Public sector workers willing to take pay cuts?

erictheviking

jimmmy wrote: »

Wrong actually, I have a bit of a social conscience. I have a good friend who is a Garda recently retired, and he is a bit embarassed at the size of his pension, and willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle. I know a few other Gardai ( individuals whom I have respect for, by the way ) who are retired but they have not confided to me about their pensions, but they appear very comfortably off ( holiday home abroad etc )
Maybe erictheviking you are in line for one yourself...if so, lets hope you get it before the IMF move in + restore sense to the system.

Another "Friend":rolleyes: who is willing to share all his personal financial details with you. What a load of crap! Yet again you have blatantly Made up a story to back up your feeble attempt at an argument!

I can just imagine your "Friend" complaining to you that he's embarrassed about the huge amount of money he gets and how he has more than he can spend:D:D

Friend: Jimmmy..I'm a bit embarrassed son...Sure I've got too much pension money...Its more than I can spend...There's just so much of it...What am I to do????
Jimmmy: Why not give it back to the hard pressed taxpayer or maybe give a little to charity...

yeah right!
Who in their right mind would complain that they had too much money?:D:D

Do you actually expect people to believe these stories?:D

PS Me? in line for a garda pension? I fecking wish! I grew up in a flats complex in inner city dublin. There is more chance of me winning the lotto than becoming a gard.
I don't particularly like gards but the majority play a fair game and I've got a healthy respect for them.
I certainly wouldn't begrudge them a pension. Its not easy being a gard in places like D8 or D7
You can rubbish them all you like but I bet you wouldn't do their job!

Drumpot

P.Breathnach. .

The most important point Im making is that I KNOW from working in the Pensions industry that the P.S. pension for a majority of people in it is far far superior then the average D.C. scheme pension . .

I work in the industry and dont know anybody who would say otherwise . .

Yes its my personal feelings on this subject, but its also my professional opinion based on educated research that stretches very much beyond the opinion of the average Joe who simply gives their opinions soley on what they heard from their union or from a radio station . .

Im not an actuary, so I cannot quote loads of facts and figures, but I can say from talking with actuaries that I never met one who disagreed with my above opinions . I believe the revenue manual itself quotes a figure of 30% of salary being what would need to be contributed to a normal pension for a D.C. pension owner to get the equivilent benefits at retirement. Thats the revenues own handbook ! !

Put simply, if I was advising somebody to subscribe to a simiar kind of P.S. pension scheme or a normal D.C. scheme, I cant think of many cases where I would choose the D.C. scheme. That says it all for me . .

P. Breathnach

Drumpot wrote: »

... Seriously guys, stop the pension debate . . Theres no real arguement that P.S's are being made to pay properly for this benefit . . the levy didnt go far enough if P.S.'s want to actually pay the real value of their pensions . . It was a perk thats been there for ages and should of been addressed in the boom years. . The state has to cut costs and if so many P.S.'s think so little of their pension scheme with the state, then they would prefer this to be chopped then their salary . .

To be fair -- and I hope we all want that -- you should also factor employer contributions into any comparison of public service and private sector pension schemes.

Like I said, lets cancel the pension scheme and see how many P.S.'s complain about how much they were paying towards it . .

As a first step, membership of the PS pension scheme could be made optional. I imagine that some people would opt out. In a small number of cases it would be the right decision (people who were appointed relatively late in their life). Others would opt out because they are mistaken about the value of the scheme, and yet others because they are simply improvident, rather as there are people in the private sector who don't get around to arranging for their old age.

P. Breathnach

Drumpot wrote: »

The most important point Im making is that I KNOW from working in the Pensions industry that the P.S. pension for a majority of people in it is far far superior then the average D.C. scheme pension ...

I agree with that.

Drumpot

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I agree with that.

Finally we agree on something . .

And yes, some employers do contribute to employees pension schemes. In occupational pension schemes they are only obliged to contributed one tenth of whatever the employee contibutes !! None the less, I concede the point that there are some good employers out there that rightfully assist their employees . .

kippy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To be fair -- and I hope we all want that -- you should also factor employer contributions into any comparison of public service and private sector pension schemes.



As a first step, membership of the PS pension scheme could be made optional. I imagine that some people would opt out. In a small number of cases it would be the right decision (people who were appointed relatively late in their life). Others would opt out because they are mistaken about the value of the scheme, and yet others because they are simply improvident, rather as there are people in the private sector who don't get around to arranging for their old age.

Very fair points P.
There should be an opt out option.

jimmmy

erictheviking wrote: »

Another "Friend":rolleyes: who is willing to share all his personal financial details with you. !

I never said he was willing to share all his personal financial details with me...check what I actually wrote ...I said my good friend willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle. Yes, we do talk about politics and money sometimes :rolleyes:. No need for you to post the following :

erictheviking wrote: »

What a load of crap! Yet again you have blatantly Made up a story to back up your feeble attempt at an argument!

I can just imagine your "Friend" complaining to you that he's embarrassed about the huge amount of money he gets and how he has more than he can spend:D:D

Friend: Jimmmy..I'm a bit embarrassed son...Sure I've got too much pension money...Its more than I can spend...There's just so much of it...What am I to do????
Jimmmy: Why not give it back to the hard pressed taxpayer or maybe give a little to charity...

yeah right!
Who in their right mind would complain that they had too much money?:D:D

Do you actually expect people to believe these stories?:D

I do not mind if you believe it or not....another poster showed you links where the Garda retiring early has a pension pot worth 1.1 million euro....you can choose to believe or not my statement I have "good friend ( retired Garda who ) willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle".

erictheviking wrote: »

You can rubbish them all you like but I bet you wouldn't do their job;)

I do not rubbish the Gardai, I have respect for the Gardai in general , count one as a good friend, and know others through varying degrees as sports colleagues, club members , neighbours etc.

di2772

Drumpot wrote: »

P.Breathnach. .

The most important point Im making is that I KNOW from working in the Pensions industry that the P.S. pension for a majority of people in it is far far superior then the average D.C. scheme pension . .

I work in the industry and dont know anybody who would say otherwise . .

Yes its my personal feelings on this subject, but its also my professional opinion based on educated research that stretches very much beyond the opinion of the average Joe who simply gives their opinions soley on what they heard from their union or from a radio station . .

Im not an actuary, so I cannot quote loads of facts and figures, but I can say from talking with actuaries that I never met one who disagreed with my above opinions . I believe the revenue manual itself quotes a figure of 30% of salary being what would need to be contributed to a normal pension for a D.C. pension owner to get the equivilent benefits at retirement. Thats the revenues own handbook ! !

Put simply, if I was advising somebody to subscribe to a simiar kind of P.S. pension scheme or a normal D.C. scheme, I cant think of many cases where I would choose the D.C. scheme. That says it all for me . .

I work in finance too. And yes, pensions is a large part of it.
This is why it cracks me up when people say their pension isnt any good.
I KNOW about private pensions too.

I can say that if people look after their pensions they will end up with a better pension than anyone in the public service for very little money every month. Ive posted examples here on boards from www.pensionsboard.ie where anyone can work out how much a pension will cost them. But nobody has even plugged in the figures and answered. They are just interested in whining about what others get, like children. Instead of putting the effort into their own situation.

And the private sector worker also gets close to €12k a year from the government to top up their pension too.

The problem with most people is that they expect to get a good pension with only a few years contributions. If they were to contribute over 40 years, the same as most of the public sectors length of service, they would have a much better pension than anyone in the public service gets.

And you know as well as i do that anyone whos pension has tanked over the last 3 years and is within 5 years of retirement is very rare. Pensions are moved into safer areas the closer you get to retirement. So if it hasnt been moved you have prevented it from being safe yourself, by taking risks. Thats called gambling.

kippy

jimmmy wrote: »

I never said he was willing to share all his personal financial details with me...check what I actually wrote ...I said my good friend willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle. Yes, we do talk about politics and money sometimes :rolleyes:. No need for you to post the following :

I do not mind if you believe it or not....another poster showed you links where the Garda retiring early has a pension pot worth 1.1 million euro....you can choose to believe or not my statement I have "good friend ( retired Garda who ) willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle".


I do not rubbish the Gardai, I have respect for the Gardai in general , count one as a good friend, and know others through varying degrees as sports colleagues, club members , neighbours etc.

I dunno, I am no genius but I want to point out a few things and perhaps our pensions expert can help me understand one or two items.

Relevant Articles:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/garda-pension-worth-836411m-1664588.html
http://www.gra.cc/payscales.shtml
http://www.gra.cc/pensions.shtml

Can I ask where this figure of 1.1 million came from? How did she work out the cost of this pension to the state was 1.1 million? Also, did she factor in the "employers" part of the pension and the PRSI pension?
Also, When she said the cost to buy that pension on the open market was 1.1 million, was that cost based on Marches figures or at a time when standard pensions schemes were far healthier?


Jimmy, the report didnt say the pension was worth 1.1 million euro, it said the cost to buy it on the open market at that time was 1.1 million.
It never took into account income tax on the pension, the members PRSI which would also make up this pension, which he had paid into, the spouse and child pension, the crap value of open market pensions at the time.
In fact I would LOVE to see those figures completely broken down.

TO be honest am sick and tired of this "debate".
I hope people understand my "balanced" attitude and I do hope we dig ourselves out of it.
I also hope that people understand that if you arent happy with your own employment conditions you should look to your options. Always been my motto when it comes to working.

di2772

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As a first step, membership of the PS pension scheme could be made optional. I imagine that some people would opt out. In a small number of cases it would be the right decision (people who were appointed relatively late in their life). Others would opt out because they are mistaken about the value of the scheme, and yet others because they are simply improvident, rather as there are people in the private sector who don't get around to arranging for their old age.

This would certainly be the fairest way to do it.
People should be able to opt out with their number of years service frozen.
When they retire, they would get a pension based on that number of years service, which is part of their conditions up til that point.

Then they can look after their own pensions for the years after that. I can tell you that they would be better off looking after their own pensions at this stage, for the rest of their service.

P. Breathnach

di2772 wrote: »

This would certainly be the fairest way to do it.
People should be able to opt out with their number of years service frozen.
When they retire, they would get a pension based on that number of years service, which is part of their conditions up til that point.

I suppose that the pension paid would be linked to their salary at the point at which they withdrew from the scheme, not the salary at which they later retired.

Then they can look after their own pensions for the years after that. I can tell you that they would be better off looking after their own pensions at this stage, for the rest of their service.

That surprises me. Have you looked into it in depth? It's moot, anyway, because the option is not currently available.

di2772

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suppose that the pension paid would be linked to their salary at the point at which they withdrew from the scheme, not the salary at which they later retired.



That surprises me. Have you looked into it in depth? It's moot, anyway, because the option is not currently available.

Go to www.pensionsboard.ie and run the numbers yourself.
Put in the amount of the levy for the amound of the contributions.

Also for the time of service where they are opted out of the ps pension they should be entitled to the relevant portion of the state pension too.

Im afraid the public sector have been screwed on the pension levy big time.

But what do they expect when then arent bothered standing up for themselves.

dearg lady

This s gone slightly off topic... I think we can probably all agree that the defined benefit pensions schemes are more beneficial than defined contribution. I mentioned above that when the public sector initially set up this pension scheme people weren't living as long past retirement age, indeed some didn't even make it to retirement age! Now people live for years after retiring, and it's unsustainable for the govt to keep paying this out. I wouldn't want to have a ridiculously good pension to the detriment of someone who paid in the exact same as me.

A complete overhaul of the current pension scheme is needed, but the question is are current public sector worker willing to take a pay cut, not a change to their pension scheme.

P. Breathnach

dearg lady wrote: »

... A complete overhaul of the current pension scheme is needed, but the question is are current public sector worker willing to take a pay cut, not a change to their pension scheme.

The matters are not entirely unrelated, because the pension scheme is part of the remuneration package. The pensions levy was no more than a charade, a means of imposing a pay cut. The effect on those currently employed in the public service was just the same, in that their net pay was significantly reduced. As pension provision, di2772 sums it up succinctly

Im afraid the public sector have been screwed on the pension levy big time.

It might be noted that the government contrived to reduce pay without reducing pensions. I believe that reason for using this device was fear of another expression of "grey power" similar to that which followed the medical cards debacle.

dearg lady

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The pensions levy was no more than a charade, a means of imposing a pay cut. The effect on those currently employed in the public service was just the same, in that their net pay was significantly reduced.

I know, I already made this point above. While they are related, I don't think it's necessarily relevant here, but maybe I'm wrong

di2772

dearg lady wrote: »

I think we can probably all agree that the defined benefit pensions schemes are more beneficial than defined contribution.

Not at all.
There are a number of variables. The main one being the length of time you are contributing for. Run the numbers for a defined contribution pension, add the state pension in and make the contributions for 40 years.

I think you'll be surprised how much it comes to.
Most people arent bothered doing a like for like comparison. And so they are not getting a true comparison. Try it and tell us which is better then.

And thats not even including any company contributions that may be added.

dearg lady

di2772 wrote: »

Not at all.
There are a number of variables. The main one being the length of time you are contributing for. Run the numbers for a defined contribution pension, add the state pension in and make the contributions for 40 years.

I think you'll be surprised how much it comes to.
Most people arent bothered doing a like for like comparison. And so they are not getting a true comparison. Try it and tell us which is better then.

And thats not even including any company contributions that may be added.

Welll I think there's a good reason why more companies don't offer defined benefit! of course there are variables, but defined contributiuon are so much more risky, if they perform badly, tough luck.

di2772

dearg lady wrote: »

I know, I already made this point above. While they are related, I don't think it's necessarily relevant here, but maybe I'm wrong

Of course its relevant. "PAY CUT". Thats whats in the thread title.

The PS have taken a pay cut. Yet people continue to say they are better off because of their pensions, when they arent at all. They might be better off than people who didnt look after their own pensions alright. But whose fault is that but the idiots who delayed starting a pension all their lives.

dearg lady

di2772 wrote: »

Of course its relevant. "PAY CUT". Thats whats in the thread title.

The PS have taken a pay cut. Yet people continue to say they are better off because of their pensions, when they arent at all. They might be better off than people who didnt look after their own pensions alright. But whose fault is that but the idiots who delayed starting a pension all their lives.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, if you read back over my posts you'll see I've already made the point about the pay cut

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It might be noted that the government contrived to reduce pay without reducing pensions. I believe that reason for using this device was fear of another expression of "grey power" similar to that which followed the medical cards debacle.

Actually the gross pay for public servants remained the same, and the pensions remained the same...the govt levy was a mechanism for the public servants to pay towards a greater proportion of their pension, which is still subsidised. The old system, where Gardai retiring after only 30 years of service, had a pension pot worth 1,100,000 euro, was clearly ludicrous considering the same Garda ( who for example retired this year or last year ) has only contributed towards a very small fraction of that.
I half agree with you that the govt was afraid of "grey power similar to that which followed the medical cards debacle"...except the reason the govt has been so generous to the public service was because of the p.s. unions, and possibly to help justify their own pay etc ( also the highest in the known world ).

di2772

dearg lady wrote: »

Welll I think there's a good reason why more companies don't offer defined benefit! of course there are variables, but defined contributiuon are so much more risky, if they perform badly, tough luck.

Defined contribution are not more risky at all.
Where are the pensions that have performed badly long term? As i said before, if anyone got caught by the recent downturn in the markets, and were near retirement in the last few years, they were just gamblers. They should not have allowed their pension to be exposed to the markets at that stage. Anyone not near retirement has nothing to worry about at all.

But by all means, let the PS opt out of the pension levy and set up their own pensions. They would be better off.

Have you run the figures yet? Which do you think is better after running them?

di2772

dearg lady wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, if you read back over my posts you'll see I've already made the point about the pay cut

I wasnt really arguing with you. I was just pointing out that if it was a pay cut, it says that in the thread title, so is relevant

PS, probably best just ignoring Jimmmy in this discussion. I think hes talking about some maky uppy world most of the time anyway, with the weird stuff he comes out with

kippy

jimmmy wrote: »

I never said he was willing to share all his personal financial details with me...check what I actually wrote ...I said my good friend willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle. Yes, we do talk about politics and money sometimes :rolleyes:. No need for you to post the following :

I do not mind if you believe it or not....another poster showed you links where the Garda retiring early has a pension pot worth 1.1 million euro....you can choose to believe or not my statement I have "good friend ( retired Garda who ) willingly admits he gets much more than he can spend, and he has a great lifestyle".


I do not rubbish the Gardai, I have respect for the Gardai in general , count one as a good friend, and know others through varying degrees as sports colleagues, club members , neighbours etc.

jimmmy wrote: »

Actually the gross pay for public servants remained the same, and the pensions remained the same...the govt levy was a mechanism for the public servants to pay towards a greater proportion of their pension, which is still subsidised. The old system, where Gardai retiring after only 30 years of service, had a pension pot worth 1,100,000 euro, was clearly ludicrous considering the same Garda ( who for example retired this year or last year ) has only contributed towards a very small fraction of that.
I half agree with you that the govt was afraid of "grey power similar to that which followed the medical cards debacle"...except the reason the govt has been so generous to the public service was because of the p.s. unions, and possibly to help justify their own pay etc ( also the highest in the known world ).

Thats it,
You're goin straight onto my ignore list. Should have done it ages ago.

di2772

kippy wrote: »

Thats it,
You're goin straight onto my ignore list. Should have done it ages ago.

Mine too

dearg lady

di2772 wrote: »

I wasnt really arguing with you. I was just pointing out that if it was a pay cut, it says that in the thread title, so is relevant

PS, probably best just ignoring Jimmmy in this discussion. I think hes talking about some maky uppy world most of the time anyway, with the weird stuff he comes out with

lol
No, I know what you mean, I actually agree that the pension levy is a pay cut. More so I meant the actual conditions of the pension received at the end were less relevant in this particular discussion but I guess they have a place too

dearg lady

di2772 wrote: »

Have you run the figures yet? Which do you think is better after running them?

Do you have any links to where I could compare, I'd be genuinely interested to see. I'll have to sort myself out with a pension in a few years when my current contract is up, would be interested to get an idea of options!

di2772

dearg lady wrote: »

Do you have any links to where I could compare, I'd be genuinely interested to see. I'll have to sort myself out with a pension in a few years when my current contract is up, would be interested to get an idea of options!

Everyine already know what a public sector worker gets for a pension.
The below link will show you what a private sector worker can get. Just plug in the numbers.
www.pensionsboard.ie

Its your best friend for your retirement.

If i may be so bold, i would say that if you are not starting out in your working life and have less than 30 years til retirement, that you should contribute the maximum to your pension straight away. You will get tax back and will get used to the hit on your salary in time. If after 6 months or a year you find the contribution is hurting then reduce it. Start high and go down - Its much better for you

irish_bob

di2772 wrote: »

Of course its relevant. "PAY CUT". Thats whats in the thread title.

The PS have taken a pay cut. Yet people continue to say they are better off because of their pensions, when they arent at all. They might be better off than people who didnt look after their own pensions alright. But whose fault is that but the idiots who delayed starting a pension all their lives.

your comments are typical of the cloested mindset of the ps , thier has been a market crash which saw nearly all private pensions decimated , its alright for you who has a pension that is immune to such market turbelence

di2772

irish_bob wrote: »

your comments are typical of the cloested mindset of the ps , thier has been a market crash which saw nearly all private pensions decimated , its alright for you who has a pension that is immune to such market turbelence

Except that im private sector and i work i finance.
I know about pensions. Of all sorts.

There are easy solutions to the countries finance problems.
What i hate is when people lay it on on certain sections of society.
We ALL have to pay. Singling out PS or householders is just an excuse for most of us to load the burden onto others.

irish_bob

di2772 wrote: »

Except that im private sector and i work i finance.
I know about pensions. Of all sorts.

There are easy solutions to the countries finance problems.
What i hate is when people lay it on on certain sections of society.
We ALL have to pay. Singling out PS or householders is just an excuse for most of us to load the burden onto others.

anyone that believes private sector pensions are every bit as solid as those in the public sector has some sort of vested interest, either they have family who work for the state or some other connection