Madam, – Surely the most abused current catch-phrase is the “need to share the pain”, a line pushed by both the public sector unions and by politicians.
Let everyone be clear on one thing: despite paying tax, public sector workers do not contribute to income taxes on a net basis. They are in receipt of transfers from corporations and private-sector employed workers. A certain level of public service is required and should be willingly financed, but it is clear that our public sector has become severely bloated. Yet remarkably, public-sector union leaders (inappropriately named “social partners”) are dictating government policy.
In addition, the current income tax structure is inequitable. Is it right that a third of all workers pay no income tax? Of course there are those who barely scrape by and cannot afford to contribute to the public purse, but please don’t tell me that a third of workers have no discretionary income. Equally, 6 per cent of workers pay more than 40 per cent of total income taxes. Where is the incentive to become well educated, to work hard, to do well? I am in favour of a progressive tax system, but ours has gone too far. The existing income tax bands and thresholds need to be changed and the balance redressed.
I also favour welfare for the less fortunate, but the Irish welfare net has been cast far too wide. We all know that abuses are rife. Welfare should be reformed and its cost dramatically lowered.
There is no pain being shared, only increased calls on the (shrinking) few to maintain the status quo. Where are the protest marches for me and the thousands of others who no longer wish to fund the gravy train? I’ve had enough. The solution is not higher government revenues, but lower spending. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In response to Eamonn Walsh’s opinion piece of March 4th (“Calls to identify ‘Anglo 10’ just a witch hunt”), I would make the following points. The “share support operation” at the centre of this controversy lacked transparency, was not properly disclosed and avoided the necessity for 10 per cent of Anglo Irish Bank’s shares being placed on the open market.
At best such a transaction is likely to have been improper (ie unethical) and at worst it may in time be judged illegal.
Prof Walsh focuses on a possible “transfer of wealth” to the 10 people concerned. He suggests the only “wealth transfer” that could have occurred was the value of the “insurance policy” offered to the Anglo 10; he values such a “policy” at somewhere between €40 million and €120 million. He goes on to conclude that “in fact, the transfer could have been negative” – presumably before the individuals concerned offset such losses against their personal taxes.
Perhaps, as a service to the “careful analysis” Prof Walsh requires of others he might address the following questions:
1. Why would Anglo Irish Bank provide the Anglo 10 with “an insurance policy” to protect them against “risk” for a potentially illegal or unethical share support transaction?
2. Why does Prof Walsh’s analogy of a €50 financial product, which he says was “the nature of the deal that was offered”, not accurately illustrate the possible “upside” for the “Anglo 10”? If the Anglo share price had increased substantially (above 25 per cent), the “transfer of wealth” to the individuals concerned would have been “uncapped”.
3. According to Prof Walsh, “seeking to name and shame the Anglo 10 if they did not appropriate €450 million is unfair and serves no purpose”. What amount would the Anglo 10 need to have “appropriated” to make identifying them fair?
4. Surely Prof Walsh would agree with me that his call for “public discussion that reflects civility, decency and careful analysis” would be best served if the current board of Anglo Irish Bank were to make a comprehensive public statement (without identifying the Anglo 10) on this “share support operation”, without delay? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – At last the country is waking up to reality: the emphasis has to be on cuts in expenditure. Just as the private sector is having to “cut its cloth”, so too must the country. The largest bill is the public-sector pay bill, and a freeze is no longer enough. I know the public sector has been “hit” with the new pension levy, but the private sector has had employee pension contributions for years. With most being on the basis of defined contributions, and with stock markets in collapse, many private-sector workers will have a tiny pension, if any.
The private sector is haemorrhaging jobs and many who remain in employment are suffering significant pay cuts. Given deflation, the Government must cut public-sector pay; I would suggest an immediate 5 per cent pay cut, with some allowance for the very low paid, and a five-year pay and increments freeze: this “hole” is going to take years to fill. Tax increases will also be required, as all commentators agree.
To reduce costs for consumers, the government must legislate, if necessary, to force prices down. Just as it is imposing a cut of 8 per cent on all professional services it buys, it must impose cut the price of all utilities (including local authority charges), doctors’ fees, medicines, etc. This will make the bitter pill of pay cuts and tax increases a little easier to swallow. – Yours, etc,