The Fine Gael thread

[macdanger2]

A Shinner? Jesus, not a chance man.

[armaghniac]

Think there are a good few reforms in the state bodies that can yield this extra funding for lesser waged folk instead of hitting my pocket more!

There isn't really this scope. Services could be better run to provide better service, sp that people wound not die unnecessarily in the health service or ensuring that everyone is literate, but there isn't really a vast amount of savings at this point. The money given to people who do not work for the government substantially exceeds the amount spent on those who do. The savings am may well lie in ensuring that money goes to people who need it, and not to those who do not.

[macdanger2]

I think there's still massive savings to be had from introducing modern technology in the public service. Govt seem to be scared of that since the ppars debacle though.

[Maguire01]

Think there are a good few reforms in the state bodies that can yield this extra funding for lesser waged folk instead of hitting my pocket more!

There isn't really this scope. Services could be better run to provide better service, sp that people wound not die unnecessarily in the health service or ensuring that everyone is literate, but there isn't really a vast amount of savings at this point. The money given to people who do not work for the government substantially exceeds the amount spent on those who do. The savings am may well lie in ensuring that money goes to people who need it, and not to those who do not.

Yep, state pension and other welfare payments are massive proportion of public expenditure.

And despite claims of an inefficient public sector, I'd love to see what proportion are frontline vs support. Not forgetting that the way to save more money in the public sector is by cutting numbers, and unless you have private sector jobs there, you're just loading more onto the welfare bill.

[armaghniac]

I think there's still massive savings to be had from introducing modern technology in the public service. Govt seem to be scared of that since the ppars debacle though.

PPARS was an attempt to record a system where nobody new what was going on, using an IT system where by definition you have to program the thing according to some known approach. Knowing what is going on is a good start, even if you never introduced further IT. But if you were working in a substantial job in IT in the public service your salary would have been cut by 20%, while IT salaries generally might have had a slight increase, if you were any good you'd just leave and go to work elsewhere.

There are savings to be made, but a large chunk of public spending is in education, where class size is already pretty much the highest in Europe. Health is definitely inefficient, but seems to resist improvement.

[muppet]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

But taxing income is not wealth distribution. Taxing income prevents the accumulation of wealth, it certainly doesn't punish anyone already with wealth.

Wealth distribution require wealth taxes. People need to be careful what they ask for. We already have some subtle wealth taxes, e.g inheritance tax & gift taxes. If you inherit money from anyone other than a parent (or child) you pay 33% on everything over €30,000. Do we really want more of this sort of thing?

Not sure if you're missing my point on purpose or not - I described income tax as wealth, now you can disagree with my definition of income tax as wealth distribution and it's probably only semantics anyway but at no point did I mention wealth tax or anything else you're referring to.

You are missing your own point.

You described our taxation system as 'wealth distribution'. These were your words. You then accused me of putting your own words in your mouth. Since the bank collapse our taxation system has actually become debt distribution, the complete opposite of wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution, your words not mine, requires either a massive windfall for a state (we have had the complete opposite) and thus they have something to distribute or they need to impose wealth taxes, or they simply start seizing assets (the far-left and far-right have this fetish in common).

One last time: I defined (perhaps incorrectly according to your definition)  our tax system as wealth distribution. You now apply your definition to wealth distribution (this is the part where you're putting words in my mouth) and for some reason expect me to defend your definition.

Just so as we're clear, I think that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay - nothing about a wealth tax or anything else.

One last time here too.

Income is not wealth, by any definition, not just mine.

Income definition:
The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

Wealth definition:
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
n.   The state of being rich; affluence.
n.   All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.

That is why income tax is the not the same as wealth tax.

[muppet]

Think there are a good few reforms in the state bodies that can yield this extra funding for lesser waged folk instead of hitting my pocket more!

There isn't really this scope. Services could be better run to provide better service, sp that people wound not die unnecessarily in the health service or ensuring that everyone is literate, but there isn't really a vast amount of savings at this point. The money given to people who do not work for the government substantially exceeds the amount spent on those who do. The savings am may well lie in ensuring that money goes to people who need it, and not to those who do not.

I think there is. The following is an extreme example of this but there is much scope.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023055.shtml

Ireland's top civil servant retires at 57 on €713,000 package and future cost of millions

Normally a headline figure of a €713,000 pension package translates into a pension of just over €35,000 per annum. But in this case the man got:    

In addition to an annual pension of €142,670, McCarthy received a once-off lump sum of €428,011. He also got a full year's pension as a special severance payment of €142,670.

The usual spin from Government, Civil Service and even much of the Opposition is that these are legally binding deals. But who writes the law? The scumbags introduced a pension levy on private funds. This is a wealth tax on pensions that people have actually funded themselves. The above pension wasn't funded, i.e. there was no fund, so the levy doesn't apply. So where does the money come from? Directly from the taxpayer of course. If they wanted to they could have introduced a levy on unfunded pensions to match the one on funded pensions. This would have been fair, and legal, but of course the only people affected would have been Senior Civil Servants, Senators and TDs. 

In summary we have a situation whereby people who fund their own pensions pay an extra tax, while TDs & Civil Servants who don't fund their own whopping pensions, pay nothing.

But that is not all. Read this also from the above link:

Unless the existing pension system is changed, any pay increases successors in his position will get, he will get the same increases on his pension.

The current system is a shameful one. It was devised by politicians and senior civil servants who are the main beneficiaries.

People with guaranteed job security from the State, in addition are paid pay premiums over counterparts in the private sector and have an unfunded very generous pension system, paid by workers in the private sector, who typically have none.

[foxcommander]

an interesting reply to Gene Kerrigans article today...with the U-turn by the government to attempt at the minimum to get everyone signed up for the service you would have to consider the reasons for this tax in the first place. theres a shitload of money to be made once you own the resource and the plebs have signed it away. It's certainly not about making a utility run well for the population.


"Once again, Gene Kerrigan reveals the shadowy goings on behind the public facade. Clearly there is more to this than a government trying to modernise the water delivery system.

Most people would accept that the processing and transmission into people's homes of drinkable water needs to be paid for. Most people would also accept that the current arrangement whereby the maintenance of the national infrastructure is left to a multitude of local councils needs to be changed. But what gives many people pause is the sinister undercurrent to this whole affair.

Are we being compelled to commodify one of our greatest natural resources for the sake of some bigger agenda? In many parts of the world, safe drinking water is precious and there is talk of future wars being fought over this resource.

As a country we have lots of the 'raw material'. But we are also hamstrung by our massive debt obligations and 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.

Who is calling the tune in this case? I am pretty certain it is not Alan Kelly, Joan Burton or Enda Kenny.
"

[macdanger2]

Yes, I described the tax system as wealth distribution. Your entire response was about a wealth tax and Robert Mugabe i.e. completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

But taxing income is not wealth distribution. Taxing income prevents the accumulation of wealth, it certainly doesn't punish anyone already with wealth.

Wealth distribution require wealth taxes. People need to be careful what they ask for. We already have some subtle wealth taxes, e.g inheritance tax & gift taxes. If you inherit money from anyone other than a parent (or child) you pay 33% on everything over €30,000. Do we really want more of this sort of thing?

Not sure if you're missing my point on purpose or not - I described income tax as wealth, now you can disagree with my definition of income tax as wealth distribution and it's probably only semantics anyway but at no point did I mention wealth tax or anything else you're referring to.

You are missing your own point.

You described our taxation system as 'wealth distribution'. These were your words. You then accused me of putting your own words in your mouth. Since the bank collapse our taxation system has actually become debt distribution, the complete opposite of wealth distribution.

Wealth distribution, your words not mine, requires either a massive windfall for a state (we have had the complete opposite) and thus they have something to distribute or they need to impose wealth taxes, or they simply start seizing assets (the far-left and far-right have this fetish in common).

One last time: I defined (perhaps incorrectly according to your definition)  our tax system as wealth distribution. You now apply your definition to wealth distribution (this is the part where you're putting words in my mouth) and for some reason expect me to defend your definition.

Just so as we're clear, I think that the more you earn, the more tax you should pay - nothing about a wealth tax or anything else.

One last time here too.

Income is not wealth, by any definition, not just mine.

Income definition:
The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

Wealth definition:
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
n.   The state of being rich; affluence.
n.   All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.

That is why income tax is the not the same as wealth tax.

You're the only one rabbiting on about a wealth tax!!!

[armaghniac]

I think there is. The following is an extreme example of this but there is much scope.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023055.shtml

Ireland's top civil servant retires at 57 on €713,000 package and future cost of millions

Normally a headline figure of a €713,000 pension package translates into a pension of just over €35,000 per annum. But in this case the man got:    

In addition to an annual pension of €142,670, McCarthy received a once-off lump sum of €428,011. He also got a full year's pension as a special severance payment of €142,670.

These things may need to be changed, but even if the 100 people involved have changes it will not support the several hundred thousand people should not pay tax. My point related to savings not being proportionate to the expectation that seems to be abroad that everyone can have free water, no USC etc.

The usual spin from Government, Civil Service and even much of the Opposition is that these are legally binding deals.

Any contract is binding, if you do not want a deal then do not agree it, reneging on it is corruption pure and simple.

he scumbags introduced a pension levy on private funds. This is a wealth tax on pensions that people have actually funded themselves. The above pension wasn't funded, i.e. there was no fund, so the levy doesn't apply. So where does the money come from, directly from the taxpayer of course. If they wanted to they could have introduced a levy on unfunded pensions to match the one on funded pensions. This would have been fair, and legal, but of course the only people affected would have been Senior Civil Servants, Senators and TDs.

In summary we have a situation whereby people who fund the own pensions pay an extra tax, while TDs & Civil Servants who don't fund their own whopping pensions, pay nothing.[/quote]

All of this ignores that public pensions were reduced also. 

But that is not all. Read this also from the above link:

Unless the existing pension system is changed, any pay increases successors in his position will get, he will get the same increases on his pension.

Just as old age pension recipients do not receive the pension fixed at what they get when they are 65, but have increases broadly in line with wage trends.

The current system is a shameful one. It was devised by politicians and senior civil servants who are the main beneficiaries.

It wasn't secret or concealed in any way. People were happy to vote for these politicians.

[lynchbhoy]

Think there are a good few reforms in the state bodies that can yield this extra funding for lesser waged folk instead of hitting my pocket more!

There isn't really this scope. Services could be better run to provide better service, sp that people wound not die unnecessarily in the health service or ensuring that everyone is literate, but there isn't really a vast amount of savings at this point. The money given to people who do not work for the government substantially exceeds the amount spent on those who do. The savings am may well lie in ensuring that money goes to people who need it, and not to those who do not.

There is the scope actually!
I haven't the figure - but in the health service for example , we had the merger of three health boards nationally and little redundancies. Some folk were moved into sections that required staff, but from information I had at the time , a large amount of positions were covered in duplicate if not triplicate!

I take it you are talking about the southern civil service an not the one in the six counties?

[lynchbhoy]

I think there's still massive savings to be had from introducing modern technology in the public service. Govt seem to be scared of that since the ppars debacle though.

PPARS was an attempt to record a system where nobody new what was going on, using an IT system where by definition you have to program the thing according to some known approach. Knowing what is going on is a good start, even if you never introduced further IT. But if you were working in a substantial job in IT in the public service your salary would have been cut by 20%, while IT salaries generally might have had a slight increase, if you were any good you'd just leave and go to work elsewhere.

There are savings to be made, but a large chunk of public spending is in education, where class size is already pretty much the highest in Europe. Health is definitely inefficient, but seems to resist improvement.

Ppars and pulse - can't rem which one was the bigger disaster - though both were disastrously run, poorly specced, paid out way too much in consultancy costs and took way to long to deliver - though at least pulse is mostly operational now!

One of these projects was based on a model in oz. The Aussies told them that their system was not fit for purpose. But this didn't stop the junkets and project !

Your example is correct on a poor spend of taxpayers money. But it's not just automation of systems that can give serious costs savings.

Identification and definition of roles and proper perf management and managemt in general.
Proper governance of finance and people.
The front line services not really to blame - more the back room officials who are doing half nothing.

Stop paying for consultants to write fence sitting reports. Stop trying to max out budget spend each year in order to win the same size budget the next year.

I've seen most of these wastage's myself first hand.

These ruin the good work of some of the productive civil service departments and their good people!

[lynchbhoy]

I think there is. The following is an extreme example of this but there is much scope.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023055.shtml

Ireland's top civil servant retires at 57 on €713,000 package and future cost of millions

Normally a headline figure of a €713,000 pension package translates into a pension of just over €35,000 per annum. But in this case the man got:    

In addition to an annual pension of €142,670, McCarthy received a once-off lump sum of €428,011. He also got a full year's pension as a special severance payment of €142,670.

These things may need to be changed, but even if the 100 people involved have changes it will not support the several hundred thousand people should not pay tax. My point related to savings not being proportionate to the expectation that seems to be abroad that everyone can have free water, no USC etc.

The usual spin from Government, Civil Service and even much of the Opposition is that these are legally binding deals.

Any contract is binding, if you do not want a deal then do not agree it, reneging on it is corruption pure and simple.

he scumbags introduced a pension levy on private funds. This is a wealth tax on pensions that people have actually funded themselves. The above pension wasn't funded, i.e. there was no fund, so the levy doesn't apply. So where does the money come from, directly from the taxpayer of course. If they wanted to they could have introduced a levy on unfunded pensions to match the one on funded pensions. This would have been fair, and legal, but of course the only people affected would have been Senior Civil Servants, Senators and TDs.

In summary we have a situation whereby people who fund the own pensions pay an extra tax, while TDs & Civil Servants who don't fund their own whopping pensions, pay nothing.

All of this ignores that public pensions were reduced also. 

But that is not all. Read this also from the above link:

Unless the existing pension system is changed, any pay increases successors in his position will get, he will get the same increases on his pension.

Just as old age pension recipients do not receive the pension fixed at what they get when they are 65, but have increases broadly in line with wage trends.

The current system is a shameful one. It was devised by politicians and senior civil servants who are the main beneficiaries.

It wasn't secret or concealed in any way. People were happy to vote for these politicians.
[/quote]
I'd not disagree with you that water charges need to be paid, but getting rid of the wastage in ott bonuses, pensions etc would free up a lot of money to go towards fixing water pipes at least - and passing on cost reduction to end water users.

Maybe create a civil service 'bonus tax' or pension tax to recoup this money - as you are correct about it being contractually agreed and not readily taken from civil servants.
However a tax on their additional income is not contractually disallowed I believe and is a way out of this!!

Maybe inda could set up a 'civil service pensions & bonuses taxation dept' !

[muppet]

You're the only one rabbiting on about a wealth tax!!!

No, you are.

You are the one who keeps mentioning wealth distribution. The only way to do this in Ireland (short of striking oil and actually not giving it away for free) is via a wealth tax.

[muppet]

I think there is. The following is an extreme example of this but there is much scope.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023055.shtml

Ireland's top civil servant retires at 57 on €713,000 package and future cost of millions

Normally a headline figure of a €713,000 pension package translates into a pension of just over €35,000 per annum. But in this case the man got:    

In addition to an annual pension of €142,670, McCarthy received a once-off lump sum of €428,011. He also got a full year's pension as a special severance payment of €142,670.

These things may need to be changed, but even if the 100 people involved have changes it will not support the several hundred thousand people should not pay tax. My point related to savings not being proportionate to the expectation that seems to be abroad that everyone can have free water, no USC etc.

The usual spin from Government, Civil Service and even much of the Opposition is that these are legally binding deals.

Any contract is binding, if you do not want a deal then do not agree it, reneging on it is corruption pure and simple.

he scumbags introduced a pension levy on private funds. This is a wealth tax on pensions that people have actually funded themselves. The above pension wasn't funded, i.e. there was no fund, so the levy doesn't apply. So where does the money come from, directly from the taxpayer of course. If they wanted to they could have introduced a levy on unfunded pensions to match the one on funded pensions. This would have been fair, and legal, but of course the only people affected would have been Senior Civil Servants, Senators and TDs.

In summary we have a situation whereby people who fund the own pensions pay an extra tax, while TDs & Civil Servants who don't fund their own whopping pensions, pay nothing.

All of this ignores that public pensions were reduced also. 

But that is not all. Read this also from the above link:

Unless the existing pension system is changed, any pay increases successors in his position will get, he will get the same increases on his pension.

Just as old age pension recipients do not receive the pension fixed at what they get when they are 65, but have increases broadly in line with wage trends.

The current system is a shameful one. It was devised by politicians and senior civil servants who are the main beneficiaries.

It wasn't secret or concealed in any way. People were happy to vote for these politicians.
[/quote]

My post was comparing the treatment of people who pay for their own pensions versus those who don't pay for their own pensions (Top Civil Servants & Politicians). That latter introduced a tax on the former but left themselves out of it.

Secondly you comment on a contract is missing the point. They introduced a levy on privately funded pensions, and they could easily introduce a levy on their own unfunded pensions. That would be legal and fair. Your point on their pensions being cut doesn't was as they never funded these pensions in the first place.

NB I am not talking about the old age pension or indeed the pensions of most civil servants. I am merely referring to those pensions worth oover €100,000 p/a that these people awarded themselves, to be taken entirely from the taxpayer.