Free Open Dissent by Mike Soden

list of priorities, maybe we should ask ourselves what would be the outcome if certain services disappeared. If there were no doctors, or fewer, many in our society would live for a shorter time and have a much lower quality of life. The economist might surmise that this would result in smaller contributions beingrequired for pension funds because of the reduction in life expectancy. In one fell swoop one of the single largest financial challenges facing society in the twenty-first century – the pension deficit – would be largely dealt with. On this cynical note we now turn to the entertainment sector.
    The entertainment sector encompasses a wide range of skills and talents in the areas of music, arts and sports. If we say that leverage is the opium of the entrepreneur or developer, it is perhaps fair to conclude that entertainment is that of the masses. Whether we get our fix through great sporting events, music that ranges from classical to rock or the visual sensation of a Hollywood spectacular, there seems to be no end to what fans and supporters are prepared to pay. Take football stars whose genius comes at birth with the facilities of speed, strength, touch and agility or movie stars who choose a life in the public eye – both groups receive substantial, and perhaps obscene, rewards for success. Have we ever considered the speed at which we book a concert seat, buy a season ticket or make a dinner reservation compared to our casual deferral of a doctor’s appointment? Or how willingly we pay the cost of a concert or a dinner in comparison to our reluctance to pay a fee to the medical profession?
    The angle you might take in this discussion on compensation can depend on what your starting point is. Are you a self-made entrepreneur who has never asked nor would ever ask for assistance from society, a professional person who is independent minded and has a fee-earning capacity,or a public servant who serves our society but who might view the fairness of our world through different social lenses?
    With the construction boom we experienced an employment boom which in turn fed a tax intake boom, culminating in a government spending boom. Between 2004 and 2008, the public sector grew from 270,000 employees to 320,000, an increase greater than the total employment in the banking system in Ireland, which had grown over a couple of hundred years. The incremental cost of these 50,000 additional employees, including pensions, would be close to €2.5 billion a year. 21 Who is responsible for this cost? We know the public service and its masters did not consider the consequences, but we can be sure it is the taxpayer who will pay.
    People who choose to dedicate their lives to public service have an inbred belief that they are entitled to be treated in a certain way. In fact, in almost every sector of society we have burdened ourselves with the concept of entitlement. This sense of entitlement never diminishes but keeps pace with the growth of the economy. Should the economy fail to grow, the reality of dealing with the shortfall is dismissed in favour of borrowing more to pay for yesterday’s foolish decisions. In contrast, the salaries of those in the private sector adjust upwards and downwards as a consequence of their own efforts and the good or bad fortune of the marketplace.
    For people to believe they are entitled to a risk-free lifestyle with an income to match, followed by a securepension, seems to be stretching the boundaries of fairness and reasonableness in society. In a competitive world we may not be entitled to anything other than the right to earn and to be treated with respect. Our Government is there to strike a balance for our community and it must find the strength to tell us all when we have spent too much and, in turn, to reduce our incomes. If this means that the welfare payments that have seen progressive increases over the past ten years need to be reduced, then so be it. This would