LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksStill trying to figure out how this economic model will work.Originally Posted by sarahj
Will we still need everything that is consumed in the country now? Will we produce everything we need or will we import some things?
Still trying to figure out how this economic model will work.
Will we still need everything that is consumed in the country now? Will we produce everything we need or will we import some things?
Bench marking was therefore a lie. Thats what is frightening.
Its main premise was to bring P.S. wage up too private sector pay. But the graph illustrates that public sector wage was already higher.
Can we have bench marking back?
It's main premise had nothing to do with average wage rates in the public or private sector. It was job-by-job comparison.
On the basis of that graph, it would seem that benchmarking was the only thing keeping wage growth in the public sector even close to that of the private sector.
Nothing will motivate the lazy / apathetic / Americanised / west-British types to embrace their culture and the Irish language.
No. AVERAGE PS pay is lower than private sector pay.
But that's only wages levels and doesn't include the figures that bosses/shareholdres were making! THOSE are the important figures to look at!
Bear in mind a teacher only works about 8 months a year (much shorter than UK).
Remember the defined benefit pension they all get - a garda pension is worth about a million quid
Remember that they have, up to now, a guaranteed job,
remember it is rare that they work overtime for no pay
Remember that they USED to work overtime with no pay - until they went on strike, something the private sector workers could have done and could still do.
Remember that their jobs are not guaranteed at all and those who qualify now have NO guaranteed job.
Remember that some public servants are on defined contribution.
Remember that many teachers end up with work related diseases because of the tough conditions they endure during those 8 monts.
Two great condensed versions of the report now available.
One from Karl Deeter and another by Ronan Lyons.
Follow Politics.ie on twitter:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cheers!
Name one disease that they get, in those monts?
Some people have suggested means testing child benefit, reinstating 3rd level fees on a means-tested basis, etc.
This misses the point that the means-testing is awkward to work out boundaries for (and allowing for various situations) and most importantly *COSTS MONEY* in administration (i.e. *CIVIL SERVANTS*).
If you want that bit of money from higher earners, simply roughly work out the amount (and it won't be vast in the grand scheme of things) and take it from them using income tax.
Of course, the point is that people earning more do (in theory) pay more tax. So why should they not have at least the same benefits as everyone else?
I'm not saying this in favour of higher earners - I think mostly because of exemptions and freedom to manipulate things, many people from middle class upwards pay too little tax. But what I am in favour of is universal services paid for by the most progressive tax we have - income tax.
There is plenty of scope without raising the tax bands to take in more tax simply by cutting down on the scope for people to lower their tax bill. Going back to "middle class" - OK many ordinary families and so on are struggling - some even with modest mortgages that weren't too insane - but it is absurd that there are for example young professionals who rather than simply pay the income tax they morally should, have their own company set up for the purposes of lowering their tax bill and writing off things as business expenses (much or in some cases all of this entirely within the law).
As regards lowering social welfare and minimum wage - this is absolutely necessary - it's not optional. However - it should be done to create sufficient savings that along with other measures to ensure revenue (i.e. sort out problems with "clued up" people paying silly low tax on decent income, cut public sector wage bills especially at the top) we can not only sustain essential services, but reduce the direct cost to people. It is much easier to cut minimum wage for example if people can actually get a bus to work and at a reasonable cost (i.e. no car to run), if people don't have to pay admin charges for hospital, if people have GP visit card.
It's very late in the day now though and really I can't see the next budget remotely addressing inherent problems with our tax/revenue generation and provision of services. It's likely we will have vicious cutbacks that in an attempt to be less transparent, won't affect everyone equally but will instead target specific benefits/groups. In taking this approach - we probably will not make sufficient savings either.
Reply With Quote