Am not in agreement but too weary at the minute to do a reply justice.
I read that in one plant the average wage was 140,000 euro.

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

tonys wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Gilmore pretty much savaged Cowen who looked as if he was hearing these ideas for the first time and wondering he hadn't thought of them himself. Both Kenny and Gilmore are right that the absence of detail in the announcement is infuriating.

The pension levy is going to raze peopl'e incomes. Cowen now giving details.

Person on 45K will be paying an extra 4250 pa - that's the midpoint of 6.8% on the sliding scale

3.8% lowest rate on salaries of 15K and over - up to 9% for people on 300K.

Astonishingly, people in the private sector are exempt from these levies, if I understand what I've heard correctly.

They are not Levies, they are a small contribution to their very lavish public service pension

Tonys, that is an insult to the thousands of hard pressed families that will be devastated by these bills.

Regardless of how they feel about it, it's true anyway and if they're devastated by this, imagine how the average private sector worker feels when they start 20% below the average public sector employee, generally don't have a pension at all and their job & future is on the line right now.

Private sector workers are not having to pay this levy. So they can shut up for starters. You are pedalling gross mininformation and distortion when you claim pulbic service pensions are some sort of luxury. Public sector workers PAY for them, they're not free by any means.
That’s not true, they pay nothing like the cost of their pension, we, the private sector workers pay for the pension of public sector workers.The discrepancy between private employer pay practices and the hard won employment securities of the public sector leads inescapably to acknowleding the need for better and more effective unionisation of the private sector -
A not unexpected solution from yourself, we have 20% of workers in this state looking forward to pensions that neither they nor their employers can fund and your solution is to give the same pension to the remaining 80% of workers. It would be funny if you weren’t serious. something the ghouls at IBEC have been waging vicious war on for as long as that ghastly organisation has existed.

What defenders of this rape of working people refuse to get their heads around is that the vast bulk of the wealth generated in this country is concentrated in a very small number of hands. It's disgusting to witness the viciousness of people here who think nothing of arguing for the enforced impoverishment of innocent people without a murmur in the direciton of those can and should pay for this mess. Enraging.

Why should it be 'funny' to ensure that all workers are paid a decent pension at the end of their working lives? Becuase it would eat into the repulsive amounts of profits made by people like Tony O' Reilly? That bastard alone, a single human being, made 2billion euro of profit from the sale of oil and gas exploration licences that properly belonged to the Irish people. An ironic sum of money in the present circumstances. Licences which cost him a derisory 10K euro. This is the sickness that you and your ilk represent. You'll be back here next with your usual blandishments and excuses for this obnoxious greed, delighted to see so many people thrown into misery. You disgust me.

If you are so concerned about the rights of public sector workers, argue for decent unionisatin to protect them from the unfairness many employers inflict on them. You hate them just as much as you hate public sector workers, of course. You just use them to make yourself sound egalitarian. Private sector workers DO NOT subsidise public sector workers pensions by the way.

Well, for what its worth I've had to take a 20% cut in pay and benefits, including the cancellation of pension payments, for six months at least. No guarantee unless my company picks up more work of even a job after that. I'm not on any massive amount of money and I certainly don't have the luxury to bum around on internet sites during working hours.

But I suppose seeing as noone represented me or my likes at the trough-in last night night that's par for the course.

There is no bottomless pit of money out there. Good luck to Civil Servants if they really believe that by pulling the drawbridge in and getting the beardy men to make the right noises for them then they will be secure.

The rest of us have to pay for the Civil Service so a bit of manners and the odd thank you for the benefits you get at our expense might be nice. We won't get it. But, hey ho, sure isn't there a magic fairy magicking up all this money for them, isn't there?

It was also fun to notice the lack of numbers at my North Kildare railway station today. At least five people who I know are Civil Service decided to have a duvet day, it seems. Not a luxury I can afford, but, hey, come the revolution we'll all be equally broke.

"replace stamp duty with a property tax. Stamp duty is economically inefficient while a property tax raises money while not being a drag on the tradeability of the market" Quote A-T

Are you and Big Bobo from P.ie the same person

youngdan wrote:

"replace stamp duty with a property tax. Stamp duty is economically inefficient while a property tax raises money while not being a drag on the tradeability of the market" Quote A-T

Are you and Big Bobo from P.ie the same person

As neither of them are real, that is not possible.

The only plus of Stamp Duty, very relevant right now, is that only those that can afford to trade up pay it. Property taxes would hit people who have paid probably 20-100K in stamp duty in the last 5 odd years. It would also mean money out of people's take home pay. Finally, Stamp duty will provide the important task of substituting for interest rates in slowing the inflation of any new bubbles, when prices turn around. An annual property tax is difficult to administer fairly, hits those on fixed income and those struggling with high mortgages. I don't agree with it.

I also don't agree with privatising the ESB or any of the other utilities. They did this in the UK and now the Government can't get the privatised utilities to do enough maintenance or to deal with their waste (nuclear plants). They had to subsidise the nukes when prices were low, now they want to build more. Despite the fact that they haven't figured out where to put the waste.
Worst of all, the Continentally owned utes have just shown that they are unilaterally capable of exporting insufficient UK gas supplies to the French and Germans when Bad Vlad periodically misbehaves

We are heading into an energy crunch; state control of most of the supply is essential. Yes, they should lower the prices, unless they use the money for renewables. Yes, wages should be cut

Both of them frequently are unreal sure enough.

Not privatise the ESB cactus - break it into two chunks - that which could be sold and that which shouldn't be sold.

You surely wouldn't disagree with privatising supermarkets but having the roads between them public ??

youngdan wrote:

Both of them frequently are unreal sure enough.

Indeed. Such is my ephemeral nature that you cannot see me floating behind you.

Essential services, ie the pipes and wires should never be privatised. There is very good reason for this, basically the streets should be in public ownership, it is to do with maintenance and planning. If you are to plan effectively you need to plan in sewerage works etc.That does not preclude others using those networks and selling electricity and water to the grid.

On property tax, stamp duty would be a useful tax to take money out of an over heating property market. If it were say 25% in Ireland would a house that sold for 400,000 still sell for that amount? No. It would sell for 300,000 now provided you cannot also borrow on your mortgage to pay that tax the effect would be to massively increase the deposit required. End of property boom and an easy tax to collect and adjust.

On property tax or rates these are to pay for the upkeep of local services. They should be charge in their entirety by the local council and rather than property I think income would be a better basis. You can have an elderly couple living in a house that is now worth two fortunes paying much more tax than 6 young professionals sharing the house next door. That cannot be equitable. Also you can have a system that taxes improvements and repairs as the property is worth more and that just does not make sense.

There also needs to be a serious look at commercial rates to ensure that businesses with high use, turnover and profit pay more than those with just larger property. A shop selling carpet needs as much space as a super market and its annual sales per sq m is much lower. Similarity a corner shop in an area where property prices have risen should not be forced out of business by high property tax. I have seen it effectively argued that rates in the UK benefits large super markets and penalises local shops.

Taxing to pay for council services based on property values creates too many anomalies and injustices. Income is better and you also remove the need for a department that has to place all sorts of mythical values on properties. Keep it simple.

Ronald Binge wrote

Quote :

Well, for what its worth I've had to take a 20% cut in pay and benefits, including the cancellation of pension payments, for six months at least. No guarantee unless my company picks up more work of even a job after that. I'm not on any massive amount of money and I certainly don't have the luxury to bum around on internet sites during working hours.

Sorry to hear that.

Quote :

But I suppose seeing as noone represented me or my likes at the trough-in last night night that's par for the course.

There is no bottomless pit of money out there. Good luck to Civil Servants if they really believe that by pulling the drawbridge in and getting the beardy men to make the right noises for them then they will be secure.

The rest of us have to pay for the Civil Service so a bit of manners and the odd thank you for the benefits you get at our expense might be nice. We won't get it. But, hey ho, sure isn't there a magic fairy magicking up all this money for them, isn't there?

Wow, but you're angry, and perhaps justifiably so.

I think we need to be careful about tarring all public service workers with the same brush. There are many of them who would say, incidentally RB, that a little thank you occasionally for them from the people on whose behalf they do work, would be greatly appreciated.

The animosity of the private sector towards the public sector never ceases to amaze me. Each and every working person made employment choices - the public sector is not a closed shop, there are very transparent entry requirements and many of those who work in the private sector who had the opportunity to join the public sector made deliberate decisions to avoid it because it can be a stagnant working environment, promotion opportunities are poor, there's virtually no overtime, ministerial whims can undo months of work - and may need to be acted on immediately, there is a pension - but you have to work in a job that can be less than satisfying for rather a long time before you can qualify for it, it can be permanent - but that's not going to suit someone who wants the freedom to develop different skills and work for different companies or go where the money is, and there is no prospect of any reward for working harder and of course, there's the derision and criticism of the general population.

I'm not excusing the public service for having permanent, pensionable jobs, but surely a system that has been in operation for many decades is not a surprise to people who choose to vent their spleen at it now, because it seems like a cushier number when other opportunities seemed more profitable and exciting in the past?

Quote :

It was also fun to notice the lack of numbers at my North Kildare railway station today. At least five people who I know are Civil Service decided to have a duvet day, it seems. Not a luxury I can afford, but, hey, come the revolution we'll all be equally broke.

The duvet-day presumption is based on what, precisely?

Quote :

I'm not excusing the public service for having permanent, pensionable jobs, but surely a system that has been in operation for many decades is not a surprise to people who choose to vent their spleen at it now, because it seems like a cushier number when other opportunities seemed more profitable and exciting in the past?

And what, exactly, is the great crime here? Surely this is a state of affairs that should apply to everyone in a civilised country -we should be working to guarantee that all workers have employment for life. How else are people to survive? Or are we now advocating mass starvation and homelessness?

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

I'm not excusing the public service for having permanent, pensionable jobs, but surely a system that has been in operation for many decades is not a surprise to people who choose to vent their spleen at it now, because it seems like a cushier number when other opportunities seemed more profitable and exciting in the past?

And what, exactly, is the great crime here? Surely this is a state of affairs that should apply to everyone in a civilised country -we should be working to guarantee that all workers have employment for life. How else are people to survive? Or are we now advocating mass starvation and homelessness?

They receive the state pension. You dismissed people who invested in, previously supposed blue chip Irish shares, through private pension schemes as wealthy gamblers. Where is the dichotomy? Surely that makes public servants with additional pensions wealthy scroungers.

I disagree with both points of view by the way but it appears you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to pensions.

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

I'm not excusing the public service for having permanent, pensionable jobs, but surely a system that has been in operation for many decades is not a surprise to people who choose to vent their spleen at it now, because it seems like a cushier number when other opportunities seemed more profitable and exciting in the past?

And what, exactly, is the great crime here? Surely this is a state of affairs that should apply to everyone in a civilised country -we should be working to guarantee that all workers have employment for life. How else are people to survive? Or are we now advocating mass starvation and homelessness?

They receive the state pension. You dismissed people who invested in, previously supposed blue chip Irish shares, through private pension schemes as wealthy gamblers. Where is the dichotomy? Surely that makes public servants with additional pensions wealthy scroungers.

I disagree with both points of view by the way but it appears you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to pensions.

Not at all. Private sector workers pay less into pension funds than public sector workers do. An inconvenient fact overlooked by those who attack public sector pensions.

All this shite about pensions from the government is nothing but a transparent attempt by IBEC to shaft EVERY worker in this country. When we hear the word 'refrom' we know it means privatisation and wherever we are talking privatisation, there is IBEC.

Here is an article which makes clear how stupid the government is being about this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1208/1228571630274.html

Again you don't really address the point. I would draw attention to the previous discussion you and I had on a related matter...

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

As I understand it, Kelly is recommending what he is because it leaves the liability lie where it can be best absorbed - with the very wealth[y] risk takers who will have to take their chances on the markets on which they knew they were risking their money.

It isn't quite as simple as this and I think the statement is a little naive. The average Irish investor is not very wealthy. The average Irish investor in banks is merely self employed, without the benefit of a company sponsored pension. Such people range yes from doctors and lawyers but also down to taxi drivers, plasterers and labourers. The average man on the street with an investment in an Irish bank is not wealthy and these investments were chosen on the basis that banks were the safest place to put your money. This was the advice given to people, up to now, by the brokers who people trusted encouraged by the Government. That aside, there are huge swathes of the self employed who are virtually reliant on stocks for their pensions. If you destroy their wealth, which is not great, you merely cause them to be more reliant on the State. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is not as simple as just turning our nose up at "wealthy" people, most of whom aren't particularly anyway.

In fact in later correspondence between you and I, you continued to imply that the State should provide no protection for people on pensions because having a pension was not akin to other rights such as the "right" to own the home in which you live. Again, I ask why is it that you are showing huge support for those on in public pension schemes yet at the same time show a blatant disregard for those on personal pension schemes?

Aragon wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Again, you miss the point. The wealthy risk takers are in large part the DEBTORS of the bank, not the ordinary SHAREHOLDER. The average SHAREHOLDER isn't a Seán Quinn owning 15% of a bank. There is an old lady who lives on my road who has lost basically her life's savings as a result of this bank thing. The dividends which allowed her to visit her grandchildren who live in American have now dried up and equally they cannot afford to come over and visit. What is the difference between her and the young couple buying a house? Her investing the money she earned over the years is hardly a crime either, is it? Or is your argument based on more pseudo-classist lines which don't hold up in any case because of your misinformed belief that most people who own shares are "wealthy risk takers". We're being asked to pay the bill in interest and tax relief for "risk takers" who bought houses in a failed market as well.

We shall have to agree to differ Johnfas. Your not reading my posts accurately and are too cross, I suspect to notice what Ive actually said. Talking risks is taking risks - I dont expect anyone to subsidise my losses for me if I take out bets. It is a great pity if your friends cant see each other but as long as they have a roof over their heads and are able to feed and clothe themselves then they are relatively well off in comparison to what this bailout will require of other people - ones that will lose their jobs - and who had nothing to do the risk-taking, what is more. I'll save my tears for them.

Again, you are blinded by situations which are different from your own. You seem to think that everyone who works in the private sector is some form of mogul. I hate to tell you but the guy stacking the shelves until 2 o'clock in the morning in your local 24 hour tesco, who then gets up the at 6 o'clock to drop his children to a nursery he can ill afford and then proceeds to drive for two hours to his second job because there is no public transport system is also a private sector worker.

The reason many private sector workers pay less into pension funds proportionately is that many private sector workers do not have pensions. The article you link also fails to address the question of the quantum between what is put in and what is got out. The vast majority of private sector workers do not have defined benefit pensions. It is quite possible for a private sector worker and a public sector worker to earn precisely the same amount of money and pay precisely the same pension contribution and at the same time have vastly different pensions on retirement.

There is no attack on the public sector but people have got to bloody get real about the situation we face.

I could refer you to another article (here) which holds that public sector pensions are worth 30% on top of the value of a public servant's salary.

Aragon wrote:

Astonishingly
, people in the private sector are exempt from these levies, if I understand what I've heard correctly.

What is astonishing is when people don't know the difference between Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution.
Many public sector workers also have a particualrly gold-plated form of defined benefit which is linked to salary increases.
Typical pensions in the private and public sectors are worlds apart, and one costs the taxpayer money, the other does not.

eoinmn wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Astonishingly
, people in the private sector are exempt from these levies, if I understand what I've heard correctly.

What is astonishing is when people don't know the difference between Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution.
Many public sector workers also have a particualrly gold-plated form of defined benefit which is linked to salary increases.
Typical pensions in the private and public sectors are worlds apart, and one costs the taxpayer money, the other does not.

Is it unnecessarily academic question now to ask what the difference is?

Now that those ideas of pensions are fast becoming a relic of Another Age.

A defined benefit pension does what it says on your tin, it gives you a defined pension for the rest of your life. The definition is normally indexed linked to whatever grade you would be earning if you were still working. That is, when a the Secretary of the Dept of Finance retires, he will earn half the salary of the current Secretary of the Dept until he dies.

Contrast this to a defined contribution pension which is merely that. You put money in throughout your career and then you live off whatever is there when you retire. It is like a bank account and can run dry before you die.

Aragon wrote:

Why should it be 'funny' to ensure that all workers are paid a decent pension at the end of their working lives?

I would love if pensions in the private sector could be brought up to the standard in the public sector, but it is physically impossible. The state simply could never afford it.

Aragon wrote:

Private sector workers DO NOT subsidise public sector workers pensions by the way.

Tax payers do, regardless of they being public/private sector workers and whether or not they can afford pensions.

Remember too Aragon, public sector workers are now paying more for their pensions, but they still have pensions. Any money I paid into my pension in the last year has dissappeared with the value of the ISEQ.

johnfás wrote:

It is like a bank account and can run dry before you die.

I know a man in his 60s who's pension had 200,000 in it 2 years ago and now has €100,000. Will there be anything left in it for him when he retires at 65? Will he be able to retire at 65? Maybe not.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

What they should do if they want to save money in a better manner:
*close off tax reliefs to property to widen that tax base.

Being done, I think.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cut ministerial pay and pensions by 20%.

Pension levy applies to them. Ministers took a 10% pay cut in Budget 2009.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cut Supreme and High Court justices' pay and pensions by 20%.

Unconstitutional, I think.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

replace stamp duty with a property tax.

Likely to be done in Budget 2010, once the Taxation Commission reports.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cut consultancy and marketing down to as low as possible.

Being done.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cut public-sector pay by about 5%.

Pension levy.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

There's a few billion in savings there.

True.

Kate P wrote:

I think we need to be careful about tarring all public service workers with the same brush. There are many of them who would say, incidentally RB, that a little thank you occasionally for them from the people on whose behalf they do work, would be greatly appreciated.

My wife is a public servant who has no issue with the pension levy. Looking around at her friends and family, she knows she is lucky to have a job.

Kate P wrote:

The animosity of the private sector towards the public sector never ceases to amaze me. Each and every working person made employment choices - the public sector is not a closed shop, there are very transparent entry requirements and many of those who work in the private sector who had the opportunity to join the public sector made deliberate decisions to avoid it because it can be a stagnant working environment, promotion opportunities are poor, there's virtually no overtime, ministerial whims can undo months of work - and may need to be acted on immediately, there is a pension - but you have to work in a job that can be less than satisfying for rather a long time before you can qualify for it, it can be permanent - but that's not going to suit someone who wants the freedom to develop different skills and work for different companies or go where the money is, and there is no prospect of any reward for working harder and of course, there's the derision and criticism of the general population.

I'm not excusing the public service for having permanent, pensionable jobs, but surely a system that has been in operation for many decades is not a surprise to people who choose to vent their spleen at it now, because it seems like a cushier number when other opportunities seemed more profitable and exciting in the past?

That's unfair.
Firstly we can't all work in the public sector, and we can't all work in the private sector.
I reject the idea that I took a job in the private sector because it was more exciting or better paid. I took it because it was the only job I could get!
And that is often the way. There isn't many jobs for carpenters in the civil service, for example.

Where's the Smart meter eoin

where's the Smart meter ...




johnfás

how do you know about pensions and you've had no job
and I know nothing about pensions though I've had 4

Because my father, self employed, never shuts up about his (or now lack thereof) and always reminds us that his father in law, my grandfather, beat the actuaries by living on an excellent defined benefit pension until the age of 92.

eoinmn wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Why should it be 'funny' to ensure that all workers are paid a decent pension at the end of their working lives?

I would love if pensions in the private sector could be brought up to the standard in the public sector, but it is physically impossible. The state simply could never afford it.

Aragon wrote:

Private sector workers DO NOT subsidise public sector workers pensions by the way.

Tax payers do, regardless of they being public/private sector workers and whether or not they can afford pensions.

Remember too Aragon, public sector workers are now paying more for their pensions, but they still have pensions. Any money I paid into my pension in the last year has dissappeared with the value of the ISEQ.

I can see no logical reason whatsoever why the State should give civil servants a higher pension than people working in the private sector. They are all citizens. As you say, it isn't a matter of choice for most people.
Whatever we can afford and is needed to give people a decent old age should be paid out across the board equitably.

Is this what we got for the €7bn ??? It says the govt. was looking for a 2 year moratorium on repossession orders ...


Banks to delay home repossessions

Bank of Ireland and AIB Group have agreed to delay issuing repossession orders on homes for 12 months as part of the Government recapitalisation plan.

The banks have told Government that delaying repossession proceedings for those in arrears on their mortgages for any longer would be viewed negatively by investors.

The issue of mortgage arrears has become more central in the €7bn recapitalisation talks because of rising unemployment levels.
Advertisement

Negotiations continue today and any final agreement may be extended as part of a new regulatory code covering mortgage arrears for the entire home loan sector.

More >>>>>
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0210/banks.html