• 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.

Re: Public Service Pay, Is this stupid?


selfemployed

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,037
Re: Public Service Pay, Is this stupid?

This is not about who earns what or who deserves more, just an idea I had that may be practical or just nonsense.

An employer (our government) has a cash flow problem, one advantage they have is they are in charge of all the laws, legislation etc

Why not reduce the public sector pay bill by only paying the nett figure?

In my limited experience nobody really cares how much the gross figure is, a job paying €50,000 P.A. means nothing because the employee may see €35,000 after tax, prsi, universal charges etc etc.

Obviously I am not knowledgeable about how much is stopped at each pay grade (level), what I do know is that people are sick of looking at pay slips that show multiple stoppages, we will leave out the new taxes because they don't count for this exercise.

We need to see two figures, the total gross pay and the nett (the amount people are really paid), subtract one from the other and we have the true cost of the Government pay roll.

I'm guessing but I expect paying the nett figure would be a major relief on cash flow because the way the system appears to operate does not make much sense when everyone knows the employee will never see the gross figure.

We had a system where Government Ministers received a luxury car and drivers with the job, as part of a B.S. exercise the cars were removed and the Ministers get expenses for the car and drivers.

What was never explained is the cars cost the Govt. less than half the retail price because the Govt. received the VRT, VAT etc.

Another thing that was never disclosed is the cars sold for more than half the retail price when they were deemed to be at end of life.

So when sold (most) Ministers cars actually made a nett profit for the State and that was after they had provided the full service required.

Are there many fairly simple ways for the Govt. to actually save money?
 


FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
The answer is yes.....................................it is stupid and I couldn't be arsed explaining why!
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,776
The answer is yes.....................................it is stupid and I couldn't be arsed explaining why!
God. I'm not going to write down all the reasons but simply put: The employer would still have to work out the PAYE/PRSI/Universal Charge/Pension payments etc for the person's P45, P60, tax return and the calculation of the national PRSI, PAYE figures etc. There's no benefit to doing this.
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
God. I'm not going to write down all the reasons but simply put: The employer would still have to work out the PAYE/PRSI/Universal Charge/Pension payments etc for the person's P45, P60, tax return and the calculation of the national PRSI, PAYE figures etc. There's no benefit to doing this.
The user name of the OP is selfemployed, I wonder if there is any truth in that name and if they can't figure out why this proposal is stupid then I despair for that individual!

Put simply if the government wages bill is €20 Billion but net of taxes is say €15 Billion, lets say the cost of collection is €500 million. We cannot reduce the cost of collection in the short term because we have an army of people who cannot be made redundant employed by the Revenue Commissioners to collect this money, what are we going to with them?

The bottom line figure when the government are budgeting is that the have to fund €15.5 Billion whether it's a net payment or a gross payment.
 
B

Boggle

No need to be such self righteous d1cks lads.

Seriously, what is wrong with you two that you feel the need to belittle someone for asking a question?
 

Magror14

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
1,893
Its a fair point though when you are comparing the cost of a public sector employee and the cost of a private contractor. The tax on a public sector employee always goes back to the government whereas a contractor may have all manner of means of clawing back the tax.
 

seanmacc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,022
No need to be such self righteous d1cks lads.

Seriously, what is wrong with you two that you feel the need to belittle someone for asking a question?
We're getting a lot on this site lately. Some people who are nothing in the real world can simply enter a username and password and in an instant become something. In the pubs and night clubs the girls won't give these guys a second look no matter how hard they try. Their revenge is to log onto places like this and be an absolute pr*ck to anyone who harbors a thought that is contrary to their perceived reality or if all else fails they can just correct their grammar. Obviously if you don't have a high a post count as them the reason for it is that you're lacking in intelligence in their eyes
 

zakalwe1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
5,305
This is not about who earns what or who deserves more, just an idea I had that may be practical or just nonsense.

An employer (our government) has a cash flow problem, one advantage they have is they are in charge of all the laws, legislation etc

Why not reduce the public sector pay bill by only paying the nett figure?

In my limited experience nobody really cares how much the gross figure is, a job paying €50,000 P.A. means nothing because the employee may see €35,000 after tax, prsi, universal charges etc etc.

Obviously I am not knowledgeable about how much is stopped at each pay grade (level), what I do know is that people are sick of looking at pay slips that show multiple stoppages, we will leave out the new taxes because they don't count for this exercise.

We need to see two figures, the total gross pay and the nett (the amount people are really paid), subtract one from the other and we have the true cost of the Government pay roll.

I'm guessing but I expect paying the nett figure would be a major relief on cash flow because the way the system appears to operate does not make much sense when everyone knows the employee will never see the gross figure.

We had a system where Government Ministers received a luxury car and drivers with the job, as part of a B.S. exercise the cars were removed and the Ministers get expenses for the car and drivers.

What was never explained is the cars cost the Govt. less than half the retail price because the Govt. received the VRT, VAT etc.

Another thing that was never disclosed is the cars sold for more than half the retail price when they were deemed to be at end of life.

So when sold (most) Ministers cars actually made a nett profit for the State and that was after they had provided the full service required.

Are there many fairly simple ways for the Govt. to actually save money?
despite what other people have said, this is a question worth answering.
the govt doesn't nett its expenditure due to the expense in doing so, both in changing the IT infrastructure and the laws to accommodate this and the fact that there won't really be a net saving to the exchequer.

i can see from a self employed business person's point of view, that cashflow is crucial and managing cashflow can be the difference between survival and failure. however, cashflow management does not guarantee business success...ultimately you must take in more than you pay out.

purely from an admin point of view, it would be a nightmare to amend the employment acts to only allow the govt (and then you'd have to define which depts, councils, semi states and nationalised banks etc) nett and then you'd have to issue the same payslips as record of the various taxes paid (for when the employee files his annual return should they have additional deductions or income outside of the PAYE system)....
given how the govt/public sector fecked up the e-voting machines, i see this amendment taking 20 years to pass and to run in the billions over budget and would deliver a pile of stinking poo at the end but would make some insiders very rich indeed.
better to muddle through with what we have at the moment and fix the fundamentals (take in more than pay out).
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
No need to be such self righteous d1cks lads.

Seriously, what is wrong with you two that you feel the need to belittle someone for asking a question?
We're getting a lot on this site lately. Some people who are nothing in the real world can simply enter a username and password and in an instant become something. In the pubs and night clubs the girls won't give these guys a second look no matter how hard they try. Their revenge is to log onto places like this and be an absolute pr*ck to anyone who harbors a thought that is contrary to their perceived reality or if all else fails they can just correct their grammar. Obviously if you don't have a high a post count as them the reason for it is that you're lacking in intelligence in their eyes
This is a bit rich coming from two posters who did not go to the bother of explaining to the OP if they think he is right or wrong but then proceed to attack two who did, admittedly I did not bother doing it in my first post.
 
B

Boggle

This is a bit rich coming from two posters who did not go to the bother of explaining to the OP if they think he is right or wrong but then proceed to attack two who did, admittedly I did not bother doing it in my first post.
Frank, I am sick of seeing self-righteous posters attacking others and their opinions out of arrogance.

It's bullying. You are a bully.
 

SeanieFitz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
12,133
Frank, I am sick of seeing self-righteous posters attacking others and their opinions out of arrogance.

It's bullying. You are a bully.
In fairness to Frank his post simply answered the OP "Re public service pay, is this stupid" to which frank replied "yes"

at worst Frank was being overly frank!

but you have a point about abuse/bullying, generally there are a lot of threads best avoided
 

sauntersplash

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,464
Alright so since we're in the business of asking stupid questions about revenue, here's one that's tickled my little brain for a while.

If all VAT paid on medical bills is recoverable, by everybody, why do they bother putting VAT on the costs of medical bills? Why don't they just leave it off, like they do with books?
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,532
Alright so since we're in the business of asking stupid questions about revenue, here's one that's tickled my little brain for a while.

If all VAT paid on medical bills is recoverable, by everybody, why do they bother putting VAT on the costs of medical bills? Why don't they just leave it off, like they do with books?
Is it?

Sheeee-it
 
B

Boggle

In fairness to Frank his post simply answered the OP "Re public service pay, is this stupid" to which frank replied "yes"

at worst Frank was being overly frank!

but you have a point about abuse/bullying, generally there are a lot of threads best avoided
Anyone who goes around belittling people is a bully.
Frank belittled the guy.
 

controller

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
3,176
Ah.....the crap mod gets a kick in.....
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
Anyone who goes around belittling people is a bully.
Frank belittled the guy.
I hope some day that you don't meet a real bully!

BTW: If you think I did bully the poster, then report my post!
 
Last edited:

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,439
Here's another question or two, and it relates to employment law.

How can an employer unilaterally change the terms of an employment contract, to which it is a party? Is it legal to interfere in the employment contracts of a specific group of workers? (I know it can do it for all workers - for example, by amending maternity leave rights, etc.)
 

EvotingMachine0197

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,629
Alright so since we're in the business of asking stupid questions about revenue, here's one that's tickled my little brain for a while.

If all VAT paid on medical bills is recoverable, by everybody, why do they bother putting VAT on the costs of medical bills? Why don't they just leave it off, like they do with books?
I don't think it is the VAT that is recoverable. There is tax relief available on medical bills at 20% using MED1 and MED2(dentistry). The claim must be made explicitly on a Form11 or Form12 for PAYE as the expenses may have already been paid for by medical card, insurance policy or whatever.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top