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
-
So if everybody pays attention at school, nobody will be on minimum wage?
Exactly.
Believe it or not you can control your own path through life.
Do well at school. Get into university. Do well at university. Get into a good job. Do well in your job/s and advance your career. Dont spend your life on minimum wage begrudging others the breaks they earned for themselves.
Radical isnt it.0 -
And it's far to bloody high, or, more accurately, you get very little extra for all those years of PRSI.
I'm sure Jimmmy will clarify, but I think on that one, you are being a bit harsh and semantic.
Unless you think we shouldn't have state pensions?
Someone on minimum wage all their lives pays PRSI and no AVCs as you said they cant afford to pay them. Then they get the state pension and its 2/3 of their salary. Seems like a good deal for them to me.0 -
Exactly.
Believe it or not you can control your own path through life.
Do well at school. Get into university. Do well at university. Get into a good job. Do well in your job/s and advance your career. Dont spend your life on minimum wage begrudging others the breaks they earned for themselves.
Radical isnt it.
Not all have the brains to get into University.
In an ideal world everybody has the same chances, opportunities, skills.
Anyway, this is going OT!Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Exactly.
Believe it or not you can control your own path through life.
Do well at school. Get into university. Do well at university. Get into a good job. Do well in your job/s and advance your career. Dont spend your life on minimum wage begrudging others the breaks they earned for themselves.
Radical isnt it.
Eh, unfortunately you can't beat breeding. Some people will simply not be born smart. No amount of schooling will change that. Fortunately you don't need to do very well in your Leaving, never mind go to university to earn more than minimum wage.0 -
That's another debate and don't forget the fuel/travel/phone/electricity perks.And it's far to bloody high, or, more accurately, you get very little extra for all those years of PRSI.
He's been more than economical with the truth.I'm sure Jimmmy will clarify, but I think on that one, you are being a bit harsh and semantic.
Not at all, I never said that.Unless you think we shouldn't have state pensions?0 -
Advertisement
-
Eh, unfortunately you can't beat breeding. Some people will simply not be born smart. No amount of schooling will change that. Fortunately you don't need to do very well in your Leaving, never mind go to university to earn more than minimum wage.
True, though some industries just have the majority of employees on minimum wage or not much above it. Not much the individual can do about it. Retail and catering eg.
I'm sure Bobbbs suggestion would also ring through with current University graduates! All highly educated too!NewDubliner wrote: »That's another debate and don't forget the fuel/travel/phone/electricity perks.
Not really, it's very on topic. It directly impacts on the PS Pension. The pension figures were provided earlier and I did point out, the fact that Clerical officers or Staff officers receive only the State pension or little more, is exactly because the State pension is so high.
Reduce the state pension and they actually will get money for their contributions.NewDubliner wrote:He's been more than economical with the truth.
Not really. I could see his point as I'm sure others did.NewDubliner wrote:Not at all, I never said that.
Nope, but why mention an universal State pension?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Again I'm unsure of your point. I've explained to you why over 50% don't have pension cover. I don't really see what your point is. Ideally nobody should be on minimum wage or less than the av. ind. wage but there you are! The joys of capitalism!
I noticed though how you pointed to high house prices/rent/food prices when benchmarking down was pointed out, but when I point out the exact same thing to you, it's tough!
I'll try put it to you again.
1.Why dont 50% of the private sector have their own non PRSI pension scheme? You determine that it is because they cannot afford to and hence do not have the option because they are in lower paid jobs. I dont disagree with this. I understand that the cost of living is high in this country and thats why I try my best to improve on my circumstances all the time.
Current graduates have a LONG time to sort out their pensions, whatever they may be.
2.The lines are getting blurred here and perhaps that is my fault but....when Jimmy brought up the statistic that German public servants were on %50 (still to be substantiated statistic) I infered that this was in general down to a lower cost of living in that country.
Irish public servants and german public servants were not benchmarked against each other.
That was the point I was trying to make.
German tax rates for example:
Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 7,664
15% 7,665-52,152
42% 52,153-250,000
45% 250,001 and over
Perhaps we should, in general, take some lessons form the German taxation base and aim to mirror their whole ecomony from wages to cost of living to taxation, health and education.
Benchmarking was a (political implement to primarily grab votes and keep the unions happy) means paying like for like wages for jobs in the private and public sector. It was not an implement to determine the lowest paid job in the private sector and determine that a person with a degree, years of experience and some professional qualifications should get paid more.
Benchmarking was NO DOUBT needed in certain areas of the sector at the time in order to compete for well educated and valuable staff with companies in the private sector.
It was not needed in certain sectors of the public sector, possibly some of the more frontline services where there was no ACTUAL role exactly the same in the private sector.
But again, I highlight the vicious circle that drove costs (for everyone) up in this country.
1. Higher minimum wage.
2. Various tax exemptions for building.
3. Massive stoking of the fire of the property market with various breaks for first time buyers.
4. A vastly reduced income tax level.
5. Labour costs in general going up (BOTH public AND private sector)
Again, I blame the Unions and the Government themselves for pandering to this.....
It seems to have gone a bit far however and should be reviewed, no doubt.0 -
His point being that 50% of the private sector had no pension when this was, in fact, not true?Not really. I could see his point as I'm sure others did.
Because this is a pension entitlement of many of the 50% that jimmmy claimed 'had no pension'. It's a significant sum of money, worth mentioning in any comparison.why mention an universal State pension?0 -
I'll try put it to you again.
1.Why dont 50% of the private sector have their own non PRSI pension scheme? You determine that it is because they cannot afford to and hence do not have the option because they are in lower paid jobs. I dont disagree with this. I understand that the cost of living is high in this country and thats why I try my best to improve on my circumstances all the time.
Current graduates have a LONG time to sort out their pensions, whatever they may be.
Yet you point to the high cost of living when benchmarking down is mentioned, but dismiss it when it's pointed out for low pension cover. A tad selective?
Why say No benchmarking down due to the cost of living, but say tough when the eaxact same reason is pointed out about poor pension cover?kippy wrote:2.The lines are getting blurred here and perhaps that is my fault but....when Jimmy brought up the statistic that German public servants were on %50 (still to be substantiated statistic) I infered that this was in general down to a lower cost of living in that country.
Irish public servants and german public servants were not benchmarked against each other.
That was the point I was trying to make.
German tax rates for example:
Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 7,664
15% 7,665-52,152
42% 52,153-250,000
45% 250,001 and over
Perhaps we should, in general, take some lessons form the German taxation base and aim to mirror their whole ecomony from wages to cost of living to taxation, health and education.
I didn't mention that at all.
Wait a sec, do you know our tax rates and income limits? Check it out, they aren't that far apart! I'm shocked myself.
You should check out their PRSI system. I'd say that's were you will find the big differences.Kippy wrote:Benchmarking was a (political implement to primarily grab votes and keep the unions happy) means paying like for like wages for jobs in the private and public sector. It was not an implement to determine the lowest paid job in the private sector and determine that a person with a degree, years of experience and some professional qualifications should get paid more.
Benchmarking was NO DOUBT needed in certain areas of the sector at the time in order to compete for well educated and valuable staff with companies in the private sector.
It was not needed in certain sectors of the public sector, possibly some of the more frontline services where there was no ACTUAL role exactly the same in the private sector.
But again, I highlight the vicious circle that drove costs (for everyone) up in this country.
1. Higher minimum wage.
2. Various tax exemptions for building.
3. Massive stoking of the fire of the property market with various breaks for first time buyers.
4. A vastly reduced income tax level.
5. Labour costs in general going up (BOTH public AND private sector)
No problem, benchmarking was wasted generally on those who didn't need it. It was a a sham.
6. Higher public sector pay rates which meant private sector workers wanted more, which is a big part of 5 as well. And the circle goes on, though the PS has largely PS backed Unions fighting their corner.
The public sector unions played just as much a part in the greed of the last 5/6 years as points 1-5.NewDubliner wrote: »His point being that 50% of the private sector had no pension when this was, in fact, not true?
Grand, so no state pension means nobody has a pension? I know exactly what he meant and I think you are labouring a semantic point. Everybody gets a basic pension. Why include it and make it a point?newdubliner wrote:Because this is a pension entitlement of many of the 50% that jimmmy claimed 'had no pension'. It's a significant sum of money, worth mentioning in any comparison.
Grand, no state pension and his point will be correct!
Again, everybody has an entitlement to a pension, subject to a means test.
Its a given.
I think your problem is with the system, not Jimmmys point!
If I or you lose your job tomorrow you'll get dole. It's a basic right in a civilised society. So is an income when you are 65.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Im not referring to the means-tested pension, I'm referring the the non-means tested Contributory State Pension. It's not a semantic point, it's a deliberately omitted fact.I know exactly what he meant and I think you are labouring a semantic point. Everybody gets a basic pension. Why include it and make it a point?
When comparing the pension entitlements of public and private sectors workers, don't you think that pension income from all sources on both sides should be included so that a valid comparison can be made?0 -
Advertisement
-
Okay, Listen, I never said that we shouldnt be benchmarked down because the cost of living is coming down, I stated the the benchmarking process at the time was based on comparing like for like jobs in the private and public sector (allegedly). I pointed out that Jimmys comparison with Germany was unfair without taking all other factors into account.Yet you point to the high cost of living when benchmarking down is mentioned, but dismiss it when it's pointed out for low pension cover. A tad selective?
Why say No benchmarking down due to the cost of living, but say tough when the eaxact same reason is pointed out about poor pension cover?
We werent benchmarked against German jobs.
Everything has risen in the "good times" (including the standard PRSI pension) while not in the same vein as the prices rises in the economy you cannot deny that this has risen. I would be interested to see the amount of PRSI pension in circa 1999 and now. It would be interesting to see how much it has risen. I aint saying this is a bad thing, just point out that PRSI pensions HAVE risen also with cost of living increases.
The other pensions that people selectively pay into, would have increased in value up until recently and the "safer" pensions would still contain a fair proportion of value. Those that went high risk will have seen their funds almost wiped out but the majority of high risk pension schemes are aimed at the younger sector who hopefully have time to make it up.
But it is relevant when Jimmy brings German wages and cost of services into account.
I didn't mention that at all.
Okay,Wait a sec, do you know our tax rates and income limits? Check it out, they aren't that far apart! I'm shocked myself.
You should check out their PRSI system. I'd say that's were you will find the big differences.
Those tax rates/bands and income limits are SUBSTANTIALLY different to ours. I take the point that I am not taking into account, tax credits, indirect taxation, PRSI, I have not doubt that these are different also.
Just for comparison, Irish tax bands (without levy or other tax credits)
0% up to 18304
20% on first 36,400
41% on balance
If you cant see a substantial difference there then there is something wrong.....
That said, I can see where for some people the german taxation system would be better for earners here than earners in germany but its fairly obvious it is a different country and has different methods of measuring and setting pay.
From what I have been hearing the government are going to move towards (again) rates and bands more similiar to that in Germany.
I aint disagreeing with you.No problem, benchmarking was wasted generally on those who didn't need it. It was a a sham.
6. Higher public sector pay rates which meant private sector workers wanted more, which is a big part of 5 as well. And the circle goes on, though the PS has largely PS backed Unions fighting their corner.
The public sector unions played just as much a part in the greed of the last 5/6 years as points 1-5.
We ALL played as much a part in the greed of the past 5/6 years as ANY one sector of the economy. Lower income tax rates (with a number being taken out of the tax net altogether), higher minimum wages,Various tax relieves that almost all can avail off, a building boom which raised the cost(wages) of tradesmen, deregulation of financial services, which created jobs in sectors where there were none before, raising share prices which were either owned directly or indirectly by many of us, raising Public sector wages, higher social welfare entitlements in general -dole, pension,various welfare additions, childcare.
You'll find something in there that effects everyone and some people more than others. We've all taken our bit from the teat of the celtic tiger, some more that others, no we've to step back and give some of it back.
Look, Jimmy posted that as if to STATE that half of private sector workers have NOTHING when they retire (which is what a large number of readers of his post would be lead to believe).Grand, so no state pension means nobody has a pension? I know exactly what he meant and I think you are labouring a semantic point. Everybody gets a basic pension. Why include it and make it a point?
Grand, no state pension and his point will be correct!
Again, everybody has an entitlement to a pension, subject to a means test.
Its a given.
I think your problem is with the system, not Jimmmys point!
If I or you lose your job tomorrow you'll get dole. It's a basic right in a civilised society. So is an income when you are 65.
It's been pointed out that they will (in the majority) have some form of a pension. Whether or not we all have the same type is irrelevant to the statement he posted. ie it was at best a half-truth and at worst misleading.0 -
Look, Jimmy posted that as if to STATE that half of private sector workers have NOTHING when they retire (which is what a large number of readers of his post would be lead to believe).
It's been pointed out that they will (in the majority) have some form of a pension. Whether or not we all have the same type is irrelevant to the statement he posted. ie it was at best a half-truth and at worst misleading.
WRONG kippy. See my posts of 86 and 91 in this thread, among other postings
eg I wrote " Do you really think that 50% or more of private sector people have a private pension ? Think of all the people who work in shops, restaurants, offices, hotels, factories, farms, workshops, building sites ....do you really they ( or most of them ) all pay in to private pension schemes ? They get the old age pension like everyone else. I know some self employed people who paid tax all their lives and did not get an old age pension, as they were means tested, but that may have changed now for the self employed, I dont know about that specific point. "0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »His point being that 50% of the private sector had no pension when this was, in fact, not true?
Because this is a pension entitlement of many of the 50% that jimmmy claimed 'had no pension'. It's a significant sum of money, worth mentioning in any comparison.
You are wrong NewDubliner - see my posts of 86 and 91 etc etc among other posts which I have even time to find at the moment.
Nice attempt to go off on a tangent and distract the debate from the public sector gravy train , though.0 -
Exactly.
Believe it or not you can control your own path through life.
Do well at school. Get into university. Do well at university. Get into a good job. Do well in your job/s and advance your career. Dont spend your life on minimum wage begrudging others the breaks they earned for themselves.
Radical isnt it.
Let me tell you a true story.
I was chatting with a couple of people recently. Both were about the same age with the same qualifications and had both worked in the public sector many years ago. About 10 years ago one moved elsewhere in the country (got married ) and have to leave the public service and settle for a private sector job with an american multinational. They were comparing holidays. One got 31 days and the other only 21. One works longer hours per week. One has no pension. One get paid almost a third less than the other....no prizes for guessing more ( its the person in the private sector who is paid less). "Sickies" are really frowned upon. No flexitime. One may lose her job in 6 months as the parent company is cutting back etc/ lost contracts to other countries etc.
Yes bobbb, as you say "believe it or not you can control your own path through life. Do well at school. Get into university. Do well at university. Get into a good job.". The advice is though get a public sector job + keep it. Heaven forbit should the person who takes the risk be rewarded. Heaven forbid should the person who helps bring foreign earnings in to the country, to pay taxes to sustain the government...heaven forbit should he or she get a fair deal compared with the public sector.0 -
Jimmy, Have you or have you not, quoted on Various occasions in this and other topics that more than 50% of private sector workers have no pensions-which is PLAINLY untrue.You are wrong NewDubliner - see my posts of 86 and 91 etc etc among other posts which I have even time to find at the moment.
Nice attempt to go off on a tangent and distract the debate from the public sector gravy train , though.
You would make it out that they are on the bread line.
Jimmy, Have you any retort to the other defence of the other half truths you have stated (which I mention above)?
The first post in this topic was based on the pension of the highest paid position in the state. Not a true reflection of how it is from the majority of PS pensioners.0 -
Thats the second time you've told that anecdotal story on this thread alone. Fair enough its probably true (with certain cavaets). The guy in the private sector should really have reviewed his options in the past ten years.....it's how WE ALL better ourselves. He was obviously happy enough with his lot to stick that job for ten years.....otherwise he would have moved elsewhere, surely??? It wasnt like there werent any jobs out there.jimmmy59723151 wrote:Let me tell you a true story.
I was chatting with a couple of people recently. Both were about the same age with the same qualifications and had both worked in the public sector many years ago. About 10 years ago one moved elsewhere in the country (got married ) and have to leave the public service and settle for a private sector job with an american multinational. They were comparing holidays. One got 31 days and the other only 21. One works longer hours per week. One has no pension. One get paid almost a third less than the other....no prizes for guessing more ( its the person in the private sector who is paid less). "Sickies" are really frowned upon. No flexitime. One may lose her job in 6 months as the parent company is cutting back etc/ lost contracts to other countries etc.
Yes bobbb, as you say "believe it or not you can control your own path through life. Do well at school. Get into university. Do well at university. Get into a good job.". The advice is though get a public sector job + keep it. Heaven forbit should the person who takes the risk be rewarded. Heaven forbid should the person who helps bring foreign earnings in to the country, to pay taxes to sustain the government...heaven forbit should he or she get a fair deal compared with the public sector.
We each review our employment situation and make decisions based on what we want from live and the trade offs that need to be met to get that.
The prople who "Take the risks" are generally not the 98% of of private sector workers. They are the people who set up their own businesses and employ others. I know plenty of them and fair play to them, they should get all the help they can.
Taking a risk is not taking a job with worse pay and conditions over another one and staying there when there are other options (in the private sector) and then complaining about it, that's plain lunacy....0 -
Jimmy, Have you or have you not, quoted on Various occasions in this and other topics that more than 50% of private sector workers have no pensions-which is PLAINLY untrue..
No. Read again carefully what I wrote. " Do you really think that 50% or more of private sector people have a private pension ? Think of all the people who work in shops, restaurants, offices, hotels, factories, farms, workshops, building sites ....do you really they ( or most of them ) all pay in to private pension schemes ? They get the old age pension like everyone else."You would make it out that they are on the bread line..
Compared to public service pensions, the amount of money many people have to live on is a lot less....everything is relative....I never mentioned the wordbreadline ....even the poorest in this country live well compared to those on literally a "breadline".Jimmy, Have you any retort to the other defence of the other half truths you have stated (which I mention above)?.
I have not stated half truths. lolThe first post in this topic was based on the pension of the highest paid position in the state. Not a true reflection of how it is from the majority of PS pensioners.
The first post on this thread mentioned the pensions of various ex-Taoiseach ; that was because it was mentioned on the RTE programme / investigation in to the matter. It said other public servants enjoyed similar percentages. Other posters have indicated their father was on a pension much higher than the average industrial wage etc....check back + you will see the figures.0 -
Thats the second time you've told that anecdotal story on this thread alone. Fair enough its probably true (with certain cavaets). The guy in the private sector should really have reviewed his options in the past ten years.....it's how WE ALL better ourselves. He was obviously happy enough with his lot to stick that job for ten years.....otherwise he would have moved elsewhere, surely??? It wasnt like there werent any jobs out there.
We each review our employment situation and make decisions based on what we want from live and the trade offs that need to be met to get that
Great theory but the reality I can assure you is that certainly in certain parts of the country wages were not all that high for many private sector workers, even during the celtic tiger years. In parts of the country you cannot simply walk in to a public sector job. For financial reasons, the person would have done it if it were possible, even though it would have been a bit less fulfilling / boring. Less pressure, longer coffee breaks , mixing with other public sector mentality types is not for everyone.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of private sector people who took the risk of getting a job in the private sector, and who now find themselves unemployed or on greatly reduced pay, or on a 2 or 3 day week. Tell it to the many self employed people on a greatly reduced income since the economy stalled.The prople who "Take the risks" are generally not the 98% of of private sector workers.
So you think the majority of the 1.8 million people in the private sector are to blame for being worse off than the approx 300,000 in the public sector ?Taking a risk is not taking a job with worse pay and conditions over another one and staying there when there are other options (in the private sector) and then complaining about it, that's plain lunacy....0 -
I know the reality. I've gone to college, lived and worked in both private and public sector organisations in various locations around the country. I didnt say it was for everyone or suited everyone, but if a person isnt in a position to move jobs when times were better surely that is partly by their own chosing?Great theory but the reality I can assure you is that certainly in certain parts of the country wages were not all that high for many private sector workers, even during the celtic tiger years. In parts of the country you cannot simply walk in to a public sector job. For financial reasons, the person would have done it if it were possible, even though it would have been a bit less fulfilling / boring. Less pressure, longer coffee breaks , mixing with other public sector mentality types is not for everyone.
You'd swear they were "taking a risk" for the good of the country. I am not knocking private sector workers here at all, just pointing out that there is a difference between risk takers (definition of risk takers has been blured in the past number of years) and those that earn a wage from an employer.Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of private sector people who took the risk of getting a job in the private sector, and who now find themselves unemployed or on greatly reduced pay, or on a 2 or 3 day week. Tell it to the many self employed people on a greatly reduced income since the economy stalled.
Are you trying to make me out to be an unsympathetic public sector worker who cares little about others and understands nothing of the so called "real world"? Good luck to you, those that know me know I am anything but that.
We all accepted the various bits and pieces that this governement gave us over the years,So you think the majority of the 1.8 million people in the private sector are to blame for being worse off than the approx 300,000 in the public sector ?
we are all at fault for letting this get out of hand. Neither sector are more to blame that the other, from what I can see anyway.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »Im not referring to the means-tested pension, I'm referring the the non-means tested Contributory State Pension. It's not a semantic point, it's a deliberately omitted fact.
When comparing the pension entitlements of public and private sectors workers, don't you think that pension income from all sources on both sides should be included so that a valid comparison can be made?
OK, but the same conditions apply to both Public and Private workers and they both pay 6.5% PRSI. Anyway, think I'll move on with this one!2.The lines are getting blurred here and perhaps that is my fault but....when Jimmy brought up the statistic that German public servants were on %50 (still to be substantiated statistic) I infered that this was in general down to a lower cost of living in that country.
Irish public servants and german public servants were not benchmarked against each other.
That was the point I was trying to make.
German tax rates for example:
Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 7,664
15% 7,665-52,152
42% 52,153-250,000
45% 250,001 and overOkay,
Those tax rates/bands and income limits are SUBSTANTIALLY different to ours. I take the point that I am not taking into account, tax credits, indirect taxation, PRSI, I have not doubt that these are different also.
Just for comparison, Irish tax bands (without levy or other tax credits)
0% up to 18304
20% on first 36,400
41% on balance
If you cant see a substantial difference there then there is something wrong.....
I'll put the 2 side by side to make it clearer.
Yep, barring the 0% up to 18,304, you are better of in Germany on up to €250,000. I actually can't believe that.
In fairness, it doesn't include the higher National Insurance in Germany and I think there is federal and even church taxes in Germany, but still, the actual rates are lower.kippy wrote:I aint disagreeing with you.
We ALL played as much a part in the greed of the past 5/6 years as ANY one sector of the economy. Lower income tax rates (with a number being taken out of the tax net altogether), higher minimum wages,Various tax relieves that almost all can avail off, a building boom which raised the cost(wages) of tradesmen, deregulation of financial services, which created jobs in sectors where there were none before, raising share prices which were either owned directly or indirectly by many of us, raising Public sector wages, higher social welfare entitlements in general -dole, pension,various welfare additions, childcare.
Yep and most of us were not complaining (well not too much) when the tax revenues were rolling in and being spent! Probably is tax revenues have dropped by a third but the costs are still the same.Kippy wrote:Look, Jimmy posted that as if to STATE that half of private sector workers have NOTHING when they retire (which is what a large number of readers of his post would be lead to believe).
This will be last point on that as we are going around in circles, but do you seriously think anybody would think that. Jaysus, everybody knows everybody gets a pension (subject to a means test)! In fact it's so obvious I can't believe it's being made a point of!WRONG kippy. See my posts of 86 and 91 in this thread, among other postings
eg I wrote " Do you really think that 50% or more of private sector people have a private pension ? Think of all the people who work in shops, restaurants, offices, hotels, factories, farms, workshops, building sites ....do you really they ( or most of them ) all pay in to private pension schemes ? They get the old age pension like everyone else. I know some self employed people who paid tax all their lives and did not get an old age pension, as they were means tested, but that may have changed now for the self employed, I dont know about that specific point. "
Seems clear enough to me, you even specifically mentioned the old age pension.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I didnt say it was for everyone or suited everyone, but if a person isnt in a position to move jobs when times were better surely that is partly by their own chosing?
In parts of the country you cannot simply walk in to a public sector job, even for those well qualified. Besides, all 1.8 million private sector people cannot all get public sector jobs. Its currently a two tier sustem, true enough, but you cannot tell everyone to get a govt job. That sort of system was tried elsewhere and did not work - comrade. As I said the reality I can assure you is that certainly in certain parts of the country wages were never all that high for many private sector workers....certainly never anywhere near the 966 p.w. ( plus perks ) George Lees says the average public sector worker gets.0 -
In parts of the country you cannot simply walk in to a public sector job, even for those well qualified. Besides, all 1.8 million private sector people cannot all get public sector jobs. Its currently a two tier sustem, true enough, but you cannot tell everyone to get a govt job. That sort of system was tried elsewhere and did not work - comrade. As I said the reality I can assure you is that certainly in certain parts of the country wages were never all that high for many private sector workers....certainly never anywhere near the 966 p.w. ( plus perks ) George Lees says the average public sector worker gets.
Did I state ANYWHERE that EVERYONE should work in the public sector?
TBH,
I am sick and tired of this thread. Some good points mentioned will be lost in the dearth of pointless and roundabout posts (some of which were my fault)
I'll state these one more time,
People make there own decisions based on their own circumstances. Sometimes life forces us into making decisions but we DO have control over the majority of these decisions and life choices.
If any one of us believes that the grass is greener on the other side and has weighed up the pros and cons of getting to that other side, they should go for it.
We've all gotten some bit of the cherry of the celtic tiger over the years (through the various things I have mentioned earlier). No one was complaining then, in fact they continued to vote for more of the same. Now that things have gone t1ts up in the tax take and the government cannot cover the wage bill there will be cuts.
The new entrants and recent entrants into the public sector will not have the same pension rights and will pay a lot more for their pensions than those about to retire, of that I have no doubt.
Something has to be done in relation to private pension schemes, and I've given a few suggestions.
But the Public sector witch hunt really has taken many people eyes off the ball as to who is ultimately responsible for the mess we are in and the many decisions that have been made and ratified by the voters over the years that have exacerbated the problems to such as point as we are one of the worst performing countries in the OECD at this moment in time.
Signing out on this thread, waiting for the budget that will nail this country and ALL who work in it.
Kippy0 -
No, but that is the logical cnclusion , as you went on and on aboutDid I state ANYWHERE that EVERYONE should work in the public sector?
I replied "1.8 million private sector people cannot all get public sector jobs. Its currently a two tier sustem, true enough, but you cannot tell everyone to get a govt job. That sort of system was tried elsewhere and did not work - comrade"If any one of us believes that the grass is greener on the other side and has weighed up the pros and cons of getting to that other side, they should go for it.We've all gotten some bit of the cherry of the celtic tiger over the years
A huge generalisation. I know people in multinational type factories in Ireland, with 3rd level qualifications, getting paid - as they always were - much less than their comparably qualified + experienced counterparts in the public service. That is not right.No one was complaining then, in fact they continued to vote for more of the same.
Another huge generalisation.
Not before time. Lets hope for the sake of the country the cuts will be big, so the borrowing deficit will be kept down.Now that things have gone t1ts up in the tax take and the government cannot cover the wage bill there will be cuts.
A lot of the people who work in the country have already being nailed...through losing their jobs, reduced earnings, working for close to a minimum wage, no business etc. This country will be nailed if the govt continues to borrow 25,000,000,000.00 euro and spend much of it on themselves , their employees + their pensions. Lets hope the public sector salaries + pensions are brought back to realistic levels, for the sake of the country.Signing out on this thread, waiting for the budget that will nail this country and ALL who work in it.0 -
At 11:59 on April 4 you wrote:No. Read again carefully what I wrote. " Do you really think that 50% or more of private sector people have a private pension ?
Please read again carefully what you wrote.Over 50% of the people in the private sector do not have a pension.
Was this a careless mistake or did you deliberately set out to propagate an untruth?0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »At 11:59 on April 4 you wrote:
Please read again carefully what you wrote.
Was this a careless mistake or did you deliberately set out to propagate an untruth?
As I said already I clarified it by stating private pension. Look at my posts no. 86 and 91. I wrote " They get the old age pension like everyone else". Please take the time and trouble to read what I wrote, and do not pluck the odd sentence out of context.0 -
, waiting for the budget that will nail this country and ALL who work in it.
Unfortunately some got nailed more than others. As an economist commentator on the radio said, the govt have concentrated on raising taxes but not looked enough at expenditure. After all, deflation is now forecast to be 4% this year ( ie minus 4% inflation ). The govt. missed the golden opportunity to slash public sector expenditure by 4%....that would save approx. € 500,000,000.00
Instead the public sector and the people on public sector pensions ( eg one poster on this thread had a Dad getting a govt pension worth 70,000 I think he said ) get another 4% raise in real terms.0 -
Instead the public sector and the people on public sector pensions ( eg one poster on this thread had a Dad getting a govt pension worth 70,000 I think he said ) get another 4% raise in real terms.
:rolleyes: 70k pension??? Yeah RIGHT! most people who work dont get 70k salary, let alone pension. The only people with pensions like that would be TD's and the like. Please stop comparing ordinary PS workers to TD's etc.
How do you work out that the public sector gain 4% in real terms when they are now paying pension levy, health levy, income levy. Thes levies alone would mean a drop in take home pay of at least 10%0 -
:rolleyes: 70k pension??? Yeah RIGHT! most people who work dont get 70k salary, let alone pension.
I know that "most people who work dont get 70k salary, let alone pension". Go back and check the post yourself. The person was highly qualified, I think the person said,....anyway he must have been making 140,000 per year before retirement. There are people like that employed by the govt who are not td's , ye know.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Rojomcdojo wrote: »I'm not just pulling this out of my arse. My dad (My only real source for this PS information) is on half his salary when he's leaving and the state pension too.
Works out at about 70k a year or something ridiculous like that.
My Dad once told me Santa Claus existed-lying backstard.
0
Advertisement