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

Riskymove

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can immigrants without work permit and without citizenship apply for job in PS?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/anger-as-job-seekers-told-to-queue-up-in-the-street-1720300.html

a non-EU person cannot work without a work permit in any case

I am aware of non irish people in the public service but from EU

Gumbo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Can immigrants without work permit and without citizenship apply for job in PS?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/anger-as-job-seekers-told-to-queue-up-in-the-street-1720300.html

No they cannot work in public or private iirc

kippy

Riskymove wrote: »

depends what you consider "tax relief".

I was of the opinion that there is no formal tax relief as such ...but...the levy is taken off your gross pay before tax is applied so therefore you end up paying less tax than before

similar result I expect but I wouldn't call it a "tax relief"

To be fair, there is tax relief on the pensions levy.

jimmmy

Riskymove, you say you wouldn't call it a "tax relief" but it is tax relief as such. And good value too, many people ( from private sector ) who are about to retire - or who will retire in say 5 or 10 years time - wish they could pay the levy ( or even double the levy ) and get a big lump sum + 50% of final pay on retirement.

Count Dooku

kceire wrote: »

No they cannot work in public or private iirc

Not true
Most of Brazilians in queue to Londis don’t have any work permits, because most of them are “full time English language students”, which can work “20 hours per week”

It means that current example is not valid. If you will exclude only Brazilians, you will get only 10 applicants per position

P. Breathnach

Riskymove wrote: »

depends what you consider "tax relief".

I was of the opinion that there is no formal tax relief as such ...but...the levy is taken off your gross pay before tax is applied so therefore you end up paying less tax than before

similar result I expect but I wouldn't call it a "tax relief"

Technically, it is a deduction from income, but the effect is exactly the same. It's fair enough to say in general conversation that it is relieved from tax.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Riskymove, you say you wouldn't call it a "tax relief" but it is tax relief as such. And good value too, many people ( from private sector ) who are about to retire - or who will retire in say 5 or 10 years time - wish they could pay the levy ( or even double the levy ) and get a big lump sum + 50% of final pay on retirement.

Still nothing new jimmmy?

guinnessdrinker

Does anyone know if temporary public service workers that pay the pension contribution get the money they paid into the levy back when their contracts are not renewed?

Or, if public service workers that have paid into the pension contribution but then leave the public sector to work in the private sector get the money that they paid into it back? At the end of the day it is their money. Reason I ask is because I have heard that temporary ps workers pay the fund but will never get the pension, so what happens to their money, anybody shed any light on it?

Count Dooku

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Does anyone know if temporary public service workers that pay the pension contribution get the money they paid into the levy back when their contracts are not renewed?

Or, if public service workers that have paid into the pension contribution but then leave the public sector to work in the private sector get the money that they paid into it back? At the end of the day it is their money. Reason I ask is because I have heard that temporary ps workers pay the fund but will never get the pension, so what happens to their money, anybody shed any light on it?

They never will answer to you, if you will ask this way:D
You have to bash PS workers first in order to get any information from them :D
See how it should be done

Greedy public workers were not only financing their pension from private sector workers money, but they also are robbing their colleagues which are working on contracts for public sector

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Riskymove, you say you wouldn't call it a "tax relief" but it is tax relief as such. And good value too, many people ( from private sector ) who are about to retire - or who will retire in say 5 or 10 years time - wish they could pay the levy ( or even double the levy ) and get a big lump sum + 50% of final pay on retirement.

I was answering a question on tax relief jimmmy not about the level or "value" of the levy or the structure of the public service pension...and i was interested in setting out the actual position with regard to tax relief

you can call it a tax relief "as such" if you want...even if its not...if it makes you feel better

there is no tax relief on the levy as it is not connected to pension contributions

Riskymove

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Does anyone know if temporary public service workers that pay the pension contribution get the money they paid into the levy back when their contracts are not renewed?

Or, if public service workers that have paid into the pension contribution but then leave the public sector to work in the private sector get the money that they paid into it back? At the end of the day it is their money. Reason I ask is because I have heard that temporary ps workers pay the fund but will never get the pension, so what happens to their money, anybody shed any light on it?

I doubt they will get the money back....the levy is not paid into any particular fund..just to general coffers and is not actually linked to pension payments nor is it being used to invest to fund future payments

As mentioned before on this thread there are public Sector workers paying the levy who will not get a public service pension..

the levy is simply a deduction in pay for the public sector

Riskymove

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Technically, it is a deduction from income, but the effect is exactly the same. It's fair enough to say in general conversation that it is relieved from tax.

if thats the case then a pay cut is actually a tax relief....anyone who has had one can feel better then!

spindoctors should surely have been out fornt with that one

"a pay cut...heavens no...we are giving everyone a tax relief!!"

kippy

Riskymove wrote: »

if thats the case then a pay cut is actually a tax relief....anyone who has had one can feel better then!

spindoctors should surely have been out fornt with that one

"a pay cut...heavens no...we are giving everyone a tax relief!!"

The pension levy is subject to tax relief, as it is a pensions contribution in legal terms.
People arent any better off because of it.
Not sure what your point is to be honest.

Riskymove

kippy wrote: »

The pension levy is subject to tax relief, as it is a pensions contribution in legal terms.
People arent any better off because of it.
Not sure what your point is to be honest.

my point is simply that it is not a pension contribution but simply a deduction in pay

kindajaded

Count Dooku wrote: »

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

bit of an assumption there about what PS workers want - you don't work in the PS so are not party to the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff. FF didn't get voted in by PS workers alone.
and as far as unions go they are paid to fight the corner of workers and if the gov doesn't bend to it's own vested interests this dynamic should work - go back a 100years to when workers had no rights etc - this situation would never have changed without unions.

interesting proposals from I.Y.
one thing i don't understand is why he says we need to build up a new massive 10b 'pension reserve'.
surely the state could use that money, as it has recently, and have a much smaller reserve.

heard one of unions had criticised dept fin for not hiring more qualified staff to deal with pensions among other finance related matters - if this was done perhaps a truely working pension system - applied to and compulsory for ALL workers AND employers could be devised.
with the population ageing there is a disaster looming when over 50% of us are retired (i think going to happen by 2030) and many do not have pensions.
impoverished elderly will cost the state more in the long run - more care, more mental health problems, no abliity to pay for the basics etc

jimmmy

kindajaded wrote: »

bit of an assumption there about what PS workers want - you don't work in the PS so are not party to the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff.

We all have friends, relatives ( some have partners etc ), sporting colleagues etc from the public service whom we talk to about the economy...do you mean " the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff " is extra special / secretive / different ? All during the short 5 minute tea breaks, I assume. Pity poor Graham is not always in on these chats ....he was caught posting for 20 / 25 muinutes minumum here only the other day, to be now reminded he was on his tea break !

I would love to be a fly on the wall or be " party to the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff ". No doubt its not all about deciding how to spend the average p.s. pay packet of 966 p.w.

kindajaded

solice wrote: »

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.

great table.
one thing bit out - life expectancy is about 78 at birth but for people who haven't died by 65 its longer - about 16 years for men and 19 years for women.
rough calcuation on that basis for the example you gave - which might fit the profile of people like psychologists/physios etc who do several yrs as juniors before making a few jumps - the employer contribution for these people would still be about 5% with the levy (if you spread out the cost per yr over 17/18yrs to 40 yrs of work). that doesn't of course take account of the use the state can put the money to in the meantime. of course this is probably not an actuarial way of working it out but i did some calcualtions using online pension calculators (and those companies have actuaries to devise their calculators) and it comes out about hte same - so by accident or maths you're probably in the right ballpark.

imo 5% is a right and proper employer contribution. it should be compulsory for every employer (and tax deductible - i.e. more like 3% - and if employers genuinely cannot afford to pay it straight away then they should adjust salaries - eventually competition for good staff will start to even it out) - and all employees and self employed people should also have to make a compulsory pension contribution of 10% -15% - and hire top people to manage it and de-privatise the whole lot.
in the long run it would save money and society. if something to fix the pensions situation is not done there will be more probelms down the road - ageing pop etc - the UN had (still has?) a whole department devoted to answering the problems of an ageing society because it is so important.

kindajaded

jimmmy wrote: »

We all have friends, relatives ( some have partners etc ), sporting colleagues etc from the public service whom we talk to about the economy...do you mean " the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff " is extra special / secretive / different ? All during the short 5 minute tea breaks, I assume. Pity poor Graham is not always in on these chats ....he was caught posting for 20 / 25 muinutes minumum here only the other day, to be now reminded he was on his tea break !

I would love to be a fly on the wall or be " party to the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff ". No doubt its not all about deciding how to spend the average p.s. pay packet of 966 p.w.

the PS has it's own masonic code - secret handshakes and all -didn't you know that?
at the moment we are working on a plan to have all non-PS workers stripped of their votes - just so we can get ALL DA MONEY..

solice

kindajaded wrote: »

great table.
one thing bit out - life expectancy is about 78 at birth but for people who haven't died by 65 its longer - about 16 years for men and 19 years for women.

Curiosity got the better of me...

I changed it to 16 years, ill make life expactancy a variable when I get around to and it will make it easier to make different calculations.

The extra 3 years makes a significant difference!

Again, i cant say if its truly accurate but it is interesting

kindajaded

solice wrote: »

Curiosity got the better of me...

I changed it to 16 years, ill make life expactancy a variable when I get around to and it will make it easier to make different calculations.

The extra 3 years makes a significant difference!

Again, i cant say if its truly accurate but it is interesting

looks like less than 5%? but if you account for index linking etc probably still comes close to it.
lower paid doing pretty badly - maybe another adjustment internal to pension contributions needed..

Count Dooku

kindajaded wrote: »

bit of an assumption there about what PS workers want - you don't work in the PS so are not party to the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff.

Let me guess – are you FG supporter?

Because I can rephrase what you wrote as

”Ordinary taxpayers don’t have rights to discuss anything related with public service workers salaries, even if they pay tax to support ineffective and overstaffed public services. They are slaves of public sector and public servants will discuss this matter only with elected representatives of taxpayers.”

And then make a conclusion

“If taxpayers want stop ripping them by public services, they must unite around parties, which will offer optimisation of public services”

kindajaded wrote: »

FF didn't get voted in by PS workers alone.

Could they win GE without PS support, even if it was only 10%?

kindajaded wrote: »

and as far as unions go they are paid to fight the corner of workers and if the gov doesn't bend to it's own vested interests this dynamic should work - go back a 100years to when workers had no rights etc - this situation would never have changed without unions.

Unions did a great job 100 years ago. But now they are acting more like guilds, which protect interests of their members from public

kindajaded wrote: »

interesting proposals from I.Y.
one thing i don't understand is why he says we need to build up a new massive 10b 'pension reserve'.
surely the state could use that money, as it has recently, and have a much smaller reserve.

He is right
Government must always have reserve to handle emergencies, like we have now. Borrowing from international markets is slow process and don’t think that pensioners can wait until NTMA will find money. 10 Bn is enough to keep payments fro few months.

Count Dooku

kindajaded wrote: »

the PS has it's own masonic code - secret handshakes and all -didn't you know that?
at the moment we are working on a plan to have all non-PS workers stripped of their votes - just so we can get ALL DA MONEY..

This is why nobody can find freemasons anymore – they are all in public services now

kindajaded

Count Dooku wrote: »

Let me guess – are you FG supporter?

Because I can rephrase what you wrote as

”Ordinary taxpayers don’t have rights to discuss anything related with public service workers salaries, even if they pay tax to support ineffective and overstaffed public services. They are slaves of public sector and public servants will discuss this matter only with elected representatives of taxpayers.”

And then make a conclusion

“If taxpayers want stop ripping them by public services, they must unite around parties, which will offer optimisation of public services”



Could they win GE without PS support, even if it was only 10%?


Unions did a great job 100 years ago. But now they are acting more like guilds, which protect interests of their members from public



He is right
Government must always have reserve to handle emergencies, like we have now. Borrowing from international markets is slow process and don’t think that pensioners can wait until NTMA will find money. 10 Bn is enough to keep payments fro few months.

never voted FG or FF in my life!
only reason would vote FG/FG would be to keep SF out.
ok explanation re I.Y. plan - i get that

rest of it just your silly provocative stuff, count..

Count Dooku

kindajaded wrote: »

rest of it just your silly provocative stuff, count..

I know
Main goal was to show that what you wrote, is typical left-wing rhetoric, which you consider as absolute truth
And it can be easily beaten by counter-rhetoric

kindajaded

Count Dooku wrote: »

I know
Main goal was to show that what you wrote, is typical left-wing rhetoric, which you consider as absolute truth
And it can be easily beaten by counter-rhetoric

no truth is absolute
but if my thinking is left wing that's fine by me

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

I would love to be a fly on the wall or be " party to the chat about the economy etc that happens amongst PS staff ". No doubt its not all about deciding how to spend the average p.s. pay packet of 966 p.w.

The big problem jimmmy is deciding whose turn it is to fly to Australia this week.

You private sector types (that is, if you're old enough to work) don't know how hard it is keeping track of this type of thing.

Rob67

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.

Equally, the media never carried stories about low paid, high performance PS workers, who actually do exist contrary to popular perception. Somehow the headline: Low paid PS workers scandal doesn't have the same ring to it, does it, yet they do exist in the PS, regardless of purported 'average pay of €966'. Mindset of a general populace is usually controlled by the loudest and most sensationalist voices, everybody loves a scandal to get upset about.

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”?

The unions, by which I am not represented as I don't have that right, got that wrong, agreed. But it must be pointed out that a very strong media campaign was waged against the PS prior to the imposition of the pension levy, ensuring that public support would not be available as everyone would be suitably enraged to care as to what happens to the PS.

As to the racism against PS workers? It can be said that PS workers have been subjected to some unwarranted verbal attacks that could be considered to be a result of the recent reporting, I have personally been abused whilst carrying out my duties in public, it surprised me to hear the venom in one individuals voice and the complicit agreement by others around him. I wouldn't call it racism but sometimes it seems certain people want to make me think that somehow I'm supposed to feel guilty for doing a job that no-one else wanted. Strange that.

kippy

dresden8 wrote: »

The big problem jimmmy is deciding whose turn it is to fly to Australia this week.

You private sector types (that is, if you're old enough to work) don't know how hard it is keeping track of this type of thing.

If I was earning anything near 966 per week, which is apparently what all PS sector, I sure as hell wouldnt be wasting my free time on an internet messaging board trying to highlight the truths about the Public Sector.

Count Dooku

kindajaded wrote: »

no truth is absolute
but if my thinking is left wing that's fine by me

Left ideology is not bad, but only when is not exceed recommended dose
Too much sugar is bad for your teeth

Too many people in this country are thinking how to spend money, too few where to get it

jimmmy

kippy wrote: »

If I was earning anything near 966 per week, which is apparently what all PS sector, .

....not very clear grammar there. Maybe the point you are trying to make is that you are not on the average public sector wage of 966 per week, which is the average as confirmed by their own C.S.O., no less.

kippy wrote: »

I sure as hell wouldnt be wasting my free time on an internet messaging board trying to highlight the truths about the Public Sector.

Ah...but some in the public service do....take grahamo for example....he implies he is in the public service and earns more than the 966 average, and he was a regular contributer during the day ( earlier this week he spent 20 / 25 minutes one morning posting....he trried to explain it as his tea break but then I pointed out he got an awful lot of long tea breaks !....now he is afraid to post during the day for the first time in ages! So while there are no doubt some who would not be " wasting their free time on an internet messaging board trying to highlight the truths about the Public Sector" as you say, we all know of p.s. people / friends etc who willingly admit they do not spend all their time at work as productively as they should . Ah shure I am sure you will justify that by saying the private sector is the same.