seen as left wing don't think any group setting up should be anti public service one there first job should be to require the Government to put a flood under pension entitlements linked to Grade 3 public servants ,
If you are looking For a lobby group to copy look no further than the farming lobby group they speak for all farmers big and small , Lots of posters would not get away with speaking for taxpayers because they already have shown there own self interest over the common good of all taxpayers,
You will find the people who agree with you will be the same people who will make sure it will never happen Reason self Interest,
 
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess said:
And I would argue that the hotel and restaurant sector should not have received this special treatment either.

The fact that spend money unwisely in some area does not mean that we should subsidise farmers.

Brendan
Click to expand...
It is easier to keep/grow the jobs we already had than create new jobs ,Who speaks for the people who would rather go out to Work on low wages rather than live off the taxpayer in a downturn,
 
Last edited:
Woodsman said:
A farmer doesnt need large expensive sheds to store plastic wrapped round silage bales. You can see stacks of them all around rural Ireland.
Click to expand...

Yes I see them every year.
I dont think these will provide for never-ending supplies either?
I think you would appreciate that every farmer has limited capacity to store these bales on their land also?

Woodsman said:
Farmers did this with hay in the past but perhaps they are gambling nowadays on getting by and if the worst happens, the tax payer will pay for imported fodder for them. Which takes us back to Brendans original post.
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself somewhat. If plastic silage bales are to be seen all around rural Ireland then it hardly suggests that farmers are taking a gamble on getting by?
It would suggest to me that farmers are actively preparing for the winter as normal.
In fact, considering the machinery used by farmers nowadays, I would suggest that farmers are generally better prepared than in the past.
Which brings us back to the issue of a fodder crisis. If there is slow growth in plantation, then it is hard to replenish existing stocks for the following year.
I do notice that yesterday and today appear to be milder, good for growth. If Spring has arrived, this issue will subside very quickly, leaving only the whingers to mope about 'their' taxes.
 
A particularly disingenuous article by Mr. O’Brien on teachers which totally ignores the fact that although 5000 new teachers have been recruited thousands more have retired ( apparently up to 80% of those who retired availed of early retirement )or opted out for employment elsewhere ,the fact that the number of applicants for teacher training courses continue to fall year on year , the fact that he bases teacher’s earnings solely on contact hours simply defies belief - he makes no reference whatsoever to preparatory work , correcting papers or extra curricular activities - lazy journalism or just nuancing the article to support his assertion ?

The reality is however that I feel the battle on equality of pay throughout the public sector is won , Minister Bruton has conceded that teachers have a “ justifiable “ demand for pay equality - FF & the Independent Alliance are firmly of the view that equality of pay must be restored so yes I do feel that it’s inevitable particularly as the money required is available.

What really must put the fear of God into Government is the fact that two teachers with the backing of the INTO have brought a case to the European Court of Justice on the issue of pay equality ( this issue was referred to the ECJ by the Labour Court ).

If the ECJ find in favour of the teachers is it feasible that we could be looking at the question of backdating pay ?
 
Deiseblue said:
I do feel that it’s inevitable particularly as the money required is available.
Click to expand...

But that is the whole point.

The money is not available.

You just want to tax people more to pay even higher salaries to teachers or to pay for fodder for farmers who haven't bothered to prepare for their own needs in advance.

We have €200 billion of borrowing which was used primarily to live well beyond our means. We can't do that forever.

Brendan
 
I would suggest that in order to meet this “ justifiable “ demand the 200 million euro required will be funded from the monies available from the next budget .
The same argument that funds were not available did not wash when the Gardai situation was resolved .
As I previously stated the fact that the Labour Court have referred the equality of pay matter to the European Court of Justice must be of huge concern to this Government particularly when they require the support of parties that have come out strongly in favour of such equality.
The negotiations on a new contract for GP’s is also going to be very interesting.
 
It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that the current State pension system is unsustainable.

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that most of the current level of State debt is due to paying for salaries and services which we can’t afford.

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that the State or the Government (as opposed to just “Government”) doesn’t have any money; it just spends our money.

It is amazing that so many people still don't realise that increases in pay means increases in taxes for other people or a reduction in services somewhere else.


The last time teachers got a pay increase it was paid for by cutting supports for children with special needs (or it coincidentally coincided with it). What should we cut to pay for this pay rise?


Trade Unions are a malignant cancer on this country. They represent the worst type of myopic selfishness. Thankfully there are those who reject that selfishness and put the greater good of society, including the needs of the poor vulnerable and marginalised, first.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Which is the point of the thread.

Why is there nobody campaigning on behalf of their employers for a bit of common sense here? Reduce the teachers' pay to what the market values them at.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Brendan I'm sure you know the answer to this already. Unions lobby the government on behalf of their paying members (the employees in your example above). We the people elect the employers. If you can think of a way to organise enough of "the people" who are of a like mind with yourself and also if you can get them to fund your lobbying then you might be on to a solution here.
So we have farmers who pay for a farming lobby group, hoteliers who pay for a hotel lobby group, teachers who pay for a teaching lobby group, etc.
What you are really asking is why is there no opposing lobby group. What you need to ask yourself is, who is going to fund this, who is going to organise it and what will their remit be. How will they decide which lobby groups to take on and why. Until/unless you can up with an answer to that we're stuck with the politicians trying to fill the gap.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
The money is not available.
Click to expand...

Because

Brendan Burgess said:
We have €200 billion of borrowing which was used primarily to live well beyond our means.
Click to expand...

6,000 million spent servicing the national debt in 2016. That's just paying the interest...not even reducing the balance.

[broken link removed]

That's the price of living beyond our means and it's coming home to roost now. Imagine what we could do with even a quarter of that money!!
 
Yea, but if we hasn't borrowed that money our economy would have shrunk more and the various issues we now face, including housing, would be far worse. Therefore we should have borrowed some of it but by no means all of it.
 

There’s always Renua
 

A good summary of the problem ok.



Brendan
 
Purple said:
Yea, but if we hasn't borrowed that money our economy would have shrunk more and the various issues we now face, including housing, would be far worse. Therefore we should have borrowed some of it but by no means all of it.
Click to expand...

I agree. But when so many big ticket items were left largely untouched, we probably borrowed far more than we should have.
 
It is perfectly reasonable not to pay new entrants the same as existing employees.

The terms and conditions of the latter date from a time when the State was awash with money.

That is no longer the case.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
It is perfectly reasonable not to pay new entrants the same as existing employees.

The terms and conditions of the latter date from a time when the State was awash with money.

That is no longer the case.
Click to expand...
Maybe guarantee that pay will be increased in relative terms to 2006 levels when the National Debt is down to 2006 levels again?
 
Purple said:
Maybe guarantee that pay will be increased in relative terms to 2006 levels when the National Debt is down to 2006 levels again?
Click to expand...

I don’t agree. Pay was at unsustainable levels in 2006; the post crisis levels of pay should be the norm, not an anomaly.
 
What’s required is real courage to deal with the systemic issues in the economy.

For example, use the current low interest rate environment to borrow at close to 0% with a view to offering existing public servants transfer values; this could form part of a broader plan to end the current defined benefit schemes. All public service defined benefit schemes should be shut down and converted to DC schemes with the State making generous employer contributions.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
For example, use the current low interest rate environment to borrow at close to 0% with a view to offering existing public servants transfer values....
Click to expand...

Flawed logic. Firstly, the current low interest rate environment would mean that such transfer value payments would need to be particularly high (i.e. inverse relationship between the current capital value of a future income stream and interest rates) and secondly the interest rate environment could well change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register