• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

"Inevitable that big State pensions will be cut" - Hayes


hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
Interesting, though I suppose not surprising, to find no mention on this site of an interview with Junior Finance Minister Brian Hayes, published in today's Indo. In it, Hayes says that "new cuts to the pensions of former highly-paid public servants like hospital consultants, judges and politicians are inevitable", as part of the plan to achieve €1billion in savings in Croke Park 2, along with a possible higher tax rate on certain categories of public service pensions. Hard to see the unions in the Croke Park negotiations complaining about this, so its obviously a welcome development that should form part of the agreement without difficulty. So is there any chance that, given the level of public discontent about super-sized public pensions, posters here will actually give the government credit for at last moving properly on this issue?

'Inevitable' big State pensions will be cut -- Hayes - Independent.ie

Public Expenditure and Reform Junior Minister Brian Hayes said a plan to reduce large pensions has been tabled to achieve €1bn payroll savings. He said there was an "inevitability" that those who enjoyed the biggest yearly payouts would be hardest hit.

The junior minister also indicated measures are being considered to impose a higher rate of tax on certain retired state employees.

Currently there are retirees with pensions worth a combined €100,000 but they avoid a 20pc rate of tax which applies to a single pension of that value.

...ctd...
 
Last edited by a moderator:


IbrahaimMohamad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
4,221
Why not cut the big pensions now rather than inevitably Brian?
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,253
It took two years for Minister Hayes to figure that out? :roll:
 

Andy4571

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
5,229

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
Why not cut the big pensions now rather than inevitably Brian?
Eh they are cutting them now, did you not read the link? This will be part of the Croke Park 2 deal, which means within the next month.
 

IbrahaimMohamad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
4,221
Eh they are cutting them now, did you not read the link? This will be part of the Croke Park 2 deal, which means within the next month.
Now is today!

Why wait till tomorrow or next week?

Brian must know we are borrowing the money to pay these pensions!
 

turdsl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
26,085
If there was any decency in this government that is where they should have started

not at the weaker and vulnerable sections first,

They tried to cut nurses starting off by a third and if they did not like it go and prop up the counter of a fast food outlet,
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
47,517
They should have been cut by this government in March 2011.

It would be remiss for me to also say that they should have been cut by the previous government in 2008.

Too little,too late in both instances.

Emergency legislation - special powers enacted in times of economic "war" - would have seen this issue dealt with far far sooner.

At this stage we would have seen an impact on this country's outgoings as a result.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
Now is today!

Why wait till tomorrow or next week?

Brian must know we are borrowing the money to pay these pensions!
Because you need to fireproof such legislation against court challenges, for a start. And secondly, this forms part of the €1billion in payroll savings being sought via Croke Park 2, and that hasn't been agreed yet, and won't be for about another month.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
If there was any decency in this government that is where they should have started

not at the weaker and vulnerable sections first,
Which they didn't do. They restored the cut in the minimum wage first, cut the salaries and expenses of Ministers first, and reduced employers' PRSI to encourage job creation first. Meanwhile they retained the basic rates of social welfare, despite compelling arguments in favour of cutting them, too.
 

IbrahaimMohamad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
4,221
Because you need to fireproof such legislation against court challenges, for a start. And secondly, this forms part of the €1billion in payroll savings being sought via Croke Park 2, and that hasn't been agreed yet, and won't be for about another month.
The Supreme Court must take sustainability, affordability, and the common good into account, in their deliberations.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
They should have been cut by this government in March 2011.

It would be remiss for me to also say that they should have been cut by the previous government in 2008.

Too little,too late in both instances.

Emergency legislation - special powers enacted in times of economic "war" - would have seen this issue dealt with far far sooner.
How do you know its "too little, too late"? You don't know the size of the reductions yet.

At this stage we would have seen an impact on this country's outgoings as a result.
How much of an impact?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,396
The Supreme Court must take sustainability, affordability, and the common good into account, in their deliberations.
No they mustn't. They must take the Constitution into account. That's what they're there for.
 

IbrahaimMohamad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
4,221
No they mustn't. They must take the Constitution into account. That's what they're there for.
The Suprem Court have always tried used logic in interpeting the constitution. Hence the reason personal rights can be limited in the interests of the common good, and the reason the right to property must be limited in the interest of the common good.

Pensions are no use if the State cannot afford to pay them!

The Government are hiding behind the Constitution!
 

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,444
It's small change in the grand scheme of things.

But for the life of me I cannot understand the political stupidity of the government not attacking these legacy issues from the start of their term. It would be almost entirely for the optics of the thing, but there's nothing at all wrong with that at a time when perceptions are so important. Not very bright.
 

IbrahaimMohamad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
4,221
I don't think the SC have to do any such thing. Their remit is legality and the interpretation of legality.
Are you arguing that pensions cannot be cut? What fools awarded such pensions that there was no money to pay for?
Can the taxpayers of tomorrow be conscripted by the pensioners of yesterday and today?
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top