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

grahamo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Me too


From your link

Male 16-20 years-€74,793 €75,278 €59,028
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circ21of2007.pdf

Male 16-20 years-€74,793€75,278 €59,028 This one can be disregarded ( Its a technician grade)



BTW How do you know what grade I am?:)

I'll tell you...I'm Grade 2
so from my link:

ENGINEER GRADE II AND PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANT GRADE II
€68,267¹ €70,468²
€56,711 €58,050 €59,379 €60,717 €62,052 €63,387 €64,717 €66,067


Grade 1 are senior management. You have picked grade 1 figures to lend credence to your failing argument. I would have to work a lot of years plus get through interviews to get grade 1.
These lads have been in the public sector
25+ years to get where they are.
You are also not adding the 'PERKS' I got working for a private firm.:)

For instance:
Bonus schemes

Bonuses/Commission - 2005
Business in which employed Engineering Consultancy Construction Electronics,
Electrical Healthcare,
Medical Devices
Average €5,285 €11,596 €4,340 €5,032
Business in which employed ICT, Software,
Computers Pharmaceutical,
Chemical Mechanical,
Manufacturing Civil,
Structural
Average €8,037 €7,310 €5,290 €6,602
Business in which employed Research,
Academic Utilities, Govt,
Local Auth Other N/A
Average €13,531 €6,684 €11,860 €750
Bonuses/Commission - 2003
Business in which employed Engineering Consultancy Electronics,
Electrical Healthcare,
Medical Devices ICT, Software,
Computers
Average €6,400 €5,653 €6,360 €5,353
Business in which employed Pharmaceutical,
Chemical Mechanical,
Manufacturing
Average €6,732 €6,732

Then there was the Health Insurance contributions(For my whole family)
Then Pension contributions ( Yes Jimmmy, They PAID money towards my pension) etc. etc. etc.

I think I'm in a good position to comment on both sectors as I have worked in both sectors. I doubt Jimmmy and count dooku have worked in both sectors as their knowledge of all things public sector seems VERY limited.

As I say I can't speak for every one in the public sector but I have PROVEN
that Jimmmy's famous table (at least in my case...is CRAP! )

Even if I was made redundant I would work private sector again and I would WORK my way out of a recession.(Like I did before throughout the 80's) I can guarantee you all that Jimmmy and his minions
efforts to moan and snipe their way out of a recession WILL NOT WORK! Trust me on this one!:)

It gets a little bit tiresome when people who haven't actually lived through a recession give you advice on how to get through it!:rolleyes:

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

BTW, I'm now on my lunch break!

Sure, you seem to be on break every hour or two....must be a great public service job you have;)

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

Sure, you seem to be on break every hour or two....must be a great public service job you have;)

Is that it, Jimmmy?
No thoughts on my post?

PS You must have a good job too as you have posted even more than me today

BTW I'm finished work now!

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

PS You must have a good job too as you have posted even more than me today

Never mind my job, I am not a public servant paid by the taxpayer. I am not paid to post on the internet, when I am supposed to be working.

grahamo wrote: »

BTW I'm finished work now!

I never said you were not ; I merely observed that you often post during office hours.

kippy

jimmmy wrote: »

Never mind my job, I am not a public servant paid by the taxpayer. I am not paid to post on the internet, when I am supposed to be working.




I never said you were not ; I merely observed that you often post during office hours.

Get over the first comment Jimmy, seriously, you bring it up time and time again. Perhaps everyone wouldnt be paying so much for private sector goods and services if private sector staff spent less time on the internet. (sarcasm)
Kippy

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

Never mind my job, I am not a public servant paid by the taxpayer. I am not paid to post on the internet, when I am supposed to be working.




I never said you were not ; I merely observed that you often post during office hours.

no wonder the private sector has ripped us off for so long, they have to pay for people like you on the internet :rolleyes:

im sure we all get little breaks in work loads now and then to surf for 5 mins.....

kindajaded

Count Dooku wrote: »

I seen thousands explanations why PS workers must have their high salaries
I don’t understand one thing
Why in most developed EU countries average salary of PS workers is less then average salary of private workers and they have working public services.
Where it has been mentioned first time
Industrial & Services* Public Sector Differential % of Ind&Serv

Denmark € 44,403 € 40,952 -€ 3,451 -7.77%
Germany € 35,421 € 33,905 -€ 1,516 -4.28%
Ireland € 35,746 € 45,643 € 9,897 27.69%
Netherlands € 36,195 € 36,038 -€ 157 -0.43%
Finland € 31,995 € 28,569 -€ 3,426 -10.71%
Britain € 38,036 € 35,189 -€ 2,847 -7.49%
BTW, Finland and Denmark are not cheaper then Ireland, therefore argument that Ireland overpriced will not be accepted

having tried and failed to find the data for 'public sector' in the eurostat 2004 labour costs survey (which the pay for 'industry&services' comes from) and wondering who/how came up with the above and the claims that ireland is the only country where these differentials exist in this direction, at these levels, i did a search for articles on the subject and found the one below (from 2004 data published in 2007). there are a few pieces of it here but essentially it clears up this myth suggested by the above figures.

what it appears to boil down to is that in areas where the cost of living is higher (denmark, finland) or where there has been more stability and employment over a long period of time (britain, netherlands, west germany - see below) the differentials are in the direction of higher pay for the private sector.
in southern italy, spain, and east germany the differentials in 2004 were massively in the direction of the PS having higher wages - so the above table is a lie by omission.

what the authors conclude is that in the transition to more wealthy, stable economies the differentials traverse from higher PS to higher private wages. this kind of tranistion obviously takes decades.

they describe the problems with long term gaps in either direction and say that the ideal is for more flexibility both within the PS and from the private sector when private sector wages go up or down so that the PS does not end up with recruitment problems and poor services - i.e. no major row when benchmarking needed at any point in time - and it should not take years (like it did here the last time) but equally there should be more emphasis on fixed term contracts and performance related wage setting in the PS (i.e. dispense with job security) so that PS wages can come down in response to reduced private sector wages.

i'd be quite happy with less job security - not always as meaningful as a decent wage and a dynamic working environment.

so - here an answer to the above biased, dishonest table:


SPECIAL ISSUE ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY STRUCTURES AND REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS: EDITORS' INTRODUCTION*
ROBERT F. ELLIOTT 1 , KOSTAS G. MAVROMARAS 2 (Editor-in-Chief) and DOMINIQUE MEURS 3
1 HERU, University of Aberdeen
2 Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne and IZA
3 ERMES, Université Paris 2
* The studies contained in this issue were first presented at a workshop held in Paris in November 2004. The participants are grateful to ERMES, University Paris 2 and UMR CNRS 7017 for their support of the workshop.
The Manchester School
Volume 75 Issue 4, Pages 373 - 385
Special Issue: SPECIAL ISSUE ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY STRUCTURES AND REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
Published Online: 4 Jul 2007
Copyright © 2007 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The University of Manchester

“There are sizeable public–private wage gaps in Spain, with considerable
regional variation. Again the authors show that the wage structure in the
public sector is more compressed than in the private sector. Public wages can be up to 40 per cent higher than private wages. The authors’ empirical
analysis suggests that public–private wage gaps in the various regions are due
mainly to differences in returns and, to a lesser degree, to differences in the
characteristics of the workforce and selection into the two sectors. There is
clear evidence of a large public sector pay premium in Spain.
Garcia-Perez and Jimeno’s study is the only one that takes explicit..” (p380)

“The situation changed dramatically with German re-unification. A large
regional divide appeared between the former East and former West of
Germany. Other regional differences became empirically negligible. There
were massive differences in East–West pay levels at the start of re-unification,
but these were not reflected in the public–private sector pay gaps, which,
shortly after the start of re-unification, were very similar in the two regions.
The development of the public–private pay differences was dominated by the
post-1990 political goal of East–West pay convergence. The crucial development
was that East–West pay convergence was applied more successfully in
the public than in the private sector in the East. The result was that by the end of the 1990s an unprecedented high public–private pay differential was in place in the East making public sector pay about 30 per cent higher than private sector pay, with a public sector premium of about 10 per cent for the East and close to zero for the West.
Heitmueller and Mavromaras list the main findings of their study as..” (p382)
“Dell’Aringa, Lucifora and Origo analyse the case of Italy. They report
that Italy has a centralized public sector pay system that is not very responsive
to local market pressures. The central government leads the wage setting
and regional differences in rates of pay are prohibited. In an attempt to instil
into the public sector some of the flexibility of the private sector, considerable
labour market reforms were introduced in the 1990s, leading to changes in the
way wages and employment are determined in the public sector. Working
conditions and employment relations changed in the 1990s, with the emphasis
on the promotion of fixed-term contracts. New rules attempting to link wage
increases with productivity in the public sector were introduced, but they
have not proved easy to implement. The picture that emerges from this study
is one of a labour market that, despite serious attempts to introduce greater
flexibility, still runs in a relatively centralized and rigid fashion.
The major regional divide in Italy is between the north, which has labour
shortages and high private sector wages, and the south which has high
unemployment and low private sector wages. Public sector wages are largely
uniform across the country. The north–south divide is thus reflected in significant differences between public–private sector differentials across the regions ranging from 20 per cent (Emilia Romagna) to 45 per cent (Sicilia).
Although public–private pay differentials are much higher for females, the
regional ranking of differentials is not related to gender.
Dell’Aringa et al. find that the national public–private wage premium in
Italy hides a great deal of regional heterogeneity. Men in the north do not
enjoy a public sector premium, so the whole public–private wage gap is
explained by the differences in the labour force composition between the two
sectors. Women enjoy a 10 per cent premium in the north. By contrast, men
in the south enjoy about 10–15 per cent public sector premium and women
enjoy about 15–25 per cent premium.” (p.378)
378 The Manchester School

Count Dooku

Rob67 wrote: »

I can blame them, true, but it can also be said that the media is just as culpable by fanning sensationalist flames through 'worst case scenario' reporting, and,of course, those in charge of running the country.

Not true
Media were always reporting about high salaries and low performance in public sector. But before nobody was reading it, because it was not affecting anybody.

PS unions were expecting to get public support in their fight against pension levy.
They didn’t prepare any arguments, except “We didn’t do it”
When they realized, that people don’t want to pay high taxes in order to keep salaries in public sector, they blamed public in their fault.
Do you remember famous “racism against PS workers”?

Count Dooku

kindajaded wrote: »

still not the point - and no i am certainly not trying to mislead

i have agreed that the increase in wages and the GDP were based on a false economy - that is obvious - but you are trying to imply that it was only or mostly the PS that was part of this - absolute rubbish.
in fact the PS increases began after the rest of it and were only one aspect of a systemic problem that involved everyone.
you keep using figures to try to suggest that only PS workers made more extra money on average - again rubbish.

it is obvious that the situation has now changed and needs to be looked at again but don't try to re-write history. you are really acting like a politician..

And who is going to look after that situation?
So far, FF and Labours don’t want to do any cuts.
FG are morons. George Lee disappointed me yesterday. He will be good in opposition, but god save us if he will be minister of finances. BTW – new proposals from Ivan Yates.
PS unions don’t propose anything, even if PS workers know better then anybody else, what can be optimized without affecting public
And PS workers will want to do it worst way for public if any cuts will be proposed

Count Dooku

grahamo wrote: »

I'll tell you...I'm Grade 2
so from my link:

Grade 1 are senior management.

As far as know, grade 2 is equal to senior engineer with 10-15 years of experience.
If you overqualified for your position, it still doesn’t explain why you should be paid better.
If any girl with leaving certificate can do office administrator job, which in public services will be done by somebody with 20 years of experience, why we taxpayers should pay to this person big salary, rather then find a cheaper girl?
If public services will hire PhD to do the job of monkey in Dublin Zoo, why we should pay him big bucks instead of peanuts?

Count Dooku

kippy wrote: »

Perhaps everyone wouldnt be paying so much for private sector goods and services if private sector staff spent less time on the internet. (sarcasm)

No
We are paying so much for everything, because public services were not doing their job properly and didn’t control level of competition in this country

grahamo

Count Dooku wrote: »

As far as know, grade 2 is equal to senior engineer with 10-15 years of experience. If you overqualified for your position, it still doesn’t explain why you should be paid better.?

But thats just it, you don't know!:) I'm Grade 2 because I'm not in the job that long!
Overqualified? Maybe.. but paid better...paid better than who? I've already told you I can earn more private sector. Also, I guarantee you, you would not be able to get 'someone off the street' to do the job half price!

Count Dooku wrote: »

[If any girl with leaving certificate can do office administrator job, which in public services will be done by somebody with 20 years of experience, why we taxpayers should pay to this person big salary, rather then find a cheaper girl??

Let me explain why (again) Slowly! The girl with 20 years experience knows the job inside out. She is more knowledgeable, faster and more efficient. Much more of an asset to her department! Therefore she is worth more money! Even in the private sector she would be paid more for those years of experience.Prove this statement is wrong. I bet You Can't!

Count Dooku wrote: »

[If public services will hire PhD to do the job of monkey in Dublin Zoo, why we should pay him big bucks instead of peanuts?

WTF are you talking about? :D

Let me explain again. There are a lot of people overqualified for jobs these days both in the private sector and public sector. The Irish workforce is very well educated with a lot of people educated up to degree standard. People will work in jobs where they are overqualified for LESS PAY and use the experience to further their careers. Just because you are overqualified DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE PAID MORE!:rolleyes:

This proves my point that your knowledge of the public sector is limited!

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

Never mind my job, I am not a public servant paid by the taxpayer. I am not paid to post on the internet, when I am supposed to be working.

We are not all paid for by the taxpayer Jimmmy, There are some commercial departments, Do your research!

PS I'm on a tea break at the moment!

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

We are not all paid for by the taxpayer Jimmmy, There are some commercial departments, Do your research!

PS I'm on a tea break at the moment!

You are a public servant by your own admission. You can try to claim you are some sort of "superior" public servant if you want, in that you try to excuse your frequent posting on the internet because you say you work in a "commercial" department. Do you get public service pay, conditions and pension or a commercial one ? And why are your tea breaks so long and so frequent eg on the first morning I look at ( that of 2 days ago ie the 19.5.09 - you are posting for 20 minutes on your morning tea breaks ...and you could have been ( and probably were ) reading previous posts / surfing the net for longer than that.;) Its not surprising, as many of my public service friends tell me they spend an average of an hour to an hour and a half a day at work surfing the net.

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

I'm Grade 2 because I'm not in the job that long!
Overqualified? Maybe.. but paid better...paid better than who?

Anyone in an equivalent job in any other public service in the world, for starters.

grahamo wrote: »

I've already told you I can earn more private sector.

Why do you not you so...or would you not have as many days off, privilidge days, sickies, time to surf the net, subsidised pension, flexitime, short working week, lack of security or what ?

grahamo wrote: »

Also, I guarantee you, you would not be able to get 'someone off the street' to do the job half price!

I guarantee most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants....people tend to like high pay, security, pension , lack of pressure etc.

P. Breathnach

Count Dooku wrote: »

... If you overqualified for your position, it still doesn’t explain why you should be paid better.
If any girl with leaving certificate can do office administrator job, which in public services will be done by somebody with 20 years of experience, why we taxpayers should pay to this person big salary, rather then find a cheaper girl?
If public services will hire PhD to do the job of monkey in Dublin Zoo, why we should pay him big bucks instead of peanuts?

I think what you say here reflects a mistaken perception of public service employment. One of the features of working in the public service (one which many participants here attack) is relative job security. Concomitant with that is a view that people are not employed for a particular job, but for a career. So they can progress to taking on more responsible and demanding work, even while still at the same grade; and then they can compete for promotion (and promotion is now competitive, not based on seniority). On such a structure, it makes sense to employ people who are seen as having capacity to progress. You might describe such people as overqualified, but they might also be seen as being there for their potential future performance as well as for their present assignment.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Anyone in an equivalent job in any other public service in the world, for starters.

Why do you not you so...or would you not have as many days off, privilidge days, sickies, time to surf the net, subsidised pension, flexitime, short working week, lack of security or what ?

I guarantee most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants....people tend to like high pay, security, pension , lack of pressure etc.

Still nothing new, jimmmy, and a touch of gratuitous nastiness.

jimmmy

Simply illustrating the reality of the real world, pbreatnach. You cannot deny reality.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Simply illustrating the reality of the real world, pbreatnach. You cannot deny reality.

So people who inhabit what you call the real world are nasty? Odd, that. I have some "real world" people in the house at the moment, earning money. They are not at all nasty.

They were late this morning, they take tea breaks, and they sometimes pause for conversation. But that's all fine, because the job is progressing at a satisfactory pace.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Anyone in an equivalent job in any other public service in the world, for starters.


Why do you not you so...or would you not have as many days off, privilidge days, sickies, time to surf the net, subsidised pension, flexitime, short working week, lack of security or what ?

I guarantee most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants....people tend to like high pay, security, pension , lack of pressure etc.

come on jimmy.....graham has already set out in detail the differences he encountered in private and public and why he chose public if you'd just be bothered to read them....but then agin you have never shown any interest in listening to views just repeating your lines...

solice

Over the weekend I decided to do some maths. I quiet enjoy maths and I have a deep rooted fascination with excel.

Anyways, I decided that I would work out the total pension contribution of a regular PS worker who has worked for 40 years through various salaries from 20k to 100k. Then work out how much it costs the tax payer to fund it, if it indeed does actually cost the tax payer?

I was quiet surprised by the result, if the lump sum payment is excluded, the contributions paid by the PS worker is greater than the cost to the state. However, when the lump sum payment is introduced, the contributions paid by the PS worker is greater than the cost of the pension for all salaries 74k and below. But for salaries of 76k and above, the contributions paid is less than the cost of servicing the pension.

Then I thought, well thats not realistic, people dont stay at the one salary for 40 years. There are pay increases, increments (I abhor increments and the unions that brought them in). So I made a calculator. Its at the bottom of the table. I broke the 40 years into 8 periods of 5 years. You can enter salaries into each period and it will work out the total value of pension contributions and the cost to the state, if there is one.

I have to say, its very difficult to work out a salary scale that doesnt cost the state money. I personally wouldnt have a problem with this if the pension contributions that were made were put into a pension fund akin to a private pension fund but as that doesnt happen, the cost of the excess is surely passed onto to all tax payers, public and private alike.



Some things to note:
1 - The table and calculator does not take into account increments, but you can artificially inflate the actual salary to take account
2 - The 6.5% regular pension contribution is actually made up of 3 seperate payments, 1.5% of gross, 1.5% of gross and 3.5% of net salary. For the purposes of this calculation I took it as 6.5% of gross but in actuality it would be less.
3 - To use the calculator, enter salary figures on row 58 (the blue text) the calculator will work it all out from there. Please only enter even figures between 20k and 120k.
4 - I assumed the pension would last for 13 years in all my calculations. Life expectancy I thought was 78 years but it varies between men and women.
5 - All these figures are based on the situation as it stands today! It only works for people who have joined the PS this year or who are starting their 40 years of service this year...But if you were in the PS before the levy came in I think it would be clear that your pension was always going to costs the state, ie. the taxpayer, public and private.

Please note, this could be wildly wrong, I am putting my hand on my heart and saying that it is not scientific, it may not be remotely accurate! But it makes things interesting.

jimmmy

Sure, lots of people I know very well, good friends and relatives have experienced both public and private sector. I have read all of Grahams posts and was interested in them. His views are no more valuable than the views of lots of other individuals I know. The reality is most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants, for the reasons given. Poor old Graham is probably afraid to take as many long long tea breaks or as long posting now on this forum during working hours !

guinnessdrinker

jimmmy wrote: »

SThe reality is most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants, for the reasons given.

I'd say that most private sector jobs, if they came up would be flooded with applicant also in fairness.

Gumbo

good post, and good effort in the calculator, but for the typical PS employee, the figures should be between say 25k to 60k.

very very few people will get close to 100k, never mind more!
i know if i stay with the PS for the rest of my life and i make it to the top position in my department the max i will earn is 55k (thats what one of the senior guys here is on that just past his 30th year in the local authority.)

jimmmy wrote: »

Sure, lots of people I know very well, good friends and relatives have experienced both public and private sector. I have read all of Grahams posts and was interested in them. His views are no more valuable than the views of lots of other individuals I know. The reality is most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants, for the reasons given. Poor old Graham is probably afraid to take as many long long tea breaks or as long posting now on this forum during working hours !

and if a private sector job was advertised, then it would be flooded with applicants too, so i dont see your point here jim jim.
any way what about the 1000's of posts on boards all day long, are they all sitting at home studying for college just like you......i dont think so. i think its safe to assume that alot of workers, private and public take stints on the net during the day! some cop on required here jim jim.

solice

kceire wrote: »

good post, and good effort in the calculator, but for the typical PS employee, the figures should be between say 25k to 60k.

very very few people will get close to 100k, never mind more!
i know if i stay with the PS for the rest of my life and i make it to the top position in my department the max i will earn is 55k (thats what one of the senior guys here is on that just past his 30th year in the local authority.)

I know, its all dependent on the pay scales in the different departments. But you can account for that in the calculator by setting the final salary at 54k or 56k and work back from there to the starting salary at year 1.

Im afraid I only did it for even values, 20k,22k,24k to 120k.

The reason I went up to 120k is that there are people in the PS being paid that much. People at the CEO level.

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

Life expectancy I thought was 78 years but it varies between men and women.

Well done for going to the trouble to work all that out. I do not have time to study it in detail right now, but 2 comments I would make are as follows :

1. life expectancy is greater than 78 for those who reach retirement age
2. you are basing it on present levys....not someone retiring soon and what they have paid over the past 40 years ?

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

[*]life expectancy is greater than 78 for those who reach retirement age
[*]you are basing it on present levys....not someone retiring soon and what they have paid over the past 40 years ?
[/LIST]

I accounted for that in the "Please Note" section of my post. Im happy to take 13 years after retirement as a ball park figure. If you want to change it you can but it would be tricky as it is built into the calculations. Its only a guide as well. As I said, I have no idea if its accurate.

I also stated that it is only relevant to people who have started working this year. I dont have the time or the capability to work it out for somebody who is close to retirement already.

But I think there is enough there Jimmy if you study it to back up your argument. I dont think the introduction of the pension levy can account for the hole in the PS pension deficit.

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

and if a private sector job was advertised, then it would be flooded with applicants too, so i dont see your point here jim jim..

if you took the trouble to read back, you would see the point....it went back to Grahams claims etc

kceire wrote: »

any way what about the 1000's of posts on boards all day long, are they all sitting at home studying for college just like you......i dont think so. i think its safe to assume that alot of workers, private and public take stints on the net during the day! some cop on required here jim jim.

I never said I was studying for college. As I said before, "
Never mind my job, I am not a public servant paid by the taxpayer. I am not paid to post on the internet, when I am supposed to be working."

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

if you took the trouble to read back, you would see the point....it went back to Grahams claims etc


I never said I was studying for college. As I said before, "
Never mind my job, I am not a public servant paid by the taxpayer. I am not paid to post on the internet, when I am supposed to be working."

ive read every post in this thread, you keep banging on about "The reality is most public service jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants", where im simply stating that "The reality is most private sector jobs if they came up vacant would be flooded with applicants too"

so your job allows you to surf the net..........intresting......:rolleyes:

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

I accounted for that in the "Please Note" section of my post. Im happy to take 13 years after retirement as a ball park figure. If you want to change it you can but it would be tricky as it is built into the calculations. Its only a guide as well. As I said, I have no idea if its accurate.

I also stated that it is only relevant to people who have started working this year. I dont have the time or the capability to work it out for somebody who is close to retirement already.

But I think there is enough there Jimmy if you study it to back up your argument. I dont think the introduction of the pension levy can account for the hole in the PS pension deficit.

Fair enough + well done. For public servants who have done 40 years service, I am fairly certain they would live longer than 13 years after retirement....I cannot remember the exact figures but remember is longer for women rathen than men etc...and do not forget you are basing it on 40 years in the future, so with increases in medical technology etc.

Rather than worry about the deficet in 40 years time, I would be more concerned with what the pension should be for people already retired, and who will retire soon, what what they have paid over the past 40 years...that is more relevant. Thanks anyway.