The Public Sector

[blast05]

This line is in todays Sunday Indo re the size and rate of increase of the public sector:

the public pay bill next year will be €18bn, and the numbers of people working in the public sector will be 308,000, up from 260,000 this year.

I am completely flabbergasted at this. An increase of 48,000 in 52 weeks - how the f**k is this possible (rhetorical question) ? Are we as an electorate the most gullable shower of idjiots in the democratic world in that we believed all this crap about FF and the economy and particularly re how the economy was doing so well right up to the election when it is clear now that it was the staff numbers being added to the public sector that were keeping the economy ticking along - the spike in numbers providing a short term spike to the economy but providing a painful legacy that we in the private sector will be expected to service.
Everyone of those f**kers in government at the moment should be given 40 lashes. A Taoiseach who now is only concerned about ensuring his legacy is not destroyed at the Mahon tribunal, a tanaiste and finance minister who is ultimately responsible for the expansion of the public sector and a health minister who takes ultimate responsibility for nothing albeit that being because all FF back benchers and cabinet insist she is doing a great job (and have created the HSE as a smoke screen) cos they don't want to face the scenario where one of them would have to take it.

Rant almost over ...

If the next round of benchmarking gives the public sector even close to the rate of inflation then i would gladly take part in any protest march anywhere in the country. The average income in the public sector being 48K which when the benefits of early retirement and state pension are taken into account really comes in close to a figure of 70K (not my figures)  .......    when all benefits weighted out in comparison to the private sector then 70K the average salary in the public sector

[Zapatista]

Cowen just underestimates the budget by Billions every year and we think he is great. It' like me coming on here and predicting Crossmaglen to score 2 points in a game, when Cross score 15 points I have a surplus of 13 points and that makes me a great predictor. 

Aye but the extra employment is in aer lingus ...... actually scrap that.

[dublinfella]

If the next round of benchmarking gives the public sector even close to the rate of inflation then i would gladly take part in any protest march anywhere in the country. The average income in the public sector being 48K which when the benefits of early retirement and state pension are taken into account really comes in close to a figure of 70K (not my figures)  .......    when all benefits weighted out in comparison to the private sector then 70K the average salary in the public sector

48k average includes Government ministers, Judges, HSE executives etc.

but you get angry at the clerical officer on 22k a year getting a moderate payrise. 

Why on earth should poorly paid civil servants, Gardai and nurses take paycuts in real terms while Bertie awards himself more than their salary in a pay increase?

[blast05]

Why on earth should poorly paid civil servants, Gardai and nurses take paycuts in real terms while Bertie awards himself more than their salary in a pay increase?

And why should we in the private sector - where salary increases this year and over the last couple of years have on average run at less than the rate of inflation - have to stump up the pay rises for both the public sector and the politicians.

but you get angry at the clerical officer on 22k a year getting a moderate payrise.

Whats your point? what about the secretaries in the private sector who are on similar salaries to that but don't have the additional benefits of state pensions ?

48k average includes Government ministers, Judges, HSE executives etc.

As private sector averages include CEO's, etc.

Anyway, the key point is that under Brian Cowens watch, the inefficient, inflexible, union run public sector has unnecessarily increased its numbers of employees by 48,000 in the last 12 months when there should have been efforts made to streamline it  ........  but there was an election to be one stupid

[deiseach]

If you want better public servies, that will mean more public servants. Government spending as a percentage of GDP in Ireland is quite low by international standards - fifth lowest in the OECD in 2004 - so there is plenty of room for expansion.

Cowen just underestimates the budget by Billions every year and we think he is great. It' like me coming on here and predicting Crossmaglen to score 2 points in a game, when Cross score 15 points I have a surplus of 13 points and that makes me a great predictor. 

A nonsensical comparison. There are a few more variables in determining the Budget than predicting the result of a football match. For a Budget to be accurate, the Minister and the Department would need to know exactly how many jobs are likely to be created/lost in the following year. Nostradamus would balk at prediicting that accurately.

[Zapatista]

I'm not looking for an accurate figure just one that looks like a ball park figure. It's all good when underestimated but it really makes me scared when it can be easily over estimated by the same.

[blast05]

If you want better public servies, that will mean more public servants.

Fine in theory but there is no point adding them when existing structures will not allow for the level of performance we require no matter how many bodies are thrown at it, the health sector over the last 10 years being the obvious example.
The dramatic increase over the last 12 months was purely for the purpose of winning the election without any consideration of whether there would be any value for money or without any consideration of the long term impact on the exchequer .... all so our Brian can be Taoiseach some day

[deiseach]

I'm not looking for an accurate figure just one that looks like a ball park figure. It's all good when underestimated but it really makes me scared when it can be easily over estimated by the same.

It isn't a case of it could have been a billion under or a billion over. It was never going to be a billion over, short of a tsunami hitting the entire western seaboard. They budget for certain revenues based on predicted tax receipts then allocate that money accordingly. Obviously the best case scenario is one whenre they take no more of our taxes than they have to, but surely it's better that they have a surplus than a deficit and have to borrow to make up the difference or cut spending?

[deiseach]

The dramatic increase over the last 12 months was purely for the purpose of winning the election without any consideration of whether there would be any value for money or without any consideration of the long term impact on the exchequer .... all so our Brian can be Taoiseach some day

A fair point. The increase is not part of a coherent strategy to expand the amount of teachers, nurses, guards and fire fighters, it's the consequence of adding a few percentage points onto the budgets of each Department and viola! tens of thousands of happy public servants and their votes. I would add the caveat that many of them would be on limited term contracts and can't avail of the pension slush fund that you mention, but your central point seems sound to me.

[magickingdom]

an interesting fact as regards the 2 economies on the island, public sector in the north is responsible for 70% of expenditure there, about 33% in roi.

[Zapatista]

It isn't a case of it could have been a billion under or a billion over. It was never going to be a billion over, short of a tsunami hitting the entire western seaboard. They budget for certain revenues based on predicted tax receipts then allocate that money accordingly. Obviously the best case scenario is one whenre they take no more of our taxes than they have to, but surely it's better that they have a surplus than a deficit and have to borrow to make up the difference or cut spending?

It would be if you could trust them to serve us equally with overpaid taxes. But you can't. eg I paid my taxes like everyone else but when the surplus was redistributed to the people through SSIA ( Which coincidently matured just before the election).  I never got a penny back as at the time I couldn't afford to save the money as did many of the working class (non voting) people.

[deiseach]

It would be if you could trust them to serve us equally with overpaid taxes. But you can't. eg I paid my taxes like everyone else but when the surplus was redistributed to the people through SSIA ( Which coincidently matured just before the election).  I never got a penny back as at the time I couldn't afford to save the money as did many of the working class (non voting) people.

People who could afford to take out an SSIA would pay far more tax than those who couldn't afford to take out an SSIA. The SSIA was a tool of monetary policy in the absence of the ability to change interest rates. It was only fair to give those people something back for basically promising not to spend their own money for several years.

[Zapatista]

It would be if you could trust them to serve us equally with overpaid taxes. But you can't. eg I paid my taxes like everyone else but when the surplus was redistributed to the people through SSIA ( Which coincidently matured just before the election).  I never got a penny back as at the time I couldn't afford to save the money as did many of the working class (non voting) people.

People who could afford to take out an SSIA would pay far more tax than those who couldn't afford to take out an SSIA. The SSIA was a tool of monetary policy in the absence of the ability to change interest rates. It was only fair to give those people something back for basically promising not to spend their own money for several years.

They might pay more tax but they don't pay more in percentage to their earnings.

[deiseach]

They might pay more tax but they don't pay more in percentage to their earnings.

Have you the figures to back that up? Even if true, the 'working classes' get a proportionately better deal from the state as the benefits of the public sector are shared among the entire population while the costs accrue to the better off, not to mention those who never see a bean in social welfare.

[blast05]

People who could afford to take out an SSIA would pay far more tax than those who couldn't afford to take out an SSIA.

Have you the figures to back that up ?   

The SSIA was a tool of monetary policy in the absence of the ability to change interest rates.

The maturing of the majority of the SSIA's coninciding with a general election so while it may have had the effect of doing as per what you say, that was almost a coincidental side effect