Dandruff.
[quote=“gola”]Yer probably right but I wonder is there ever a point when even the media would think is enough is enough on the pay cuts. I mean, how low do they think nurses, teachers or other repsonsible well trained jobs pay actually should be? 25k a year? 20k?
Fellas like Ivan Yates ‘flabbergasted’ by exchequer figures and suggesting that the upcoming pay cuts will only have to be the start. What a cunt on probably 100k a year from Newstalk…[/quote]
Does he collect a Ministerial Pension?
Is he over 55?
[quote=“gola”]Yer probably right but I wonder is there ever a point when even the media would think is enough is enough on the pay cuts. I mean, how low do they think nurses, teachers or other repsonsible well trained jobs pay actually should be? 25k a year? 20k?
Fellas like Ivan Yates ‘flabbergasted’ by exchequer figures and suggesting that the upcoming pay cuts will only have to be the start. What a cunt on probably 100k a year from Newstalk…[/quote]
They should really just raise the income tax rate.
[quote=“Mairegangaire”]Does he collect a Ministerial Pension?
[/quote]
No.
They should just borrow more.
Look at Greece sure, never in below what they should have spent and then they get a “warning” from Brussels :rolleyes:
Borrow the money to fuck, worry about it some other time.
Why do teh government seem so opposed to this? What’s the major argument against it?
No or not yet?
IBEC, for one. It flies in the face of McCreeveyism, for two.
The income levy could be construed as a tax increase.
Fuck it sure, if it keeps NCC and Art in a job, I don’t mind paying an extra 1%.
Not Yet.
Its the big 60 AFAIK that it kicks in.
[quote=“tipptops*”]Not Yet.
Its the big 60 AFAIK that it kicks in.[/quote]
I thought it was earlier than that, 'cause MGQ only had to wait 3 yrs after she resigned.
[quote=“Mullach Ide”]IBEC, for one. It flies in the face of McCreeveyism, for two.
The income levy could be construed as a tax increase.
Fuck it sure, if it keeps NCC and Art in a job, I don’t mind paying an extra 1%.[/quote]
please dont ever bracket me with the bald english swine though
please dont ever bracket me with the bald english swine though[/quote]
:mad:, forgot that, foreigners taking our public service jobs.
well, well, well, after all the grief you gave carter and now it seems that unlike carter you didn’t stay to try and fix the mess you caused
and then you dived into the public service once the going get rough, karma can’t come soon enough for you buddy
There’s no alternative baby, get with the programme, aren’t we all in this together or aren’t we?:rolleyes:
Gene Kerrigan: Tina’s still turning tricks for our leaders
Gene Kerrigan on four honeyed words that are an instant turn-off – ‘There Is No Alternative’
Sunday November 08 2009
Tina’s back in town. That good old girl has served our politicians well down through the years. Tina (There Is No Alternative) is pressed into service whenever they seek to do something they know is unpopular. It’s not that they want to bail out the bankers, they say – but “There Is No Alternative”. It’s not that they want to pump billions more into “recapitalising” Anglo Irish, the joke bank – but “There Is No Alternative”, and they can’t say no to Tina.
It’s not that they want to savage the health and education services, cut wages and decimate jobs. But Tina is a cruel bitch and they are mere slaves to her demands.
Those of us who’ve been around a while recognise a pattern – and believe some of the things that happened last week were not necessarily what they seemed. We’ll deal with just three aspects of last week’s events.
First, the persistent claims by the Serious People that there’s no pot of gold accumulated by the rich. Second, the extraordinary disappearance of Nama from public discourse. And last, the role of the trade union leaders.
I first heard the no-hidden-pot-of-gold yarn back in 1979, when PAYE workers demanded that others pay their share. I kind of believed it.
It turned out there were hundreds of millions hidden in tax frauds organised by the banks. It later emerged that various pillars of the community were up to their necks in stealing from us and the Central Bank knew what was going on.
Today, Mr Cowen has a twin-track strategy. One: bail out the banks. And two: balance the books by cutting services, jobs and wages.
He persistently refuses to make the tough decision to harvest the wealth of those who accumulated riches during the boom. “There is no hidden pot of gold.”
He knows the rich will fight ferociously to defend their wealth – and the rich have an army of lawyers and accountants.
So, Mr Cowen and Mr Gormley take the easier route of reaping the resources of the sick, the poor and the PAYE classes. “There is no alternative.”
They’ve been so successful with this no-hidden-pot-of-gold stuff that they’ve even convinced such a savvy lad as businessman Ulick McEvaddy. I wouldn’t share Ulick’s politics, but there’s no doubt he’s intelligent and sincere.
On Friday morning, as tens of thousands prepared to march in protest against the further savage cuts being prepared by Mr Cowen and Mr Gormley, Ulick turned up on Pat Kenny’s radio show.
“I would have to question that,” he said. Someone had suggested that official figures showed that just 1,400 of the richest people in the country had collective income of over 3bn in one year.
“I doubt that very much”, Ulick said, his belief transparently genuine. And it did indeed seem like a wild figure. After all, that would mean that each of them, on average, pulled in over two million a year.
“Voodoo economics,” said Mr McEvaddy.
Trouble is, the figures are correct.
Colm Keena of The Irish Times last March did a very precise analysis of Department of Finance statistics, with 1,447 people pocketing a total of 3.4bn. It turned out the very rich rake in billions and pay relatively little.
And at the other end of the scale, the people Mr Cowen and Mr Gormley want to pull into the tax net? Well, there are 375,000 on an average of 15,000 per year. And another 400,000 on an average of 25,000.
But, surely the rich have so little that levying them would – as Tom Parlon says – produce “minuscule stuff”? After all, the rich bought bank shares and saw them crumble to dust. They bought property and it’s worthless. Right?
Well, that money didn’t just evaporate.
For every buyer who lost out, there’s a seller who made a packet. Things are slow today, but fortunes are being protected, to emerge with the eventual recovery.
In an idle moment last week I opened The Gloss at a random page. It’s an Irish Times magazine that caters for those with a few spare shillings. Here was a footstool for 520 and there a diary for 275.
Turn the pages, note the Louis Vuitton hairband for 250. The Cartier watch for 17,000 (though I personally preferred the Blancpain for 20,695). A Cartier bracelet (10,700), a Tiffany ring (31,730) and a Chanel watch (49,000).This stuff isn’t imported, displayed and advertised for our amusement. With Christmas coming, there will be celebration and quiet satisfaction among those looking forward to a prosperous new year.
To balance the books, the Government confiscates the jobs, money and public services of the most vulnerable – knowing it will get less of a fight that way than if it seeks to confiscate the riches hoarded by those relatively untouched by the devastation.
The Government has the tough job of borrowing billions to throw at the banks – and simultaneously cutting billions from public spending on the basis that we can’t keep borrowing.
You have to admire the way in which Nama vanished from the front pages, as though bailing out the bankers has nothing to do with the proposed brutal cuts.
No one doubts that if AIB or even Anglo demands another 4bn in “recapitalisation” the Government would borrow it. (“The Government has to write whatever cheques are necessary,” said Mr Cowen). But – simultaneously – draconian cuts are justified on the basis that the books must be balanced, because we can’t borrow.
Cowen could close the tax avoidance loopholes, arrest tax evaders and confiscate their properties (many of the fortunes in this country were built on tax evasion).
He could levy draconian taxes on any income over 100,000, which is more than enough to raise a family.
He could send in the Criminal Assets Bureau.
Oh, but that would upset powerful people.
The kind of people with whom Mr Cowen has spent a political lifetime rubbing shoulders. Much easier to stick it to the sick, the poor and the PAYE classes.
The Government is taking a risky course.
It is deliberately forcing a confrontation with masses of people whose economic backs are to the wall.
And doing so in a society transparently unequal, while blatantly refusing to harvest the excess wealth of those with ill-concealed fortunes.
The trade union leaders have, of course, been demonised by the Serious People in the media (the same folk who told us the property boom wasn’t a bubble, and all would be well if we kept on borrowing).
This will continue.
You will note, however, that Fianna Fail ministers were soft in their opposition to Friday’s protest.
In remarkably similar language, they defended “the right to protest”, as though someone provided them with a script.
They are massaging the bonds with their friends in the union leadership.
Some union leaders are seriously upset by government policy.
Others, as they were in the 1970s and 1980s, are in thrall to Tina.
They are not driving the protests, they are responding to rank and file anger. They lead the protests in order to control them. Mr Cowen understands this.
The purpose of Friday’s exercise was to vent anger. There will be similar exercises in the weeks to come.
When anger has been vented, when PAYE people are tired and frightened, some concessions will be made. These will be gratefully accepted by some union leaders – who will continue to be portrayed in much of the media as the heirs of Che Guevara.
The union leaders will then announce they have gone as far as possible – and they’ll embrace Tina, joining the “There Is No Alternative” chorus.
It might work.
- GENE KERRIGAN
Just heard this - is it true?
We hear that the Government is close to an agreement with the major bookies that means each bookie will pay 1% tax on all internet and telephone best struck by Irish punters
[quote=“HBV*”]complaining because its only pushing the problem down the line and not dealing with it, surely you can see this?
this whole shambles has finally exposed the PS as the bloated monster it is.
who else here with a job in the real world could provide what they provide next year but with 12 days less to do it?[/quote]
Im not looking for any sympathy here but me and 80% of my colleagues would do 10 hours a week, at least, unpaid overtime a week. Thats an extra week and a bit per month we are working over our required hours. And we can only barely keep the ball pucked out at that. DO I have a choice? Of course I do…but there is huge rationlisation on the way for financial services and I need to make sure I wont be one of the unlucky ones.
I wouldnt have a problem with the unpaid leave solution though. Seems a practical solution to a difficult problem.
But it doesnt reflect particulalry well on PS if they can do the exact same job minus 12 days a year each. Basically saying they spent at least two and a half weeks dossing 
[quote=“Mullach Ide”]I would have thought redundancies would be far more effective and save alot more money.It doesn’t really make sense to reduce the number of days worked by a crumbling health service, a slow inefficient social welfare service and an apparently understaffed education service.
.[/quote]
The one benefit of this solution is there is no immediate cost that having redundancies would bring
well, well, well, after all the grief you gave carter and now it seems that unlike carter you didn’t stay to try and fix the mess you caused
and then you dived into the public service once the going get rough, karma can’t come soon enough for you buddy[/quote]
To be honest Art myself and NCC are getting on great these days, this just goes to show, we have more in common than we thought
are you saying that when anyone takes their 2 weeks holidays in your place means the rest of you are completely snowed under until then come back?..
maybe at a certain time of year you might be but throughout the whole year?..thats bollox…