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

grahamo

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Whats your point then. OK you are tired of "public sector bashing" but whats your solution for the required 20-30% cut in public spending, and don't say reduce the unemployment benefit.

Do you have a source or any data saying there are 30% cuts needed?

Your 1st claim that you pay for public sector pensions, you offered nothing to back this claim up. Its been shown throughout the thread that some pensions are good but MOST are not as your average Joe won't receive much above the state pension (The lower paid public sector workers contributions seem to be going towards the top people's pensions) .
Your 2nd claim that public sector pensioners receive a state pension on top of a public sector pension is completely false. I'm not going to explain it
again as the people who actually bothered reading through the thread know how it works.
Is there any point in answering your latest claim?

K-9

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

and don't say reduce the unemployment benefit.

Why not? we are spending about the same on SW payments as Public Sector pay.

It has been pointed out on this thread that many Civil Servants may only get the State Pension or not much more than it, which is a ridiculous situation. People paying the pension deductions on top of PRSI, to get the same amount Private Sector workers get by paying only PRSI.

The State Pension is too high. Even the State Non Contributory Pension isn't that far off what many Civil Servants will get!

Mr. Incognito

I'm a tax consultant. I was going to wade in here with some sort of rational logical explanation of how pensions actually work but I think it'd be wasted.

People have entrenched bigoted views and seem to only hear what they want.

Parts of this thread have made me laugh out loud with the blatant ignorance of the way pensions are structured.

What I'd suggest is that anyone making a claim back it up with a link to that actual statistics and/or figures as the amount of nonsense that has been touted out as fact is actually scary.

Rob67

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Whats your point then. OK you are tired of "public sector bashing" but whats your solution for the required 20-30% cut in public spending, and don't say reduce the unemployment benefit.

I addressed this issue before, where I did say that instead of the hack and slash mentality being currently used that a more measured system of pay reductions should have been imposed. Further to that, I would also seek reductions in staff who are over 55 as currently proposed, in addition, a mandatory requirement for staff who are ineffective at all levels/ranks based upon the same system that is being used within the Defence Forces i.e. persons who have been long term sick or repeatedly going sick for trivial periods excluding those who have received surgery/ cancer treatment or traumatic injury (special medical board to be convened to ascertain impact of medical condition on their employment). Mandatory relocation of essential staff to areas where they are most needed allowing for impact on travel and potential social/domestic circumstances. These are conditions which exist within the Defence Forces and have done so for many years, members are screened on renewal of contract and are deemed desirable for continued service under very strict guidelines (pursuant to when they joined they DF) needless to say, soldiers are released from their contracts on a regular basis on the above grounds.

I have no idea how much this would cost as it is several levels above my pay grade, so don't ask me, these are just random proposals based upon conditions in my realm of employment.

I'm sure I can up with more but I don't want to upset anyone!

By the way, I do agree to a 5% reduction in the payments of Jobseekers Allowance/ Benefits.

Happy?:D

Biffo The Bare

K-9 wrote: »

Why not? !

PRSI is not the issue on this thread. Its the percentage of the Public sector pension that is not covered by the state pension that is the issue here. Its human nature to whinge about getting a larger slice of the cake when times are good. Well that cake is well and truely eaten. So any partnership agreements should be put on hold or scrapped.
Private sector workers resent having their tax contributions squandered feathering the nests of people who don't deserve it. This issue is not going to go away.

Rob67

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Its human nature to whinge about getting a larger slice of the cake when times are good. Well that cake is well and truely eaten. So any partnership agreements should be put on hold or scrapped.
Private sector workers resent having their tax contributions squandered feathering the nests of people who don't deserve it. This issue is not going to go away.

Please define the people who 'don't deserve it'. Are you saying that someone who has worked in PS/ CS for x amount of years after being in a defined contract which they cannot change even if they want to, don't deserve their pensions? I can only speak for myself when I say that because of my particular conditions of service I am not permitted to set up a private pension scheme.

I feel that maybe you are being to harsh and allowing begrudgery to cloud your arguments. Their are many thousands of people in the PS/ CS who are dedicated hard working members of society who are being castigated merely for being in a certain sector of employment by a vocal, antagonistic few who will drag as many passers-by, who may not know better, into the argument so as to try and prove an overall groundswell of approval for their tirades.

I would advise that when making an argument of this nature that generalisations should not be used, it's unfair and intrinsically wrong. I will accept the argument, however, that there are members of the PS/CS who do not know what work actually is and I would gladly like to see them move on to pastures new so that the rest of us can get to work.

grahamo

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

PRSI is not the issue on this thread.

That depends. If you are going to go on about public sector workers getting a state pension as the majority of their pension then You need to know that they pay for it through their PRSI.

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Its the percentage of the Public sector pension that is not covered by the state pension that is the issue here.

A public sector workers pension (if you are a post 1995 employee)
is made up of firstly the state pension. This will then be topped up by your public sector pension up to a maximum of 50% of wages. The problem is most public sector workers, like most people in Ireland are married or cohabiting and their state pension will be more than 50% of salary so they WILL NOT RECEIVE a public sector pension. Which part of this nothing are you paying for Biffo????

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Its human nature to whinge about getting a larger slice of the cake when times are good. Well that cake is well and truely eaten..

What??? Who whinges about getting a larger slice of cake when times are GOOD?:):confused: What are you talking about?:rolleyes:

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

So any partnership agreements should be put on hold or scrapped..

What do partnership agreements have to do with pensions????????

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Private sector workers resent having their tax contributions squandered feathering the nests of people who don't deserve it. This issue is not going to go away.

A repeat of your first post. Again no figures or data to back it up Have you even read through the thread?
Are you Jimmmy using another username???:):rolleyes: This has got to be a wind up! Its like talking to a f***ing Wall!:D

Biffo The Bare

grahamo wrote: »

What??? Who whinges about getting a larger slice of cake when times are GOOD?:):confused: What are you talking about?:rolleyes:

Are you Jimmmy using another username???:):rolleyes:

That was a lexically ambiguous sentence, i.e it has two meanings depending on your context or my context. Sorry but I felt you needed an english lesson.
Also Jimmmy is his own man thank you very much.
Its sad to see a meltdown on this forum.:(

grahamo

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

That was a lexically ambiguous sentence, i.e it has two meanings depending on your context or my context. Sorry but I felt you needed an english lesson.
Also Jimmmy is his own man thank you very much.
Its sad to see a meltdown on this forum.:(

Thanks for that Biffo but I think you will find that a lexically ambiguous sentence will contain a word or words that induce ambiguity in phrases or sentences in which they occur. That sentence didn't contain one I'm afraid!:rolleyes:
Just so you know, examples of lexical ambiguity would be found in sentences containing nouns like the word 'CHIP'
which has 2 meanings or 'PEN' which also has two meanings. Also verbs like 'DRAW' and 'RUN'.
I think I see the type of advanced intellect everyone is up against now:rolleyes:
Now, back to business. Have you any data or figures for us?

K-9

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

PRSI is not the issue on this thread. Its the percentage of the Public sector pension that is not covered by the state pension that is the issue here. Its human nature to whinge about getting a larger slice of the cake when times are good. Well that cake is well and truely eaten. So any partnership agreements should be put on hold or scrapped.
Private sector workers resent having their tax contributions squandered feathering the nests of people who don't deserve it. This issue is not going to go away.

It is the issue. The State Pension is excellent value for the 4.5% deduction people pay. (8.5 - 4% Health Levy). The majority of Public Servants are now paying 13/14% levies to receive less than the State Pension.

10000maniacs

grahamo wrote: »

I think I see the type of advanced intellect

Steady on grahamo. Personal slights only from people who are qualified to make them.:rolleyes: Biffo the Bear started an excellent thread and got an invaluable discussion going. Thanks Biff.

grahamo

10000maniacs wrote: »

Steady on grahamo. Personal slights only from people who are qualified to make them.:rolleyes: Biffo the Bear started an excellent thread and got an invaluable discussion going. Thanks Biff.

No offence intended! Just a bit of banter!
and yes, you're right! Great thread.

Rob67

For those unfortunate enough to have seen their private pension funds wither away, some of whom are good friends of mine who work (and more importantly my other half) in the private sector, to virtually nothing, a bit of reasonably good news. It’s a small increase but at least the tide is showing signs of turning.

I heard something of this on Newstalk this morning from Conor Brophy, so I checked it up and this is what I came across:

From:http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016613.shtml

"Irish pension funds delivered another positive performance during April, having delivered the first positive month since August 2008 in March. As a result, pension funds are in the black for the first time in 2009.

Over the month, the average fund delivered a positive return of 8.7%. Irish Life Investment Managers was the best performing manager during April, with a return of 11.3%. AIB Investment Managers delivered the worst performance over the month, with a return of 7.0%. Over the first four months of 2009, returns are also positive with the average fund having returned 3.0% over this period. In the four months to the end of April, returns ranged from 7.3% (Merrion Investment Managers) to -0.8% (AIB Investment Managers).
Over the past twelve months, the average fund returned -27.2%, with returns ranging from -22.6% (Eagle Star) to -32.7% (Aviva Investors)."

Of course, all good news should be tempered with some bad news.

"The average managed fund return has been an extremely disappointing -11.2% per annum over the past three years. The five year returns to the end of April are also negative, with the average managed fund delivering a return of -1.0% per annum over this period.
Fiona Daly, Managing Director of Rubicon Investment Consultingcommented: "Irish group pension managed fund returns over the past ten years have been a very disappointing -0.4% per annum on average, well below the Irish inflation rate of 3.4% per annum over the same time horizon. Indeed, none of the managers surveyed outperformed inflation over this period, with less than half of the fund managers delivering positive returns."

You see, I actually do get to view both sides of the divide between private and public sector, that’s just one reason for my annoyance when I see rants instead focused thoughts on how to resolve the overall issue over pensions. I, personally, don’t have any answers as to how to fix it; finance is not one of my strong points!

I’ll throw this in the air for consideration (or ridicule, which is more likely): perhaps a system of state sponsored private pension parity scheme based upon contributions made where the state funds the shortfall at pension age and subject to those contributions are made on to a minimum level?

Possibly the funding could be drawn from PRSI contributions and/or from the Pension Levy fund, which will not make a difference to my pension as it is directed to the central fund AFAIK, I am being levied for having the potential of obtaining a pension not to increase contributions after all.

Please don’t ask me for specifics on how to make it work, it’s just an idea!

Please feel free to poke holes, tear asunder, declare how naïve I am or whatever, I would just like the constant finger pointing to came to a halt, it’s not productive.

NewDubliner

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Private sector workers resent having their tax contributions squandered feathering the nests of people who don't deserve it. This issue is not going to go away.

Who ultimately pays for private sector pensions?

We all do.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Who ultimately pays for private sector pensions?

Anyone who has one has paid for it themselves, directly or indirectly. Many private sector workers do not have private pensions - they work in the private sector and cannot afford one. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of shopworkers, restaurant and hotel workers, cleaners, farmers etc. Many who do have private pensions have found they will pay out only a fraction of the typical public service pension, which is of course subsidised. Contrast that with the public sector pension gravy train. Who pays most of the money the goverment gets in in taxes ( income tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, vat , etc ) and which the government then spends on its employees ? Of course the govt takes back some of the money it gives to its employees in tax, but where does the govt get that money to pay its employees in the first place? Its the 1,800,000 people in the private sector supporting the 300,000 odd better paid, more financially secure people in the public sector. As Eddie Hobbs, George Lee , that RTE programme on the public sector pensions etc, etc all say, things are way out of line.

Biffo The Bare

NewDubliner wrote: »

Who ultimately pays for private sector pensions?

We all do.

Take the state pension argument of of the mix, because everybody can potentially avail of it if they have paid stamps. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.
It is the the amount of taxpayers money going into the remainder of Public sector pensions after the state pension is paid. This is money that the private sector has to come up with themselves. If they are lucky, their employer will cough up 25-50% of it, but in the public service, the taxpayer comes up with 96% of it.

grahamo

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Take the state pension argument of of the mix, because everybody can potentially avail of it if they have paid stamps. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.
It is the the amount of taxpayers money going into the remainder of Public sector pensions after the state pension is paid. This is money that the private sector has to come up with themselves. If they are lucky, their employer will cough up 25-50% of it, but in the public service, the taxpayer comes up with 96% of it.

Can you prove that? You do realise that public sector employees have to pay a contribution towards their pension. :rolleyes:
To say that the taxpayer pays 96% of every public sector pension is absolute rubbish.:D:D:D

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

Anyone who has one has paid for it themselves, directly or indirectly. Many private sector workers do not have private pensions - they work in the private sector and cannot afford one. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of shopworkers, restaurant and hotel workers, cleaners, farmers etc. Many who do have private pensions have found they will pay out only a fraction of the typical public service pension, which is of course subsidised. Contrast that with the public sector pension gravy train. Who pays most of the money the goverment gets in in taxes ( income tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, vat , etc ) and which the government then spends on its employees ? Of course the govt takes back some of the money it gives to its employees in tax, but where does the govt get that money to pay its employees in the first place? Its the 1,800,000 people in the private sector supporting the 300,000 odd better paid, more financially secure people in the public sector. As Eddie Hobbs, George Lee , that RTE programme on the public sector pensions etc, etc all say, things are way out of line.

Oh God! Its like a broken record:rolleyes:

jimmmy

It still has not sunk in with all the public service though ( well, not grahamo anyway ), or else they will not admit the facts, as outlined more eloquently by Eddie Hobbs, George Lee , that RTE programme on the public sector pensions etc than I could ever hope to.

Gumbo

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Take the state pension argument of of the mix, because everybody can potentially avail of it if they have paid stamps. THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.
It is the the amount of taxpayers money going into the remainder of Public sector pensions after the state pension is paid. This is money that the private sector has to come up with themselves. If they are lucky, their employer will cough up 25-50% of it, but in the public service, the taxpayer comes up with 96% of it.

ok, so lets take PRSI out of it that provides all workers with a pension of €230.

from this post http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055558156

my contributions from my salary of 39,873 is :

paye 137.61
prsi 107.00
income levy 30.59
pension contribution 67.17
pension levy 73.39
all of the above is per fortnight

so lets base it over 35 years which is all i will be with the PS if i last till 65 years old.

pension levy + pension contribution
= €67.17+€73.39
= €140.56 (per fortnight)

€140.56*26 = €3654.56 (per year)

€3654.56*35years = €127,909.60 of a pension fund.

so lets assume retirement at 65 and after 35 years service i get a lump sum of €55,000 as i only have 35 years service not 40 (€127,909.60-€55,000 = €72,909.60)

so my yearly pension is half salary which is €17,447. as i dont have the full 40 year service

€17,447/26 = €671.03 per fortnight

€671.03-state pension of (€230*2) = €211.03 per fortnight

so my PS pension is now €211.03 per fortnight

€72,909.60/€211.03 = 690 weeks (13 years)

so the pension costs the government nothing until after the 13th year of retirement. (78 years old)

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

It still has not sunk in with all the public service though ( well, not grahamo anyway ), or else they will not admit the facts, as outlined more eloquently by Eddie Hobbs, George Lee , that RTE programme on the public sector pensions etc than I could ever hope to.

What facts Jimmmy?:rolleyes:
This thread is now 14 pages long and you still haven't posted any facts.
You have been asked time and again to back up your claims and you still haven't come up with any data, figures or anything (BTW saying you 'Heard it on the radio the other day) isn't exactly backing up your claims:rolleyes:
All you are posting is the same stuff over and over and over and over again.

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

It still has not sunk in with all the public service though ( well, not grahamo anyway ), or else they will not admit the facts, as outlined more eloquently by Eddie Hobbs, George Lee , that RTE programme on the public sector pensions etc than I could ever hope to.

What won't sink in is the fact that KCEIRE has posted the facts about his/her pension above. These are actual figures Jimmmy showing how much he/she pays in relation to what he/she gets back. The thing is you will totally ignore those figures Jimmmy, you won't even acknowledge them and then your retort will be a post containing something like '1.8 million people in the private sector can't afford a pension'
Its so frustrating. It reminds me of Father Ted trying to explain to Dougal about the cows in the field.:D

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

What won't sink in is the fact that KCEIRE has posted the facts about his/her pension above.

These are very selective figures. eg salary of 39,873 ....the fact is the average public service pay is much higher than that ( 966 p.week, plus perks ) , and also the average public service pay on retirement - and hense the pension rate - is much higher than that , given that older people / more experienced people ie retirement age people are generally paid more than people who have just joined the public service.

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

What facts Jimmmy?:rolleyes:
This thread is now 14 pages long

Why did you not listen to Eddie Hobbs, George Lee , that RTE programme on the public sector pensions etc , if you will not bother to read the posts ? All we get from the public sector is " ah shure if you wanted our pay, security , perks and pensions ( oh, and the lump sum "gratuity" / "tip" on retirement ), ye should have joined the public service ". There are not 2,100,000 jobs in the public service. The cost of running the public service increased doubled between 2003 and 2008...as a country we cannot afford it.

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

These are very selective figures. eg salary of 39,873 ....the fact is the average public service pay is much higher than that ( 966 p.week, plus perks ) , and also the average public service pay on retirement - and hense the pension rate - is much higher than that , given that older people / more experienced people ie retirement age people are generally paid more than people who have just joined the public service.

stop banging on about the 966 figure, constant copy and paste is that all your good for?

nobody in my dept earns the 966 figure.
i know RTE said its the average, but its not the average workers salary on the ground, it includes all the highly paid TD's etc etc etc

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

stop banging on about the 966 figure, constant copy and paste is that all your good for?

grahamo asked for facts - I give him the average pay in the public service - and what happens ....I am attacked again by the public service. The 966 figure + perks is a fact....it is well known and has been widely reported by most sections of the media , papers, RTE etc.

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

grahamo asked for facts - I give him the average pay in the public service - and what happens ....I am attacked again by the public service. The 966 figure + perks is a fact....it is well known and has been widely reported by most sections of the media , papers, RTE etc.

see thats the problem, you gave him what you copied/heard from RTE....its not the facts.

i gave you real life figures and there ignored, other posters can read from that what they want.

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

see thats the problem, you gave him what you copied/heard from RTE....its not the facts..

I also previously quoted facts from the c.s.o. . Average public service salaries are also often referred to in the print media. You think everyone, inc their own c.s.o., is conspired against the public service ?

kceire wrote: »

i gave you real life figures and there ignored, .

You gave me the figure of one person earning 39,873 and it was not ignored : I wrote : " These are very selective figures. eg salary of 39,873 ....the fact is the average public service pay is much higher than that ( 966 p.week, plus perks ) , and also the average public service pay on retirement - and hense the pension rate - is much higher than that , given that older people / more experienced people ie retirement age people are generally paid more than people who have just joined the public service. "

The Insider

kceire wrote: »

my contributions from my salary of 39,873 is :

so my yearly pension is half salary which is €17,447. as i dont have the full 40 year service

But when you retire you won't be on a salary of 39,873, Say you are in your mid thirties now, in 30 years what would your salary be? 1.5 x your current salary... maybe even double... maybe more.

Secondly correct me if I am wrong but isn't the pension index linked after you retire?

grahamo

The Insider wrote: »

But when you retire you won't be on a salary of 39,873, Say you are in your mid thirties now, in 30 years what would your salary be? 1.5 x your current salary... maybe even double... maybe more.

Secondly correct me if I am wrong but isn't the pension index linked after you retire?

If future salary increases by 1.5 x current salary so will the contributions rise by 1.5 x current contributions. How much interest do you think kceire would earn if he/she took their pension contributions and stuck them in a simple savings account for 35 years?
He/She is easily covering that pension with those contributions!
Even if the account was earning interest at a very low rate (Say 3%) Kceire's final contribution total would rise to
227,591 Euros. Please don't even attempt to tell me this amount would not cover the pension
You can do the maths here.
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
Somebody please feel free to try and dispute this. The fact is you can't!