Who speaks for the taxpayer?

I didn't realise that you were the topic police. In general I disagree with the idea of the State funding businesses and I disagree with the State increasing the pay of those who enjoy the highest hourly rate in the Public sector while we have so many other real problems to deal with. So, specifically, farmers should make their own provision for things that they know will happen and teachers are more than capable of leveling the pay gap (almost) painlessly without yet again putting their hands into the pockets of people who get paid far less than them for each hour they work.




You (deliberately?) misrepresented one of the substantial points made in the article and then constructed a false argument based on it. I called you out on it. You have still failed to respond.
 
If the teachers get their back pay what State services should be cut to pay for it?
If you don't want to cut State services then who should pay the extra tax to fund it?
 
Purple said:
Yes, they should do it by suspending increments for all teachers on the higher rates and using that money to increase pay levels for those on lower rates until everyone is on the same rate. Then, and only then, should increments be re-introduced.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this drive for higher pay for the newer teachers last night. I was thinking it was noble that the older teachers were fighting for this and was thinking, well fair play, their conscience finally caught up with them. Then however I had another thought.....the older teachers couldn't possibly expect a pay rise until those newer teachers got "equal" pay first
 
I was thinking similarly devious.
This came in nearly a decade ago. So I'm sure there have been X amount of new teachers and Y amount of older teachers retiring.
So the percentage affected has probably risen to a large enough number for the unions to care about them. When it was very few, they were happy to shaft them for the majority. Now in a few years they will be the majority.
 
Purple said:
I didn't realise that you were the topic police.
Click to expand...

No policing about it all, it would just nice to get your views on the issue raised of "Who speaks for taxpayers" in the OP before branching off.


That’s lovely to know, any chance you could address the OP issue raised, and the points raised within? Like the inferred claim that taxpayers (or at least some unidentified cohort) are voiceless? Or that teachers are already very highly paid?

Purple said:
You (deliberately?) misrepresented one of the substantial points made in the article and then constructed a false argument based on it. I called you out on it. You have still failed to respond.
Click to expand...

If you feel I deliberately misrespresented then you are incorrect. My comment that you quoted was derived at an inference from the article and subsequent post.

Im happy to accept that teachers are not the highest paid workers in the country, this is evident from the pay scales that I subsequently posted, responding to your point raised.
The underlying point however, which reverts back to the topic discussion, is that teachers (and farmers) are taxpayers. In the case of teachers, those earning the salaries listed on the payscale pay tax at the marginal rates like everyone else on those rates of pay. They are taxpayers, they are entitled to be heard, they are entitled to have whomever they choose speak for them.

They are taxpayers who have a voice. Do you agree?

Purple said:
If the teachers get their back pay what State services should be cut to pay for it?
If you don't want to cut State services then who should pay the extra tax to fund it?
Click to expand...

You are jumping way, way ahead of yourself. There has been no judgement, as yet. But if there was, today, Im sure there is a myriad of ways to raise taxes without (almost) any pain for those affected.

For instance, you have suggested that teachers on older higher pay scales could (without almost any pain) could level that pay gap by themselves. This may, or may not be true, but if it is, then to reduce that bit of pain even further, to almost negligible pain, everyone on marginal rates of tax shared the burden between them. If teachers on pay rates between €34,500 and €61,500 can (without almost any pain) endure a reduced income, then surely everyone on pay rates from €34,500 upwards could endure an even tinier proportion of pain between them?

After all, as the article says “…international comparisons show Irish educational outcomes are in the top 20 or better. This success can be attributed in large measure to the quality of Irish teachers and their commitment to the children in their charge…”.

I'm not advocating that, as there has been no judgement as yet, I'm just showing you how such a pay rise could be paid for little (if any) pain.
 
TheBigShort said:
No policing about it all, it would just nice to get your views on the issue raised of "Who speaks for taxpayers" in the OP before branching off.
Click to expand...
The taxpayers, in the context of this thread, are those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest with its snout in the trough. In that context they are voiceless, burdened under the yoke of parasitic self interest groups intent on, and content to, bleed them dry.
 
TheBigShort said:
Im happy to accept that teachers are not the highest paid workers in the country, this is evident from the pay scales that I subsequently posted, responding to your point raised.
Click to expand...
Excellent. I take it that you are also happy to accept that they enjoy a very high hourly wage, as outlined in article in question, although in my opinion it was overstated.
TheBigShort said:
This may, or may not be true, but if it is, then to reduce that bit of pain even further, to almost negligible pain, everyone on marginal rates of tax shared the burden between them
Click to expand...
Can you distinguish between not getting a pay increase and taking a pay cut? Do you see the difference?
TheBigShort said:
I'm not advocating that, as there has been no judgement as yet, I'm just showing you how such a pay rise could be paid for little (if any) pain.
Click to expand...
And then the nurses, then the doctors, then the civil service unions, then the gardai again, then the semi-states etc etc etc... sure just give everyone what they want, what harm could come of it?
 

Can you identify them? I'm guessing that would be you, Brendan, and perhaps a motley crew of AAM posters? You guys should organize!
 
Purple said:
Excellent. I take it that you are also happy to accept that they enjoy a very high hourly wage, as outlined in article in question, although in my opinion it was overstated.
Click to expand...

From the get-go, from the article and from the OP, it was inferred that teachers are very highly paid and enjoy a high hourly rate of pay. I have never disputed this. Merely pointing out that those teachers on those salaries pay taxes.

Purple said:
Can you distinguish between not getting a pay increase and taking a pay cut? Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

You are deliberately ignoring the issue of the pay claim. It is a claim based on one of equality. Everyone of us could forgoe pay rises and help reduce the cost of living in the State, we could all pay more taxes - but in reality, working people generally tend to look for pay increases where they can, they tend to look at ways to minimize tax liabilities. You seem to think that teachers, and public servants in general, should be different?

I'm not advocating for or against a pay rise - the teachers are advocating for a pay rise on the basis of equality. Yourself, Brendan and the motley crew of AAM posters are advocating against such a pay rise on the basis of equality. You should organize.
If not, the decision to award, or not, a pay rise to teachers on the basis of equality could be decided by the ECJ - not government!

Purple said:
And then the nurses, then the doctors, then the civil service unions, then the gardai again, then the semi-states etc etc etc... sure just give everyone what they want, what harm could come of it?
Click to expand...

And true to form, you are lumping all public servants in together even though the pay claim at hand is an issue for teachers only.
Typically, you bemoan the lack of representation of "those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest", but when tax paying members of the public are represented you bemoan that too.

Some people just want their views to be represented at the top table of government, but they are too scabby to pay anyone to represent their views for them. That is it basically in a nutshell, pay less tax, pay no fees, and to have the final say on everything.
 
TheBigShort said:
Can you identify them? I'm guessing that would be you, Brendan, and perhaps a motley crew of AAM posters? You guys should organize!
Click to expand...

Well - allow me to have a go please TBS.

It has been said in these parts and elsewhere that a very high percentage of (income) tax is paid by a small percentage of the taxpayers. So when we talk about the "taxpayer" let's consider those who really pay a lot of tax. This cohort of disproportionate contributors is, by definition, made up of the high earners - who as has been pointed out to you - are not represented by a vested interest group with its snout in the trough. These unfortunate bearers of such unfair tax burdens are indeed the voiceless in all of this.

"For example" may indeed not be proof - nonetheless let me give you one or two examples of very high earners and it should be obvious how poorly represented, almost marginalised, such people are. Think senior counsel, medical consultants, etc.

Brendan is right......there's no one speaking for these downtrodden folk and it's got to stop.
 
TheBigShort said:
Typically, you bemoan the lack of representation of "those tax paying members of the public who are not represented by a vested interest",
Click to expand...
I didn't bemoan it. I just point it out. I'm a democrat and so believe that the country should be run by the government with each citizen having an equal voice in the formation of that government and how it acts. I don't like rich media moguls, farmers groups, employers groups, property developers, unions (trade or professional), or any other vested interest group having the informal or formal ear of our leaders. I see no difference between SIPTU and the Construction Industry Federation or anyone else in that context. They are all just vested interest groups who are willing to damage the national interest for narrow sectoral and personal gain and they undermine the integrity of democracy.
 
Some people want an even playing field because they are democrats and aren't looking for leverage in order to gain an advantage at the expense of their fellow citizens. I believe in quality and a just society which doesn't exploit the poor and marginalised. That's why I could never join a trade union or a socialist party.
 
Here is a list of statistics showing the number of representations various lobbying groups have made to government over a set period.

https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/se...byistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

IBEC tops the list with 903. Followed by IFA with 681 representations. ICTU made 148.

Regardless of all that, the list is extremely broad ranging and diverse, representing at some point practically ever sector of society, including Birdwatch Ireland, Foróige, Google Ireland Ltd, Friends of the Earth, Pieta Hse, Down Syndrome Ireland, Diageo Ireland, Coillte, Dublin City Bus Improvement, Sky Ireland, Toyota Ireland, Childhood Development Initiative, GOAL, Marie Keating Foundation, Community Law & Meditation, Philip Morris Ltd, Irish Girl Guides etc....etc...etc...

The list is almost endless.

But what all of these organizations have in common is that they have organized themselves in order to have their views represented at government level. For many of these organisations, they will have paid representation that requires its members to put their hand in their pocket.

My suggestion here is that for those who feel aggrieved about a lack of representation to organise themselves, either individually or into a grouping with their collective self-interests and register themselves as a lobby group. I don’t think it costs any money but it may cost some money if you want paid representation.

But either way or or, this is the system that we are all beholden too. If people feel their views are not represented, who are perfectly capable of presenting those views, then that is what they should do instead of constantly moaning on the sidelines.
 
TheBigShort said:
But what all of these organizations have in common is that they have organized themselves in order to have their views represented at government level.
Click to expand...
Sure, but only the unions can put a gun to the governments head in the form of threatening strike action.
I agree. That's not an option for those who feel such bodied undermine the democratic process, especially those bodies who are in a position to hold the people of Ireland to ransom, thereby being able to he heard loudest and effectively vetoing government policy
So if you don't like other people engaging in intimidation, bullying and blackmail you should just go ahead and do the same thing yourself?

.
 
Purple said:
I'm a democrat and so believe that the country should be run by the government with each citizen having an equal voice in the formation of that government and how it acts.
Click to expand...


This is just some airy-fairy ideological nonsense that is devoid of any real practical reality of how the world actually works.

How on earth, are views supposed to presented to government if each and everyone of us has to have the right to be heard by the government minister or at least the decision makers at the top of government departments? How on earth could this concept feasibly work? It couldn’t, that is why we have the system we have now.


Purple said:
They are all just vested interest groups who are willing to damage the national interest for narrow sectoral and personal gain and they undermine the integrity of democracy.
Click to expand...

That is just your opinion. To show how useless and devoid of any reality it is I will offer an alternative opinion;

"I see no difference between SIPTU and the Construction Industry Federation or anyone else in that context. They are all just vested interest groups who are willing to promote the national interest for broad sectoral interests and they enhance the integrity of democracy."

So between your opinion and the opinion above, if in a democracy the are the only two opinions offered, which carries more weight?
 
Purple said:
Sure, but only the unions can put a gun to the governments head in the form of threatening strike action.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, this is just your opinion - I disagree entirely, it is devoid of reality . Whose opinion should count most, in a democracy, between both our opinions?


Just to emphasis the point, having a particular feeling about something does not make you right. Its an opinion, no greater or less than everybody else's opinion.

Purple said:
So if you don't like other people engaging in intimidation, bullying and blackmail you should just go ahead and do the same thing yourself?
Click to expand...

I do, I am member of a trade union that I pay to have my views represented. I also cast a vote at election times, I am also a member of a sports club that holds an AGM each year in which I am able to cast my view by way of a vote with regard to the issues concerning that club. I am also a member of a local residential organistion and ditto I can attend an AGM to have my views represented.
I'm capable of understanding that my views are not always represented, that there are other people with other interests and views, and that it is up to me to persuade others , if I can, to support my views. I also appreciate that I will not achieve any of this by being a hurler in the ditch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register