I am paying more for somebodys public sector pension than my own Private pension

Riskymove

K-9 wrote: »

Guards only make up 14/15,000 of the PS. Why the focus on them?

I think he's saying as they can retire after 30 years rather than 40 that they certainly wont pay in full for their own pensions

P. Breathnach

Riskymove wrote: »

... The pension levy is not being ringfenced into public sector pensions, it is simply going into general exchequer

True. There is no fund. Public sector employees are not to blame for that.

But for the purposes of judging whether public sector pensions are a good or a bad deal, it is fair to use a notional fund -- how things might be if the contributions were paid into a fund.

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

Guards only make up 14/15,000 of the PS. Why the focus on them?

Easy target, picked out by (I think) the Indo. [jimmmy does not do deep research.]

Riskymove

P. Breathnach wrote: »

True. There is no fund. Public sector employees are not to blame for that.

But for the purposes of judging whether public sector pensions are a good or a bad deal, it is fair to use a notional fund -- how things might be if the contributions were paid into a fund.

Oh I know that..just pointing it out

molloyjh

Riskymove wrote: »

I think he's saying as they can retire after 30 years rather than 40 that they certainly wont pay in full for their own pensions

Because heaven forbid we might look after somone for 20 odd years who spent the previous 30+ looking after us!

K-9

Riskymove wrote: »

I think he's saying as they can retire after 30 years rather than 40 that they certainly wont pay in full for their own pensions

YEP, there are valid reasons why they retire early. They are the exception to the rule on Public Sector pensions, indeed, many have pointed out that many PS workers will receive nothing for their contributions. Repeating the Guard point over and over doesn't change that!

Riskymove

molloyjh wrote: »

Because heaven forbid we might look after somone for 20 odd years who spent the previous 30+ looking after us!

i am hoping to be looked after for a lot more than 20 odd years (fingers crossed):p

jimmmy

K-9 wrote: »

Guards only make up 14/15,000 of the PS. Why the focus on them?

The focus is not just on them. The focus is on the entire public service. I wrote " For example, a Garda taking early retirement in say 3 weeks or 3 years time will never have paid in to his pension pot what its worth at retirement." in response to someone implying p.s. pensions funded themselves eg they wrote "the PS pension will be more than capable of funding itself"

Find me another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) is as high as they are in Ireland.

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

The focus is not just on them. The focus is on the entire public service. I wrote " For example, a Garda taking early retirement in say 3 weeks or 3 years time will never have paid in to his pension pot what its worth at retirement." in response to someone implying p.s. pensions funded themselves eg they wrote "the PS pension will be more than capable of funding itself"

Find me another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) is as high as they are in Ireland.

Whatever about cherry picking statistics from a set of numbers, please do not attempt to mis-quote me. You didnt even use the full sentence, you used half of the sentence....

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

Whatever about cherry picking statistics from a set of numbers, please do not attempt to mis-quote me. You didnt even use the full sentence, you used half of the sentence....

I did not cherrypick statistics from a set of numbers ...the € 966 figure I quoted is what the c.s.o. say is average public sector pay. I used the half of your sentence which was relevant ( I was giving the reason for taking the Gardai as an example , as someone queried that )...so your sentence / point in full was " I dont think anyone could ever claim that a guard retiring in 3 weeks or in 3 years will have paid enough for his own pension. But now that PS workers are paying 11.5% (at a minimum) to 16%+ in pension conributions, the PS pension will in time be able to fund itself."
Instead of going off on a tangent, maybe someone could find me another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) are as high as they are in Ireland....this is more relevant to the O.P. point.

solice

But if you read the whole thing you would see that the Government has taken corrective action by requiring that all PS employees will have to pay a minimum of 11.5% in pension payments. Although this does not cover the cost of the PS pension as it stands today...it will cover it in the future.

Also, you will see that majority of people pay too much into their pension so they create a surplus that can be used to offset against those that dont pay enough (the minority). It hasnt fixed the problem as it stands today but it will fix it as the years go by. There is no one quick fix to this. Its not that simple and you cant imagine it to be.

badlyparkedmerc

It's probably true or close to true that public sector pensions are close self financing this year, and maybe the next couple years but the problems coming down the road are immense as the ratio of retirees to workers changes.

Some of the main problems with "calculations" showing how affordable the public sector pension is supposed to be are

1) the contribution of the old age pension - this kicks in at 66, so calculations "proving" that the old age pension provides the bulk of the pension need to be modified to cover the years it doesn't. Firemen, Gardai, Soldiers, POs, 50 or so, but normally 60 or whenever they hit the 40 years service.

Apparently some are afraid of the word average but lets just say the arithmetical mean retirement age is less than 66 in the public sector overall.

2) the old age pension itself is not guaranteed - it's at a historical high now, it's extremely unlikely to stay as high. Public sector pensions holders however don't care how low it goes, or if it get's delayed to say age 70, because it only makes a theoretical contribution to their overall pension. If it comes to a choice of protecting the normal OAP or public sector worker who're the unions going to choose?

3) People tend to underestimate how long people who live past middle age will live especially in 20, 30 years time. Their life expectancy could easily be 80+ years. Their will be many who're retired for longer than they've worked, think how easy that'd be to self finance.

4) Lastly if public sector pensions are and will be self funded and it's all so relatively cheap how about opening up the whole country to such a cheap universal pension. Let everyone pay the pension levy and the whole country gets the same pension. I'm already paying over 15% for my pension so I'd have zero issue switching to the public sector scheme.

Seriously if it's affordable fine, extend it to everybody - why not - there's the fairness unions talk about - if it's not affordable please stop pretending it is.

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

Instead of going off on a tangent, maybe someone could find me another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) are as high as they are in Ireland....this is more relevant to the O.P. point.

Comparing the Irish PS pension to the PS pension in the Netherlands, UK, China, Argentina and Norway is hardly a useful exercise. Unless you compare how they are funded, how much each PS worker contributes, what is the state pension in each country, what is the rate of PRSI, the cost of living, the list is endless.

And this also is not relevant to the OPs statement, "I am paying more for somebodys public sector pension than my own private pension". That was dealt with in the first 20 odd pages and proven to be incorrect.

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

But if you read the whole thing you would see that the Government has taken corrective action by requiring that all PS employees will have to pay a minimum of 11.5% in pension payments. .

But that corrective action is not enough. As I said, consider a Garda retiring early in say 3 weeks or 3 years or even 10 years time, as many do each year. No way will what he or she have paid the full economic cost of contributions in to their pension pot....especially considering badlyparkedmerc's 3 points below. Their pension pot has been calculated to be worth over a million. Few people in the private sector ( workers in factories, shops, offices, hotels, farms, restaurants, tradespeople etc ) can afford to fund a pension pot worth over a million :rolleyes:

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

Comparing the Irish PS pension to the PS pension in the Netherlands, UK, China, Argentina and Norway is hardly a useful exercise.

The point is there cannot be found another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) are as high as they are in Ireland...
Does that not say something....combined with the appalling state of our public finances ? Maybe not if you are an Irish public servant I suppose.
I fear the recession will be much longer in Ireland than other countries elsewhere in the world, because of certain peoples reluctance to face reality.

P. Breathnach

badlyparkedmerc wrote: »

... 3) People tend to underestimate how long people who live past middle age will live especially in 20, 30 years time. Their life expectancy could easily be 80+ years. Their will be many who're retired for longer than they've worked, think how easy that'd be to self finance.
...

Most of what you say is very reasonable, but I have selected one point with which there is a basis for quibbling.

Yes, it is true that the life expectancy of a person who has already survived to, say, 60 is higher than that of a 30 year old. But people pay their pension contributions from the time they entered the public service, and not from the date of their retirement. So calculations should reflect life expectancy from the date of employment. There are some who pay into the scheme, and don't survive long enough to collect.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are some who pay into the scheme, and don't survive long enough to collect.

But there are far , far more who ( happily ) live long enough to get far more from the government in pensions than they ever contributed.

As an example, look at the the average Guard, taking early retirement in say 3 weeks or even 3 years ( or a year ago if you want ) ....their pension pot is worth over 1 million , yet they have not paid anything remotely like that in to the pot.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

But there are far , far more who ( happily ) live long enough to get far more from the government in pensions than they ever contributed.

As an example, look at the the average Guard, taking early retirement in say 3 weeks or even 3 years ( or a year ago if you want ) ....their pension pot is worth over 1 million , yet they have not paid anything remotely like that in to the pot.

FFS, jimmmy, can you not contribute a new idea or fact to the discussion? You pick up on something that somebody else said, and repeat it endlessly, as if it were a mantra.

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

The point is there cannot be found another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) are as high as they are in Ireland...
Does that not say something....combined with the appalling state of our public finances ? Maybe not if you are an Irish public servant I suppose.
I fear the recession will be much longer in Ireland than other countries elsewhere in the world, because of certain peoples reluctance to face reality.

It says to me that you dont listen but thats ok. We all need hobbies.

2) the old age pension itself is not guaranteed - it's at a historical high now, it's extremely unlikely to stay as high. Public sector pensions holders however don't care how low it goes, or if it get's delayed to say age 70, because it only makes a theoretical contribution to their overall pension. If it comes to a choice of protecting the normal OAP or public sector worker who're the unions going to choose?

If I was to retire today, the state pension would make up at least 65% of my pension. That is hardly theoretical. It is a fundamental part of the pension that PS workers get. Also, I am assuming that when you say that state pension wouldnt kick in until 70, the retirement age will also be pushed out until 70? Well that will be 5 more years of pension payments contributing to the pension fund...would that not go some of the way to accounting for any discrepancy?

4) Lastly if public sector pensions are and will be self funded and it's all so relatively cheap how about opening up the whole country to such a cheap universal pension. Let everyone pay the pension levy and the whole country gets the same pension. I'm already paying over 15% for my pension so I'd have zero issue switching to the public sector scheme.

Why not? It would bring a certain amount of fairness and equity to the whole thing, if indeed it is unfair to begin with...

But the problem would be, the majority of the PS pay too much for their pension and dont receive the benefits of all they pay, because the state pension is part of their pension and not added onto it like in the private sector. So if this was to be brought in on a national level, a very large majority of the population would be paying too much and a very small minority would be milking it for all its worth. As is the current situation in the PS. How comfortable would you be with this? The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

FFS,.

Now now, please watch your language.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

can you not contribute a new idea or fact to the discussion? You pick up on something that somebody else said, and repeat it endlessly,

Rubbish. I was merely making the point that "there are far , far more who ( happily ) live long enough to get far more from the government in pensions than they ever contributed."....I am entitled to make that point, as you had in the previous post wrote that " There are some who pay into the scheme, and don't survive long enough to collect."

K-9

jimmmy wrote: »

The focus is not just on them. The focus is on the entire public service. I wrote " For example, a Garda taking early retirement in say 3 weeks or 3 years time will never have paid in to his pension pot what its worth at retirement." in response to someone implying p.s. pensions funded themselves eg they wrote "the PS pension will be more than capable of funding itself"

Find me another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) is as high as they are in Ireland.

No, your focus is not on the entire Public service because you fail to acknowledge the thousands who will receive nothing for all their contributions, other than the state pension and focus on the Guards.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Now now, please watch your language.

That's the business of the moderators.

Rubbish. I was merely making the point that "there are far , far more who ( happily ) live long enough to get far more from the government in pensions than they ever contributed."....I am entitled to make that point, as you had in the previous post wrote that " There are some who pay into the scheme, and don't survive long enough to collect."

I was mentioning something that had not been mentioned before. And you shoehorned in one of your mantras

As an example, look at the the average Guard, taking early retirement in say 3 weeks or even 3 years ( or a year ago if you want ) ....their pension pot is worth over 1 million , yet they have not paid anything remotely like that in to the pot.

How many times have you posted that before?

[I did a quick countback, and it looks like the tenth time that jimmmy has made the same point in this thread.]

solice

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How many times have you posted that before?

The question is, how many times will he ignore anyones response to it?

Dont get rattled, he is just trolling.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the business of the moderators.

Its your business not to use language like that in the first place.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How many times have you posted that before?

And you avoid it each time.

Count Dooku

K-9 wrote: »

No, your focus is not on the entire Public service because you fail to acknowledge the thousands who will receive nothing for all their contributions, other than the state pension and focus on the Guards.

OK
Lets focus on useless parts of public services, such as Financial Regulator, Central Bank, Department of Finance and Department of Environment. They failed and they responsible for all mess in this country more then FF.
Why taxpayers must pay pensions for them?
They all must be fired immediately without any extra pension.

P. Breathnach

solice wrote: »

... Dont get rattled, he is just trolling.

Careful! The mods are very jealous of their rights in this area. They decide what constitutes trolling, and deal with it as they judge fitting.

jimmmy

Count Dooku wrote: »

OK
Lets focus on useless parts of public services, such as Financial Regulator, Central Bank, Department of Finance and Department of Environment. They failed and they responsible for all mess in this country more then FF.
Why taxpayers must pay pensions for them?
They all must be fired immediately without any extra pension.

Whatever about them being fired immediately without any extra pension, the current position of them receiving among the highest - if not the highest - public service pensions in the world is a crazy situation, bearing in mind the state of our public finances etc. Certainly there are many people who are very underworked in govt departments ....for example in the financial area since the euro was introduced etc.

badlyparkedmerc

If I was to retire today, the state pension would make up at least 65% of my pension. That is hardly theoretical. It is a fundamental part of the pension that PS workers get.

Say you were to retire today at say 61 or even 51 at full pension, how could you say the normal OAP is paying 65% of it since the OAP won't kick in until 66.

Even simpler say someone retires age 60 - gets a pension of 50%, year 1 the OAP makes 0% contribution, year 2 0%, year 3 0%, year 4 0%, year 5 0%, year 6 0%, after then then yup the OAP pays maybe 65%. But for the years prior to the OAP, it was only theoretically contributing.

Whether it's 15 years or even 1 year it's a signifigant difference and a costly one.

Also, I am assuming that when you say that state pension wouldnt kick in until 70, the retirement age will also be pushed out until 70? Well that will be 5 more years of pension payments contributing to the pension fund...would that not go some of the way to accounting for any discrepancy?

You'll notice when government discuss moving the retirement age to from 66 to older ages - the euphemism is "to allow people work longer" - there's no talk of pushing the public sector retirement from 40 years up by a corresponding amount. Might happen but I've not not heard it being discussed, certainly the more militant unions would start throwing shapes if an explicit tie was made.

No disagreement about how the public sector pension is protected from a drop in the OAP I notice...

Quote:
4) Lastly if public sector pensions are and will be self funded and it's all so relatively cheap how about opening up the whole country to such a cheap universal pension. Let everyone pay the pension levy and the whole country gets the same pension. I'm already paying over 15% for my pension so I'd have zero issue switching to the public sector scheme.
Why not? It would bring a certain amount of fairness and equity to the whole thing, if indeed it is unfair to begin with...

But the problem would be, the majority of the PS pay too much for their pension and dont receive the benefits of all they pay, because the state pension is part of their pension and not added onto it like in the private sector. So if this was to be brought in on a national level, a very large majority of the population would be paying too much and a very small minority would be milking it for all its worth.

Well how about we cap the max payout to being 120% of the average industrial wage say around the equivalent of 40k now. We'd let rises in the pension be indexed linked to the average public sector rise. No problem with this, could even let the public sector ones be uncapped because they're special and I'm such a soft touch.

Any private sector worker reading who'd not jump at such a scheme? You pay the pension levy+contrib of say 15% and get an extremely similar pension to their one - sweet.

Going by the logic the public service scheme is fully funded, you'd wonder why no government will ever be able to propose it though, perhaps because it's completely and utterly unaffordable. If public sector workers and unions think it can be done then they should push for it it'd be a great way of ending the divide and stopping these interminable threads.

P. Breathnach

badlyparkedmerc wrote: »

Say you were to retire today at say 61 or even 51 at full pension, how could you say the normal OAP is paying 65% of it since the OAP won't kick in until 66.

The option of retiring before 65 on full pension was withdrawn from most categories of public service employee in the 1993 changes.

... Well how about we cap the max payout to being 120% of the average industrial wage say around the equivalent of 40k now.

The average industrial wage is about the most meaningless comparator available, yet it has become something of a shibboleth when people discuss pay levels.

If you were to impose a cap on PS pensions, would you also cap contribitions?

...Going by the logic the public service scheme is fully funded, you'd wonder why no government will ever be able to propose it though, perhaps because it's completely and utterly unaffordable. If public sector workers and unions think it can be done then they should push for it it'd be a great way of ending the divide and stopping these interminable threads.

It's beyond reasonable doubt that PS pensions have not been fully funded by employee contributions; even if one imputed some fair-to-generous employer contribution, pensions were not fully funded. The 1993 changes can be used to mask that for public servants on below-average pay. The recent imposition of the pensions levy was very cack-handed, but I think that if it had been more thoughtfully structured, it might have brought the employee contribution to about the appropriate level.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The recent imposition of the pensions levy was very cack-handed, but I think that if it had been more thoughtfully structured, it might have brought the employee contribution to about the appropriate level.

Instead of bringing employee contribution up to the "appropriate level" ( some have calculated this to be over 25% of pay ) for public service pensions, why have these pensions so high in the first place? There cannot be found - not even by the public servant people + public service pensioners on this board - another country anywhere in the world where public service pensions ( never mind pay ) are as high as they are in Ireland. If public servants want a high pension, let them top up a lower level pension with additional savings made through their working years, either in investment products or private pensions.