Tonights Prime Time on Pensions: The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

Don't need to.

PRSI goes towards the State pension!

And the residual is also demonstrated!

When the CPSU next go on the ridiculous strike of an extra long lunch look at those figures and try and see what they're striking about.

CPSU represent Clerical Officers and Staff Officers.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

And the residual is also demonstrated!

When the CPSU next go on the ridiculous strike of an extra long lunch look at those figures and try and see what they're striking about.

CPSU represent Clerical Officers and Staff Officers.

The same ones that said they were losing €40/60 a week but maintain they are low paid? Either they aren't losing that and they have been badly misinformed or they are highly paid!

Anyway, the point remains, the PS does pay 6.5% PRSI, yet unlike the Private Sector, they don't get paid extra by their employer to pay it!

Anyway, the state pension here is too high.

I was wondering why Mary Hanafin was saying we were spending €20 Billion on SW. The pension and Dole are very high compared to EU standards.

If the State pension was lower, the PS would get a higher PS pension to compensate.

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

The same ones that said they were losing €40/60 a week but maintain they are low paid? Either they aren't losing that and they have been badly misinformed or they are highly paid!

Anyway, the point remains, the PS does pay 6.5% PRSI, yet unlike the Private Sector, they don't get paid extra by their employer to pay it!

Anyway, the state pension here is too high.

I was wondering why Mary Hanafin was saying we were spending €20 Billion on SW. The pension and Dole are very high compared to EU standards.

If the State pension was lower, the PS would get a higher PS pension to compensate.

And here we end up, we're all the same. Relatively high state pension and a really sh1tty work pension.

Is my work here done?

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

And here we end up, we're all the same. Relatively high state pension and a really sh1tty work pension.

Is my work here done?

It's ****ty because the state pension is so high!

LOL!

Another thing our Govt. fawned of during the boom times, pensions. In fairness with massive mortgages and living costs they could hardly start preaching to the Private Sector about paying 20/30% of their wage into Pensions.

Anyway as has been pointed out our PRSI rate are too low.

On minimum wage here you pay no PRSI. In NI you'd pay £10/15 a week.

NI pays 10% and for that they get half the pension but free GP Visits.

prince_buster

Oh my aching sides..

Of course public servants are the course of all evil Let's sack them all and solve the problem once and for all. Let's recreate all the greed, money obsession and corruption that made this 'once great little nation'. Let's get back to where we were - ignoring basic values, ignoring inevitable incoming ecological change, ignoring our childrens right to a stable and sustainable planet. That's what all this ****e is about. FACT !

If you want a future without proper public services - go ahead and demand it but be prepared for the consequences. Don't get sick, don't get beaten up byanarchic gangs, don't need waste colllection, don't need any basic services. Survive on your own personal greed or else.

Capitalism has failed - it has responded by attacking public services as a way of diverting attention from its own obvious failings. Ignore the warning at your peril.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

And here we end up, we're all the same. Relatively high state pension and a really sh1tty work pension.

Is my work here done?

For some, not all.

Can PS'ers please point out that they get paid more because they pay 6.5% PRSI. It's getting tiresome seeing the 6.5% pointed out but never the 5% pay rise to compensate.

K-9

prince_buster wrote: »

Capitalism has failed - it has responded by attacking public services as a way of diverting attention from its own obvious failings. Ignore the warning at your peril.

Actually I'm starting to think that those that said Ireland was a failure in the 80's are correct. Unless we can get back to the mid and late 90's, we are fecked.

Barring a period in the 60's and 90's this country has been a failure. I hope I'm wrong!

dresden8

I thought the original question referred to a public sector gravy train re pensions.

I think I've ably demonstrated the public sector pensions are not much, if any better, than the private sector receive in a fair comparison.

If you want to slag off the level of state pensions for the old start a new thread about how the oldsters are ripping us all off. Apparently.

Feel free. Knock yourself out.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

I thought the original question referred to a public sector gravy train re pensions.

I think I've ably demonstrated the public sector pensions are not much, if any better, than the private sector receive in a fair comparison.

If you want to slag off the level of state pensions for the old start a new thread about how the oldsters are ripping us all off. Apparently.

Feel free. Knock yourself out.

And a few of the poor PS myths have been knocked out of the park on this thread.

All in all a good thread for both sides!

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

I thought the original question referred to a public sector gravy train re pensions.

I think I've ably demonstrated the public sector pensions are not much, if any better, than the private sector receive in a fair comparison.

If you want to slag off the level of state pensions for the old start a new thread about how the oldsters are ripping us all off. Apparently.

Feel free. Knock yourself out.

Except those PS Pensions that aren't worth much cost 9/10% of the pay bill and rising!

Maybe you can explain that anomaly?

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

Can PS'ers please point out that they get paid more because they pay 6.5% PRSI. It's getting tiresome seeing the 6.5% pointed out but never the 5% pay rise to compensate.

First off, the pay adjustment was not tied solely to the changing of the PRSI arrangements; it was linked also to a change from CS pension contributions being changed from an implicit payment to an explicit one.

It's also tiresome posting explanations and having them ignored. See post #117 above.

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

Except those PS Pensions that aren't worth much cost 9/10% of the pay bill and rising!

Maybe you can explain that anomaly?

It's simple, if you stop to think about it. Most of those who are retired were first employed in the PS before 1995, and were subject to the conditions then applicable.

And people are living longer, so the ratio of retirees to current employees tends to rise.

dresden8

People who never paid anything into anything ever get €219 per week each. Compare that couple to a public servant who's getting a pension for himself and his wife, who've paid 40 years worth of levy and superannuation.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/Pension/SPNonContributory/Pages/oancp.aspx#Rates3

That's €22,776 per annum.

Check out those CO and SO pension levels again.

Has that cleared anything up for you?

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

First off, the pay adjustment was not tied solely to the changing of the PRSI arrangements; it was linked also to a change from CS pension contributions being changed from an implicit payment to an explicit one.

It's also tiresome posting explanations and having them ignored. See post #117 above.

Know what you mean. I'm not bothering going back to my post 2/3 pages ago as it will be ignored anyway.

"If it walks like a duck".................................

Any dressing up of the agreement does not change the fact that yes, the PS post 95 pay 6.5%, but, they get paid more too. I don't care about pre 95 or Local Authority worker PRSI arrangments. Implicit or explicit, they pay 6.5% but get paid more to compensate.

I pay the 1% levy, my employer does not pay me more to compensate.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

People who never paid anything into anything ever get €219 per week each. Compare that couple to a public servant who's getting a pension for himself and his wife, who've paid 40 years worth of levy and superannuation.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/Pension/SPNonContributory/Pages/oancp.aspx#Rates3

That's €22,776 per annum.

Check out those CO and SO pension levels again.

Has that cleared anything up for you?

So reduce the pension. Then you'll see a return for your buck! Simple.

PS. My Dad gets a Pension so I'm aware of how much it is. It's about €26/27k gross.

dresden8

edited.

dresden8

Screw over pensioners.

Good luck.

If you're lucky maybe a harsh winter will get rid of them.

Carousel!!!!

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

So reduce the pension. Then you'll see a return for your buck! Simple.

PS. My Dad gets a Pension so I'm aware of how much it is. It's about €26/27k gross.

How much? For what?

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

...Any dressing up of the agreement does not change the fact that yes, the PS post 95 pay 6.5%, but, they get paid more too. I don't care about pre 95 or Local Authority worker PRSI arrangments. Implicit or explicit, they pay 6.5% but get paid more to compensate...

Why don't you care? There is a clear rationale underlying the changes. Is it, perhaps, that it doesn't suit your side of the argument, and you find it easier to ignore inconvenient facts?

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Screw over pensioners.

Good luck.

If you're lucky maybe a harsh winter will get rid of them.

Carousel!!!!

Nice strawman. Resort to emotional responses always wins.

dresden8 wrote: »

How much? For what?

He was a Guard, retired in 88.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why don't you care? There is a clear rationale underlying the changes. Is it, perhaps, that it doesn't suit your side of the argument, and you find it easier to ignore inconvenient facts?

I'll ignore the care strawman to keep the topic unemotional, even though this could be a very emotional topic for me.

In the UK the state pension is £90/150 odd. €550 a week is nice compared to that.

The state pension of €22,000 is generous. You are benchmarking (remember it?) your pension against a genorous state pension. Just because the PS is the same or not much more than the state pension, does not mean the pension is bad.

You might see my point, it's unlikely though as you have a self interest. I do too, but I put it aside.

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

...I'll ignore the care strawman to keep the topic unemotional, even though this could be a very emotional topic for me...

Strawman? You announced that you didn't care about an explanation I gave, and dismissed it as if it were irrelevant.

...You are benchmarking (remember it?) your pension against a genorous state pension...

No, I am not. I have not discussed that at all, anywhere. Kindly have some regard for the truth.

...You might see my point, it's unlikely though as you have a self interest. I do too, but I put it aside.

You have no basis on which to make such a judgement of me, and I find your attitude offensive. I make no secret of the fact that I am a PS pensioner. I have not used emotive language or arguments: I have objected to other people using loaded language in this thread.

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

He was a Guard, retired in 88.

Agreed, sweet deal, but it's a job I wouldn't do. Along with prison officers.

Does he know his son thinks he's receiving too high a pension for too little service? Dealing with the dregs of society unarmed for, what, thirty years, unarmed, putting his life on the line?

Perhaps you should inform him? Maybe Jimmmy will come back in at this stage and tell us he has 20 properties or so!

You haven't answered my questions about actual numbers though. Saying the state pension is too high doesn't close the gap between entitlement levels. You know, people who pay nothing and those who contribute for forty years.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Strawman? You announced that you didn't care about an explanation I gave, and dismissed it as if it were irrelevant.

That was your interpretation. I'm saying you interpreted it emotionally. As I pointed out, as you, my Dad receives a decent state pension. I try and leave that personal side out.

Actually I was going to reply more, but I just seen Dresdens reply.

Dresden, have a little respect.

Either you are deliberately trying to rise me or that reply is totally uncalled for.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, I am not. I have not discussed that at all, anywhere. Kindly have some regard for the truth.

But the argument seems to be PS'ers receive nothing or very little above the state pension.Maybe you have not said this, but it's a recurring point on this thread.

P. Breatnach wrote:

You have no basis on which to make such a judgement of me, and I find your attitude offensive. I make no secret of the fact that I am a PS pensioner. I have not used emotive language or arguments: I have objected to other people using loaded language in this thread.

Neither have I. My point is most PS'ers get a decent pension. Do you disagree?

I'll leave it at that.

dresden8

K-9 wrote: »

That was your interpretation. I'm saying you interpreted it emotionally. As I pointed out, as you, my Dad receives a decent state pension. I try and leave that personal side out.



No, I am not. I have not discussed that at all, anywhere. Kindly have some regard for the truth.

Actually I was going to reply more, but I just seen Dresdens reply.

Dresden, have a little respect.

Either you are deliberately trying to rise me or that reply is totally uncalled for.

Why, you are calling public service pensions uncalled for and too high. I've provided examples where people who have contributed nothing get more entitlements for their non-contribution than public servants who have paid 40 years of contributions.

It is my position that your father is worthy of his pension. You're the one claiming it is an example of over generous PS pensions.

What exactly are you saying? What is your position on this question? I am confused.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Agreed, sweet deal, but it's a job I wouldn't do. Along with prison officers.

Agreed. The Border duty was highly paid, but taxed at 60/70% too.

dreseden8 wrote:

Does he know his son thinks he's receiving too high a pension for too little service? Dealing with the dregs of society unarmed for, what, thirty years, unarmed, putting his life on the line?

Lol, nice twisting.

Very nice and very reasonable too.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Why, you are calling public service pensions uncalled for and too high. I've provided examples where people who have contributed nothing get more entitlements for their non-contribution than public servants who have paid 40 years of contributions.

It is my position that your father is worthy of his pension. You're the one claiming it is an example of over generous PS pensions.

What exactly are you saying? What is your position on this question? I am confused.

I await quotes from me.

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Why, you are calling public service pensions uncalled for and too high. I've provided examples where people who have contributed nothing get more entitlements for their non-contribution than public servants who have paid 40 years of contributions.

It is my position that your father is worthy of his pension. You're the one claiming it is an example of over generous PS pensions.

What exactly are you saying? What is your position on this question? I am confused.

I await quotes from me saying they are too high and uncalled for.

Is it your interpretation or can you post my replies saying so?

I said the state pension is to high, not PS pensions.

I said reduce the state pension and let the PS get the same pensions as they do now. Then their pension contributions will actually count for something.

dresden8

Okay, I withdraw everything, you obviously think I've misunderstood and misquoted you. Maybe I have.

Set out your stall and we'll start again.

I thought your position was that the excessive levels of the state pension were masking the excessive levels of the public sector pension and a decrease in the first would expose the excessive levels of the second and lead to a fall in both.

Where did I get that wrong?

K-9

dresden8 wrote: »

Okay, I withdraw everything, you obviously think I've misunderstood and misquoted you. Maybe I have.

Set out your stall and we'll start again.

+

If you can respond to my post just before you there now, we'll be clearer.