Brian Cowen was put in charge of a runaway train created by Charlie McCreevy and Bertie Aherne, so he is not the one ‘chiefly responsible’, although of course he should have done more to try to get control of the ‘train’ when he was Minister of Finance, even if all sorts of people (IMF etc) were still saying positive things about the Irish economy.
There was a good letter in the Irish Times last August from a John Finn,
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0820/1224252940645.html

“Oireachtas banks inquiry proposal

Madam, – Colm McCarthy has suggested a possible Government inquiry into why the banks “failed” (Home News, August 18th). In order to save time and cost to the taxpayer, I suggest he look at the 2007 Central Bank Stability Report which highlights that lending for construction and real estate grew from €5.5 billion in 1999 to €96.2 billion in 2007 – an increase of 1,730 per cent or €90.7 billion over eight years.

In the same period total lending grew by €120 billion, implying that lending to all other sectors of the economy grew by less than €30 billion. Assuming that the banks report quarterly to the Central Bank/Financial Regulator, the explosion in property-related lending (the lion’s share of which related to the “real estate” rather than “construction” category) equates to 54 per cent per quarter. The disproportionate growth in such lending was both at odds with stated economic policy and sound risk management.

It is inconceivable to think that such growth went unnoticed. I would respectfully suggest that this statistic alone clearly demonstrates the abject failure of the Financial Regulatory regime and the probable complicity of others. Such concentration of risk is a basic risk management error. That it was allowed to grow to a magnitude that threatens the economic health of the country for a generation is unforgiveable.

Based on the above, the question is not how did it happen, but who allowed it to happen? – Yours, etc,

JOHN FINN, Managing Director, Treasury Solutions Ltd, Monkstown, Cork. ”

In terms of elected politicians (with the power to protect us) the answer to this last question is: Charlie McCreevy and Bertie Aherne.

That is another problem with this country, reams of figures, facts and angels on heads of pins are rolled out to be ‘debated’ endlessly, when the matter should have been dealt with by one small word from Mr. Lenihan. No!

It was and is, morally, financially retrograde crass politics not to mention the word stupid.

There should be a brass plaque with their names put up outside the DoF. if it were allowed I offer to pay for it, won’t cost the government a cent, and everyone passing can acquaint themselves with the names of the ’special ones’.

just as many public servants of which I am acquainted thought that I was talking through my …..when I stated to them that they were staring down the barrell of a paycut

I would now say that that it is NOT beyond the realms of possibility that future governments will not/will not ne able to fund their gilt edged pensions- and just as their pay was cut their expected future pensions may also be cut.

I would think that it is hard to expect future generations to fund a “pay as you go” DB pension scheme for their elders whilst all that is on offer for them is a DC scheme.

“whether if budget day decisions are going to be reversed, it is
advisable to focus only on reversing cuts to the salaries of well-
paid public servants”

Shouldn’t economists, of all people, know a great deal about the
effects of economic incentives such as bonuses?

The bonus system has turned top civil servants into lackeys of
whatever government is in power.

That’s why the present Government is so keen to keep a vestigial
bonus system in place for them.

Formerly, top civil servants - clever, able, hard-working men,
protected by seniority, authority and job tenure, were able to
exercise their independence of mind (very, very occasionally) to
delay, even ignore  government decisions which they saw as clearly
against the interests of their country or their Department.

But that doesn’t happen now.

Take the recent crazy decentralisation policy.  That policy has
benefited nobody but Fianna Fail, and was completely contrary to the
Government’s own stated spatial strategy, and has demoralised
many of the rank-and-file civil servants.    But as soon as the
starting gun was fired, top civil servants (in almost every Department)
raced off in all in all directions to implement decentralisation,
anxious to get their bonuses at all costs.

The Secretary General doesn’t get a bonus, but he is motivated by an
even more powerful incentive.   Legislative changes have reduced his
term of office to seven years, which means that the top man is
strongly motivated to please the government of the day, if he wants
to be  rewarded with a sinecure when his seven years are over ( when
he is still typically in his fifties)

The mechanisms that private sector companies often use in setting salaries are to look at the difficulty of hiring new talent at any level and the rate of loss at any level.

I’d suggest that the Irish civil service would have no difficulty in hiring far more talented people than are currently sitting in these high level roles, even at lower salaries than are currently offered - and that the attrition rate from these positions is negligible.

These two metrics would, I suspect, indicate that the people in these positions are grossly overpaid, even before their pension benefits are included.

‘Many young people are also deeply concerned about escalating house costs and the current over heating of the Dublin property market….’

http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/noel-whelan-eoin-ryan-fianna-fail-1997-ge-dublin-south-east/

If only he had had a high-profile public platform to loudly and repeatedly warn against this before it reached Japanese scale. Oh wait…

It is high time people told Brian Cowen and all the FF/Ind/PD TDs to their faces that they have destroyed the country and have no moral authority to govern. They should keep on telling them this until they leave office.
To do otherwise is to support their remaining.

I used the word “fairness” and the fact that he uses his column to plead for these well heeled people, speaks for itself.

Where is Jim O’Leary who likely knows a lot more about sham benchmarking than McArdle?

Here we have a case being made for bonuses being treated as salary entitlements, while salaries of the grade and others were already fraudulently inflated by what was called “benchmarking” and “transformational” change remains an elusive aspiration to be bartered.

Pat, when are you going to do a pleading article for the private sector victims of policymakers who remain in guaranteed income positions for life by just going with the flow? Yes for life.

Try to connect with people beyond your comfortable cocoon.

So, because senior civil servants are overpaid in other countries they should be overpaid here.

As you don’t have a TV you can catch the VB show here.

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne

Apart from the tax issue (which I haven’t really followed) Eamon Ryan talks utter mince about the bank bailout.

The Ferengi are laughing their little Ferengi socks off.

Cost per share 1.358
Current Price per Share 1.000
Gain/(Loss) Per Share (0.358)

% Gain/(Loss) (26)

Gross Cost of 184,394,378 Shares €250,407,565

Unrealised Gain/(Loss) (€66,013,187)

AIB @ €0.94

Yes - it appears to be closed! …..

By extension the review body’s report could be seen to be saying that higher public servants (including those who decide tax rates) need their pay adjusted whenever tax goes up or down.

The review body had to find reasons to adjust the figures or else they’d have been admitting their previous reviews were wrong. It’s noticable they prevented some basic analysis of their work by not including tables showing actual salaries of comparable grades in the other countries. I believe they’re also immune from FOI requests.

Comments are closed on …..

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/02/24/a-20-percent-tax-rate-for-higher-earners/

Is that intentional?

Why on earth would you give out performance bonuses to everyone?

During the discussions on the Lord Mayor of Dublin someone said we have 103 councillors for 1 million people while New York has 80 for 8 million. Now if our councillors get the same relative remuneration as the New Yorkers the cost in actual terms will be some 25% higher but per person will be 200% higher.

As far as I can see the bonus wasn’t a bonus anyway as they all got it 100% so to be fair they did get a pay cut now it’s gone. I’ll bet there’s too many of them though.