Public service pension levy announced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I don't see them volunteering for an even bigger cut, as was claimed above.

---

I think it was decided at ICTU level that if all "social partners" could come to agreement, then all unions would support it, even it saw their members take some cut. I still think that applies but individual unions are now all threatening strike action to force the Govt back to negotiating table. As far as I'm aware Nurses, Teachers and junior Doctors etc would be striking with the ICTU, rather than on their own to "show strength" rather than to fight their cause.

At least that’s my reading of it. It could well be that some of the unions at the higher end of public service wage want to fight their corner too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

I think it was decided at ICTU level that if all "social partners" could come to agreement, then all unions would support it, even it saw their members take some cut. I still think that applies but individual unions are now all threatening strike action to force the Govt back to negotiating table. As far as I'm aware Nurses, Teachers and junior Doctors etc would be striking with the ICTU, rather than on their own to "show strength" rather than to fight their cause.

At least that’s my reading of it. It could well be that some of the unions at the higher end of public service wage want to fight their corner too.

---

I don't mean to be overly cynical but that sounds like a lot of talk around the issue. I'll believe you if I see posters at the strikes saying "I'm striking in favour of a bigger pay cut for myself.", but at the moment that sounds like people talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I don't mean to be overly cynical but that sounds like a lot of talk around the issue. I'll believe you if I see posters at the strikes saying "I'm striking in favour of a bigger pay cut for myself.", but at the moment that sounds like people talking out of both sides of their mouth.

---

In fairness I don't think I could ever accuse somebody of being overly cynical, but in fairness these "social partnership" jobbies are full of people talking out of the side of their mouth. Its as much about who appears to have done what than it is what anybody actually did.

And as I said above, its only my reading of it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if more of the ICTU unions break ranks, and go the route the CPSU took.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

In fairness I don't think I could ever accuse somebody of being overly cynical, but in fairness these "social partnership" jobbies are full of people talking out of the side of their mouth. Its as much about who appears to have done what than it is what anybody actually did.

And as I said above, its only my reading of it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if more of the ICTU unions break ranks, and go the route the CPSU took.

---

Fair enough,
The reason I raised it in the first place is because it didn't ring true to me. I'd imagine that the government would have jumped on any offer from the union leadership to suggest a pay cut of this size to their own members. I can't imagine that the government brought all this trouble on itself be making cost neutral adjustments to something the unions were willing to accept.

I think it's much more likely that there was no deal on the table a few months ago so the government went at it alone. The unions then, knowing that they wouldn't get away with attacking it directly, are fighting around the edges of it to try to talk the government back in to the secret meetings.

I also think that's the reason we have a pension levy instead of a straight pay cut. The pay cut couldn't be implemented without the workers' consent.

For evidence of "talking out if both sides of mouth" see the ICTU 10 point plan. Gives no indication of concrete concessions, yet is always referred to when they are pushed on alternatives to levy/wage cuts/tax rises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Sorry about mixing up the teachers and nurses, the acronyms are similar. I think my point is stands though.

I agree with you and the others saying that the higher paid should take more of the burden but as it is groups like the teachers and junior doctors, both of whom are on well above the average wage, are threatening strike over the current amount. I don't see them volunteering for an even bigger cut, as was claimed above.

---

Within teaching itself there are a vast range of earnings.

The INTO is looking for what they call a 'fairer way' which they outlined and sent to the government.

This plan saved the same amount of money as the governments one but the emphasis was again on the higher paid within teaching. It also involved things like cutting down on sick days and other stuff.

I am a permanent teacher. I am happy to take my share of the burden. However I dont think I should be paying roughly the same percentage as someone 20points or more up the scale from me. Likewise I dont think public sector workers lower down on the scale should be paying as much as I am(or in many cases anything at all).

Similarly I think the levy should only apply to permanent staff as it is our job security that we are being asked to pay for, which is fair enough.

The national strike thing is basically saying(imo) that everyone is unhappy with the current arrangement and there is a better way to do it. Most agree the way to do this is by weighting the levy more towards those who can afford it.

To clarify, I am not in favour of striking, but I can understand the reasoning

Am in two minds over this as you get fed so much mis information from people with vested interests. On the one hand I hate when all the countries problems are put at the door of one particular group. Like the public sector are responsible for all of our ills. On the other hand I know people working 12 hour days and weekends all year who didnt get any pay rise or bonus cause of the general economic climate. we dont get paid overtime after a certain level but your expected to work it all the same in order to get ahead. How do you muster up sympathy for marching civil servants when you hear stories of the ridiculous amounts of overtime pay earned by the guards at the shell to sea protests for example. some reform of the public sector with a strong emphasis on value for money would have served the country better in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

we dont get paid overtime after a certain level but your expected to work it all the same in order to get ahead. How do you muster up sympathy for marching civil servants when you hear stories of the ridiculous amounts of overtime pay earned by the guards at the shell to sea protests for example

---

At a certain level (and not that high a level either - AP level for those who know anything about it) civil servants don't get paid overtime either.

What annoys me about public sevants is the "guaranteed overtime" that some are on. Thats a sham...

(Oh and I wasn't having a go billsthougts, its an easy mistake to make...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

What annoys me about public sevants is the "guaranteed overtime" that some are on. Thats a sham...

---

True. Pay should not be supplemented by regular overtime. If you need people to work overtime every week then employee more staff.

I don't understand the different pay grades or differences between sector of the public sector so its all the same to me as I they are part of the same union & protest/strike together. I would guess I am not alone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I don't understand the different pay grades or differences between sector of the public sector so its all the same to me as I they are part of the same union & protest/strike together. I would guess I am not alone...

---

That's way off even within the civil service there's 3 different unions for the first 5 grades. And only one o them was on strike last week

Public service represented by dozens of unions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

It'd be progress if they just paid any of the bloody burden.Tax exiles should have to pay a minimum contribution to keep their citizenship, and/or the time in the country before tax is due should be severely reduced.

---

According to the Tribune the top 2.5% of tax payers pay a third of all Income tax. People earning over 100,000euro pay over half the income tax.

40% of all income earners pay no tax at all.

The popularly held belief that only the "fat cats" have gained from the Celtic Tiger is simply not true. We all have and we will all have to contribute to the recovery by paying more tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

According to the Tribune the top 2.5% of tax payers pay a third of all Income tax. People earning over 100,000euro pay over half the income tax.

---

At what rate though? Just because they pay, doesn't mean they pay enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

True. Pay should not be supplemented by regular overtime. If you need people to work overtime every week then employee more staff.

---

In my employment, there's no overtime any higher than clerical officer (the lowest office based grade). The Union has been trying to get the General Assistants wages increased rather than overtime, as even though it brings up their take home pay, it isn't pensionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I don't understand the different pay grades or differences between sector of the public sector so its all the same to me as I they are part of the same union & protest/strike together. I would guess I am not alone...

---

CPSU, PSEU and AHCPS are civil service unions, some of them in the public sector. CPSU is for clerical staff. PSEU is staff above that but below management. AHCPS is for management grades. IMPACT is mainly specialist and technical staff. SIPTU aren't recognised for the Civil Service and are a general trade union, with 2/3 of it's membership in the Private Sector. Then the specialist professions like teachers and doctors have their own unions.

A few other points...
The junior doctor's have balloted over their overtime being cut, whilst being expected to do the same work. Surely that's a no brainer for anyone.

The ICTU plan is the only plan on the table, as lacking in detail as it is, and ICTU are only saying using it as the starting point of an agreement, not as the finished article. Using Sweden as a model is hardly that outlandish is it?

Unions will only do what the members decide. The leadership can only ask for a mandate. In fact on the pension levy's, it's largely been members demanding action whilst the leaderships go for a more softly approach. For the first time in a while, congress is having to react to the members rather than the other way round.

Check out Fintan O Tooles article in todays times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...242144730.html

The key point is that the internal workings of the levy are unjust. This debate has to be taken away from public and private and more to lower versus higher paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

40% of all income earners pay no tax at all.

---

Including some of the top earners.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0924/revenue.html

(2007 article on 2004 figures, but it still happens, in fact if anything it got worse in the last few years.)

adam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Check out Fintan O Tooles article in todays times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...242144730.html

The key point is that the internal workings of the levy are unjust. This debate has to be taken away from public and private and more to lower versus higher paid.

---

There's a lot going on to workers in every sector that's unjust.

Given the vested interest of each individual union (as Macy illustrates above) and the unwillingness to consider layoffs at any level, it's hard to see how it will change.

ICTU are toothless and can't take sides.

I can see this leading to union membership amongst the public sector dropping significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I can see this leading to union membership amongst the public sector dropping significantly.

---

I'm a shop steward, and the opposite is the case - I've been getting more and more requests as the days go on. In times of uncertainty people go to their Trade Union rather than turn their back on it, as it is their only protection to be part of a collective rather than an individual.

The Unions I mentioned have more in common than would divide them - virtually all PSEU and AHCPS members would've been in the CPSU, and on promotion CPSU encourages people into the PSEU. Similarly IMPACT and SIPTU would generally cooperate well. It's the whole bloody point of Congress ffs!

btw Redundancies would be resisted, but there's more than one way for the Government to skin a cat. A voluntary early retirement scheme would get volunteers even if opposed by the unions (and I'm not sure it would be). In fact I think it's one of the things the Bus Unions are proposing rather than the shameful sackings of people on their probation (who've done nothing wrong) that CIE are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Including some of the top earners.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0924/revenue.html

(2007 article on 2004 figures, but it still happens, in fact if anything it got worse in the last few years.)

adam

---

True enough. Obviously however not every high earner pays no tax if 2.5% of tax payer pay 40% of the total

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

At what rate though? Just because they pay, doesn't mean they pay enough.

---

At 41% tax plus 5.5% PRSI probably. Whether that is "enough" is another question obviously. There's little doubt that the top rate will increase a lot and there may be a third higher rate introduced.

Do all the 40% of income earners who pay no tax pay "enough" tax? Do people accept that a lot of these people will have to brought into the tax net?

What annoys me about debates on this subject is that it amounts to little more than finger pointing.
People say they something has to be done to tax the "well off" but they sing a different tune when it looks like it will affect them personally.
Arguably it's the middle income earner who has gained most from the low direct tax regime and will probalby complain the loudest when it is taken away.

I simply want all earners to pay the same rates of tax as PAYE workers. At the moment, many avoid this and regardless of the overall figure that they and the Government hide behind, they pay at a lower rate than the ordinary joe soap worker. I don't think it's finger pointing or that unreasonable to expect all people earning to pay at the same rates and not avoid tax is it?

Middle income earners always would've done better out of widening the standard band rather than reductions in the top rate of tax. Any knock on now from changes in the tax rates will impact on the middle income earners, but only because of the bias of the FF led Governments over the last few years that have favoured tax reductions for high earners at the expense of the rest

And just for the record, you only pay PRSI up to 50k odd, so you can discount that out of you the rich pay their fair share calculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I simply want all earners to pay the same rates of tax as PAYE workers. At the moment, many avoid this and regardless of the overall figure that they and the Government hide behind, they pay at a lower rate than the ordinary joe soap worker. I don't think it's finger pointing or that unreasonable to expect all people earning to pay at the same rates and not avoid tax is it?

.

---

But everybody avoids tax, not just top earners. Do you claim medical expense relief, service charges relief, mortgage interest relief? If you do you avoid tax. And so you should!

If for some reason your salary increased would you stop claiming the reliefs you are entitled to? If you would you're a lot more generous than I would be. It's easy to say that everybody should pay the same rate but how do you actually go about doing that.

Of course the CEO's of all the major banks are PAYE workers as well:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

But everybody avoids tax, not just top earners. Do you claim medical expense relief, service charges relief, mortgage interest relief? If you do you avoid tax. And so you should!

---

I can see how you could call that tax avoidance in the strictest sense of the word. But I wouldn't, and I'd guess 90% of Ireland wouldn't.

Quote:

---

If for some reason your salary increased would you stop claiming the reliefs you are entitled to?

---

If I was earning what the top earners are making, yes, I would. I would also keep my money in Ireland and pay the full amount of tax due on it. If I didn't, I'd feel like a scumbag taking advantage of my country.

That's how I think of these people, they're scumbags. I'd prefer they didn't pay any tax in my country, and weren't allowed to call themselves Irish. Because the morals by which they live can't be good for our country anyway.

adam