Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tonights Prime Time on Pensions: The Public Sector Pay Parity Gravy Train
Options
Comments
-
Plus I'd like to point out that we've moved from the facts that Jimmmy loves to the "I said" NO "You said" bullsh1t that all threads on boards seem to go to.
The question is the Pay Parity Gravy Train.
Provide evidence through numbers, or it's all "I know a bloke" rubbish.
Like Jimmmy provides.
Public service numbers are out there in the public domain.
Please use them.0 -
-
Plus I'd like to point out that we've moved from the facts that Jimmmy loves to the "I said" NO "You said" bullsh1t that all threads on boards seem to go to.
The question is the Pay Parity Gravy Train.
Provide evidence through numbers, or it's all "I know a bloke" rubbish.
Like Jimmmy provides.
Public service numbers are out there in the public domain.
Please use them.
Yep, the Public Sector get decent pensions. Comparing it to a far too high State pension is a moot point. It doesn't mean the PS pension is that bad, it means the State pension is too high.
SW resources in the last 5/6 years, based on property unsustainable bubble taxes, focused on pensions and dole payments. Wages need to be paired back to 01 rates, house prices, cost of living, as do Dole and pension rates.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
It doesn't mean the PS pension is that bad.
Yes, but that's a long way from "Gold Plated" or "Gilt Edged". As Eddie Hobbs would have us believe, him who was still hawking foreign property until quite recently.
It's not the public sector's fault. It's not the private sector's fault. It is the politicians fault. It is the bank's fault. It is the greedy b@st@rds fault, both public and private sector.
Unfortunately everybody else just got handed the bill.
Some of the lies doing the rounds just now
We were all in it.
Were we fnck!
We all borrowed too much
Me fncking @rse we did
We all bought property unwisely
You talkin sh1t we did
We all got rich
Did we fnck!
We all have to share the pain!
How true that is!
I'm p1ssed off.0 -
LOL, I've a few drinks in me as I'm sure you have at this time on a Sat night/Sun morning, so I looked at your first few lines of your last post. I'll read the rest later. Kudos for the rant, I'll address the waeknesses later! LOL
Look, the whole thing is a mess, SW, Pensions, waste etc. etc.
Yes, the PS is part of the whole mess. To deny that is a joke.
I hear plenty of defending from the PS, but no solutions. The PS will tell you there is waste but will not point were it is.
It's akin to the LA police force to me! *
*Being dramatic.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
It doesnt matter if public servants are overpaid or underpaid in their pay and pensions, the reality is the money is just not there to pay them at these levels anymore regardless of how justified it is. There is'nt a huge number of fat cats out there to be taxed raise enough to plug the holes. Those earning 100k+ should be and will be hit hardest but the amount government spends (in all areas) will have to be cut. So public servants will be faced with keeping same number of workers in PS with lower pay or same pay and less employed in PS.0
-
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...
That is an outrageous distortion, the sort people might get away with here because most people don't think it worthwhile re-reading exchanges to figure out what the truth is.
I value honesty. I value my good name, both here and elsewhere. You seem to respect neither.0 -
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.
"Maybe" I didn't say it! I have not said it, here or elsewhere. You have no right to attribute to me things I did not say.... I'll leave it at that.
Why leave it at that? You have misrepresented me, and you are showing a great reluctance to admit it.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »That is an outrageous distortion, the sort people might get away with here because most people don't think it worthwhile re-reading exchanges to figure out what the truth is.
I value honesty. I value my good name, both here and elsewhere. You seem to respect neither.
Your good name? What are you on about? I never questioned your good name!P. Breathnach wrote: »"Maybe" I didn't say it! I have not said it, here or elsewhere. You have no right to attribute to me things I did not say.
Why leave it at that? You have misrepresented me, and you are showing a great reluctance to admit it.
I'll read back later.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
ronbyrne2005 wrote: »It doesnt matter if public servants are overpaid or underpaid in their pay and pensions, the reality is the money is just not there to pay them at these levels anymore regardless of how justified it is. There is'nt a huge number of fat cats out there to be taxed raise enough to plug the holes. Those earning 100k+ should be and will be hit hardest but the amount government spends (in all areas) will have to be cut. So public servants will be faced with keeping same number of workers in PS with lower pay or same pay and less employed in PS.
Leitrim Lad and Jimmmy are out there waiting for you in a thread relevant to that point.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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 think you misinterpreted my post. You completely focussed on the "I don't care" and missed the 1% part.
If the Govt. introduce 5% extra PRSI in the mini budget, I'll be paying it out of my wage. My employer will bot top up my wage by 5% to compensate me.Nice strawman. Resort to emotional responses always wins.
He was a Guard, retired in 88.
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.
I refer you to your previous reply quoted. Is it ok for you to say "Is it, perhaps, that it doesn't suit your side of the argument, and you find it easier to ignore inconvenient facts?" and say I questioned your good name, yet if I mention you have a self interest you take great offence?P. Breathnach wrote: »Strawman? You announced that you didn't care about an explanation I gave, and dismissed it as if it were irrelevant.
No, I am not. I have not discussed that at all, anywhere. Kindly have some regard for the truth.
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.
I don't know. You do seem to be taking offence very easily on this thread to me and another poster. This thread is no more robust that any others on this board. Really, I think it's time you reported offensive posts as it's sidetracking the thread.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.
Neither have I. My point is most PS'ers get a decent pension. Do you disagree?
I'll leave it at that.
Well, do you think your pension is decent and reasonable?
If I caused offense, I apologise.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
...I don't know. You do seem to be taking offence very easily on this thread to me and another poster. This thread is no more robust that any others on this board. Really, I think it's time you reported offensive posts as it's sidetracking the thread...
1. You ascribed to me a position I never expressed
2. You suggested that I was responding emotionally.
3. You implied that I was unable or unwilling to set self-interest aside.
When challenged, you threw handfuls of dust around so that people could not see what was happening.
All you need to do is withdraw those suggestions.
As for sidetracking the thread, attacking the character or motives of another poster achieves that.Well, do you think your pension is decent and reasonable?
That's part of the throwing around of handfuls of dust. Why should I be obliged to answer this question, particularly in this context? It's something I have commented on in other threads in this forum.If I caused offense, I apologise.
I don't want an apology, but thank you for the offer. I want a retraction.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »1. You ascribed to me a position I never expressed
2. You suggested that I was responding emotionally.
3. You implied that I was unable or unwilling to set self-interest aside.
When challenged, you threw handfuls of dust around so that people could not see what was happening.
All you need to do is withdraw those suggestions.
As for sidetracking the thread, attacking the character or motives of another poster achieves that.
You first said I was ignoring your point because it didn't suit my point of view. Untrue.
I wasn't ignoring it, I accept it, I just keep pointing out the stupidity of the agreement. You use the agreement as the basis for a 5% increase in PRSI but a 5% increase in pay at the same time.
I do not accept the agreement other than it being a sop to unions.
"You might see my point, it's unlikely though as you have a self interest. I do too, but I put it aside."
Unlikely
I said unlikely, which by your responses since seems to be the case.
PS. As for retractions, can you retract the first slur in our exchange!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
Hi there,LOL, I've a few drinks in me as I'm sure you have at this time on a Sat night/Sun morning, so I looked at your first few lines of your last post. I'll read the rest later. Kudos for the rant, I'll address the waeknesses later! LOL
Look, the whole thing is a mess, SW, Pensions, waste etc. etc.
Yes, the PS is part of the whole mess. To deny that is a joke.
I hear plenty of defending from the PS, but no solutions. The PS will tell you there is waste but will not point were it is.
It's akin to the LA police force to me! *
*Being dramatic.
A few people on this thread, as with a few threads in the "politics" forum lately seem to be getting off the point and indeed have begun sniping at each other based on whether their views are perceived to be pro or anti public sector benefits. Jimmy, as with a few of this other threads in this particular forum, needs to spend some time in the economics forum, while he has come up with some relatively decent points in theory, when they are analysed in depth they are exposed for what they are, a deep hatred of Public sector workers for the benefits they receive. Just because he has some "friends" in the Public sector, does not mask these feelings. I also dont like the last statement in relation to the "no solutions" comments. I've mentioned countless solutions to the spending problems in the Public sector and the lack of jobs in the Private sector, as have many other posters. Most of them require more inside knowledge of where the public sector money goes.
I work in IT for a Public sector body, I am there less than 2 years. I've seen and outlined to various people that in IT hardware and phone systems along the cost saving that could be achieved, never mind the amount of money that could be saved and work that can be reduced by developing and implementing software packages, as well as the amount of consultancy that could be dropped by hiring one or two key IT staff in the right fields (telecoms for example)
However there has been an attitude up till recently that none of this was needed. This attitude comes from the very top as far as I am concerned and is not helped by the Unions and their apparent lack of movement on "work practices". The amount of paper still being pushing in the PS is ridiculous and from what I can see a lot of the time the reasons such practices have not been streamlined is because of Union issues (they really dont want to streamline things as it COULD mean less need for people in the future) and the lack of people with the right business knowledge to do it. This kind of thing HAS to change. Pay cuts, pension levies, call them what you want are probably the fastest things to bring money in, but until the Public sector changes its attitudes in a wide variety of areas the spending will still go on without tangable savings being made and work practices improving.
Thats what p1ssing me off at the moment to be honest, I dont mind taking cuts but when those cuts are used to fund outdated practices I aint too happy.
I also believe certain state agencies are very very ill equipped to deal with the thousands of highly qualified people coming to them looking for advice. There is a failing there and as with the country in general, this is coming from leadership, from the top. The guys facing the public on a daily basis cant to a lot when there isnt a framework there for them to work off.
I've outlined other areas and possible solutions in other threads as have others so please be aware that there are some of us out there who really
do see the bigger picture.
Now in relation the pensions and the gravy train. I have to admit I didnt see the programme but if the main thing you are taking form it is based on a former taoiseachs pension, then as others have highlighted we should be taking an example of a Private sector pension for a similar role, top banker for example, and we all know the pensions these guys have.
There is NO doubt that pensions , public, private and state need to be reviewed an a better and more sustainable method of funding them be found. However there are a LOT of misconceptions about Public sector pensions out there. The older people in this sector will no doubt end up on decent index linked pensions, fair play to them is all I say, whereas the newer entrants are undoubtly NOT going to get as good a pension. Thats obvious. Things have changed recently and will continue to change in relation to the Public sector pension.
Public, private and state pensions and their funding methods need to be reviewed, in a big way.
The national pensions reserve fund, while a great concept, really SHOULD be managed and utilised better. I dont believe it is invested apart from in dodgy banks. What should be done with this and it MAY be thinking outside the box and may not be feasable, is to invest it in infrastructural projects from which a income can be gained.
For example, the absolute disgrace that is the various toll roads in this country wouldnt be as much of a disgrace if the money that built the roads came from the NPRF and that the toll money (which I believe to be a fairly constant income stream) less running costs was put back into the fund. I am sure there are other things like this which would be better for investing peoples pensions in. Perhaps a few wind power stations, where the money coming from the electricity generates goes back into the NPRF.
Again, these are just suggestions.
Pensions are a complicated matter, there are a LOT of vested interest groups involved and a lot of complicated schemes and funding methods. There is no doubt some reviews need to occur for them.
Apologies for the long post.
Kippy0 -
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?K-9 wrote:You first said I was ignoring your point because it didn't suit my point of view. Untrue.P. Breathnach wrote: »I didn't say that. I'm finished discussing things with you, because your version of truth is too flexible for me.
There you are, that inflexible enough for you.
For one who is very liberal with the accusations on 2 different posters in this thread and looks for retractions, you seem to be well able to dish it out.
You couldn't counter the reality that post 95 pay 5% extra PRSI, but they actually get paid extra to compensate. I'm sure if PRSI goes up by 5% in the mini budget, my employer will pay me more. No amount of Union spin or referring to Local Authority workers etc. etc. changes that. The PS did very well out of that arrangment. It can be dressed up etc., but you can't put lipstick on a pig.
I'm well used to PS strops though when this is pointed out. They always are quick to point out we pay 6.5% PRSI, but not how they achieved that.Hi there,
A few people on this thread, as with a few threads in the "politics" forum lately seem to be getting off the point and indeed have begun sniping at each other based on whether their views are perceived to be pro or anti public sector benefits. Jimmy, as with a few of this other threads in this particular forum, needs to spend some time in the economics forum, while he has come up with some relatively decent points in theory, when they are analysed in depth they are exposed for what they are, a deep hatred of Public sector workers for the benefits they receive. Just because he has some "friends" in the Public sector, does not mask these feelings. I also dont like the last statement in relation to the "no solutions" comments. I've mentioned countless solutions to the spending problems in the Public sector and the lack of jobs in the Private sector, as have many other posters. Most of them require more inside knowledge of where the public sector money goes.
I work in IT for a Public sector body, I am there less than 2 years. I've seen and outlined to various people that in IT hardware and phone systems along the cost saving that could be achieved, never mind the amount of money that could be saved and work that can be reduced by developing and implementing software packages, as well as the amount of consultancy that could be dropped by hiring one or two key IT staff in the right fields (telecoms for example)
However there has been an attitude up till recently that none of this was needed. This attitude comes from the very top as far as I am concerned and is not helped by the Unions and their apparent lack of movement on "work practices". The amount of paper still being pushing in the PS is ridiculous and from what I can see a lot of the time the reasons such practices have not been streamlined is because of Union issues (they really dont want to streamline things as it COULD mean less need for people in the future) and the lack of people with the right business knowledge to do it. This kind of thing HAS to change. Pay cuts, pension levies, call them what you want are probably the fastest things to bring money in, but until the Public sector changes its attitudes in a wide variety of areas the spending will still go on without tangable savings being made and work practices improving.
Thats what p1ssing me off at the moment to be honest, I dont mind taking cuts but when those cuts are used to fund outdated practices I aint too happy.
That seems to be the problem. The guys at the top together with the Union bosses seem to resist any changes or have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it.kippy wrote:I also believe certain state agencies are very very ill equipped to deal with the thousands of highly qualified people coming to them looking for advice. There is a failing there and as with the country in general, this is coming from leadership, from the top. The guys facing the public on a daily basis cant to a lot when there isnt a framework there for them to work off.
I've outlined other areas and possible solutions in other threads as have others so please be aware that there are some of us out there who really
do see the bigger picture.
Now in relation the pensions and the gravy train. I have to admit I didnt see the programme but if the main thing you are taking form it is based on a former taoiseachs pension, then as others have highlighted we should be taking an example of a Private sector pension for a similar role, top banker for example, and we all know the pensions these guys have.
A minor point, many of the bankers pensions will take a hit too, the politicians will not. I know, I've crocodile tears here too.kippy wrote:There is NO doubt that pensions , public, private and state need to be reviewed an a better and more sustainable method of funding them be found. However there are a LOT of misconceptions about Public sector pensions out there. The older people in this sector will no doubt end up on decent index linked pensions, fair play to them is all I say, whereas the newer entrants are undoubtly NOT going to get as good a pension. Thats obvious. Things have changed recently and will continue to change in relation to the Public sector pension.
Hard to know. The problem with the current system seems to be it's tied to a high basic SW Pension, which means many in the PS receive no, or little more. My point is, if the SW Pension was lower, many in the PS would actually get more for their contribrutions.
To quote Dresden8:Dresden8 wrote:State Contributory Pension (Which is paid for by PRSI Contributions)
Personal Rate 230.3 by 52 = 11,975.60
Adult Dependant Rate 206.3 by 52 = 10,276.60
Total State Pension 22,252.20 This is paid first and then the public service pension tops up to the amounts below.
Clerical Officer
Max Pay €38,593
Max Pension €19,296
Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = Nil.
Staff Officer
Max Pay €47,906
Max Pension €€23,853
Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = 1,300 per annum or €25 per week.
Executive Officer
Max Pay €49,809
Max Pension €24,904.50
Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = 2,652.30 per annum or €51 per week.
Higher Executive Officer
Max Pay €60,693
Max Pension €30,346
Value of 40 years of superannuation and pension levy = €8,111.80 or €156 per week.
If the state pension was say, €12/13,000, nearer the UK level, Everybody in the grades above would receive a minimum of €6/7,000. As I keep pointing out, the problem is the state pension is too high, higher than what a clerical officer would get and more or less the same for a staff officer. Madness!kippy wrote:Public, private and state pensions and their funding methods need to be reviewed, in a big way.
The national pensions reserve fund, while a great concept, really SHOULD be managed and utilised better. I dont believe it is invested apart from in dodgy banks. What should be done with this and it MAY be thinking outside the box and may not be feasable, is to invest it in infrastructural projects from which a income can be gained.
It actually performed quiet well until the last couple of years, but probably too much was invested in shares.kippy wrote:For example, the absolute disgrace that is the various toll roads in this country wouldnt be as much of a disgrace if the money that built the roads came from the NPRF and that the toll money (which I believe to be a fairly constant income stream) less running costs was put back into the fund. I am sure there are other things like this which would be better for investing peoples pensions in. Perhaps a few wind power stations, where the money coming from the electricity generates goes back into the NPRF.
Again, these are just suggestions.
Pensions are a complicated matter, there are a LOT of vested interest groups involved and a lot of complicated schemes and funding methods. There is no doubt some reviews need to occur for them.
Hopefully the mini budget will come up with fresh new ideas. Ireland did it in the late 80's and 90's. Hopefully we can do it again, though the challenges are different from then.
The PRSI system here is grossly underfunded, or probably more accurately, not in anyway relevant to SW and Health. The fund shouldn't be running out in the next few months. In NI they pay 10%, but get far lower pensions and SW. The only thing they see to get more is free doctors and heavily subsidised prescriptions.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
That was a one-off adjustment and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Both the public and private sector have had pay rises since then. The 5% extra is taken account of when comparing public and private sector salaries. For pre-1995, they're treated in comparisions as if they too had the 5%.You couldn't counter the reality that post 95 pay 5% extra PRSI, but they actually get paid extra to compensate. I'm sure if PRSI goes up by 5% in the mini budget, my employer will pay me more.
That was 1995 and the fact is that now, the post 1995 Civil Servants pay for their state pension just like anyone else. The issue is that some workers get quite generous top-ups just as some do in the private sector and some do not, just as in the private sector. Given the current reluctance to be seen in a '09' registered car, I'd say that those in the private sector with good pension plans, are probably keeping their heads down.
It would help promote a constructive discussion if the number and value of private sector top-ups were quantified and likewise the public-sector ones. Throwing generalisations around is both unfair and hysterical. It will lead to endless tooing and fro-ing.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »That was a one-off adjustment and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Both the public and private sector have had pay rises since then. The 5% extra is taken account of when comparing public and private sector salaries. For pre-1995, they're treated in comparisions as if they too had the 5%.
That was 1995 and the fact is that now, the post 1995 Civil Servants pay for their state pension just like anyone else. The issue is that some workers get quite generous top-ups just as some do in the private sector and some do not, just as in the private sector. Given the current reluctance to be seen in a '09' registered car, I'd say that those in the private sector with good pension plans, are probably keeping their heads down.
It would help promote a constructive discussion if the number and value of private sector top-ups were quantified and likewise the public-sector ones. Throwing generalisations around is both unfair and hysterical. It will lead to endless tooing and fro-ing.
In fairness I am labouring the point. I think Jimmy did ask a couple of times and eventually got the official explanation. I suppose I'm putting it in Private Sector terms.
I fully accept the PS now pays plenty and also think it's extremely unfair the levy is being deducted on pay that doesn't even count towards a pension.
It wasn't a one off. As with all pay increases, benchmarking etc. we pay for this now, in 2009. I think that is the problem. You see it as a one off, I see it as been paid each and every single year since.
On the private pensions, I think it's less than 50% have one, which given 20/25% are paid minimum wage is understandable. Yes, many more should have one and I'm sure wasted money on new 4*4 and cars, but they also were and are paying big mortgages.
The Govt. missed a serious chance of getting a decent pension scheme in place during the bubble. Another failure to add to the list. Maybe if they'd halved the increases on SW and gave some incentive like the SSIA, it may have helped.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Well, what can we learn from the past?The Govt. missed a serious chance of getting a decent pension scheme in place during the bubble. Another failure to add to the list. Maybe if they'd halved the increases on SW and gave some incentive like the SSIA, it may have helped.
The private sector invested their money in stocks and shares. Anyone with spare cash was pestered to top up with AVCs. The pensions industry made lots of fees for managing these investments.
At the beginning of the recession last year, the pension industry then looked at the IPA yearbook and spammed all the staff in the Civil Service and got some of them to invest their money too.
Poof! The money has disappeared in a black hole of management fees and losses.
The government put money into the NPRF and made a law that it could not be used for anything other than public and state pensions. Quite a bit of it has suffered from the financial meltdown. After changing the law, a big chunk of what's left has been given to the banks to facilitate the write-off of rich people's investments. Now, the government has passed another law stripping public sector wages, not to save money for the taxpayer but to finance more succour for the rich.
So, how do you invest money to ensure humane and comfortable retirements for workers?
Maybe big families are the only answer.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »Well, what can we learn from the past?
The private sector invested their money in stocks and shares. Anyone with spare cash was pestered to top up with AVCs. The pensions industry made lots of fees for managing these investments.
At the beginning of the recession last year, the pension industry then looked at the IPA yearbook and spammed all the staff in the Civil Service and got some of them to invest their money too.
I thought AVC's were very common with PS workers, even pre last year? The Private and Public Sector also invested heavily in property.
I'd say many did sell for short term gain. Did they actually think or know the markets would collapse? I don't think so. Manys the so called smart man who has got caught with Anglo Irsih, BOI, AIB etc.NewDubliner wrote:The government put money into the NPRF and made a law that it could not be used for anything other than public and state pensions. Quite a bit of it has suffered from the financial meltdown. After changing the law, a big chunk of what's left has been given to the banks to facilitate the write-off of rich people's investments. Now, the government has passed another law stripping public sector wages, not to save money for the taxpayer but to finance more succour for the rich.
Minor point, but the NPRF money is supposedly repayable. Probably will be a few years after the massive bad debts are written of and banks show they can be relied on to run a solid business first.NewDublin wrote:So, how do you invest money to ensure humane and comfortable retirements for workers?
Maybe big families are the only answer.
LOL, you don't invest. SW is the answer by the sounds of it!
And you haven't even mentioned Nursing Home and carer fees.
Unless we get a properly regulated banking and pensions sector, I'm not sure. Ever since the tulip crash, human nature keeps repeating itself.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »
So, how do you invest money to ensure humane and comfortable retirements for workers?kippy wrote:The national pensions reserve fund, while a great concept, really SHOULD be managed and utilised better. I dont believe it is invested apart from in dodgy banks. What should be done with this and it MAY be thinking outside the box and may not be feasable, is to invest it in infrastructural projects from which a income can be gained.
For example, the absolute disgrace that is the various toll roads in this country wouldnt be as much of a disgrace if the money that built the roads came from the NPRF and that the toll money (which I believe to be a fairly constant income stream) less running costs was put back into the fund. I am sure there are other things like this which would be better for investing peoples pensions in. Perhaps a few wind power stations, where the money coming from the electricity generates goes back into the NPRF.
Again, these are just suggestions.
Just something which has a pretty stable income stream.0 -
-
The Eircom share deal was a joke for a number of reasons and not at all relevant to what I am speaking about.NewDubliner wrote: »Ordinary people are not allowed benefit from these.
Remember Eircom.
If for example a pension fund bought and upgraded the telecoms infrastructure and rented it back to the telecoms companies in the future you'd have be killing a number of birds with the one stone. 1. Proper investment of the pension funds. 2. Upgrade of the Irish telecoms infrastructure. 3. An annual return on investment into the future on systems which people are willing to pay for.
Again, I dont really know how a lot of this could be implemented from a legal and practical standpoint but surely investing pensions money in these kind of schemes when times are bad is the best possible use of the funds?0 -
ronbyrne2005 wrote: »It doesnt matter if public servants are overpaid or underpaid in their pay and pensions, the reality is the money is just not there to pay them at these levels anymore regardless of how justified it is. There is'nt a huge number of fat cats out there to be taxed raise enough to plug the holes. Those earning 100k+ should be and will be hit hardest but the amount government spends (in all areas) will have to be cut. So public servants will be faced with keeping same number of workers in PS with lower pay or same pay and less employed in PS.
True enough theme overall. But to go to your first sentence, it does matter if public servants are overpaid in their pay and pensions...because it is costing the country 20 billion ( as far as I know ) per year. Check the pay and pensions of a public servant in Berlin for example - its half.0 -
True enough theme overall. But to go to your first sentence, it does matter if public servants are overpaid in their pay and pensions...because it is costing the country 20 billion ( as far as I know ) per year. Check the pay and pensions of a public servant in Berlin for example - its half.
Jimmy,
Do you Understand the concept of living costs and the links it has with wages?
Its a circle that needs to be broken in THIS country.
House prices/Rents/Car Prices/Food and Essentials prices are ALL higher here than they are in Germany,services etc (in the most general of terms)
If these prices were kept low or lower I would consider the fact that wages IN GENERAL in this country are higher than they are elsewhere is a bad and unfair thing. That doesnt seem to be the case however.
The reason the Public service wanted "MORE" was because their private sector colleagues were doing well in the good times, thus forcing the costs of living up. I have no problems with benchmarking the other way, but really living costs HAVE to come down to help justify that.
Kippy0 -
Advertisement
-
Check the pay and pensions of a public servant in Berlin for example - its half.
Since you seem well informed on this matter, why don't you post this information and an explanation of the various grades, the people in them, any bonus payments etc and details on the pensions scheme.0
Advertisement