Tonight's Frontline show

Danco

optocynic wrote: »

HOW?

It is a pension levy!!

That is the same as saying that if I begin to contribute to a pension scheme, it is a pay-cut!

Grow Up Public Sector... you are simply paying for some of your own pension now... like every other sap!

Public sector employees (some of them at least) have had their pension funds added into the National Pension Reserve Fund so that money will have been mis-invested long ago by the time most current public sector workers retire. There won't be any money for public sector pensions in future.

irish_bob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Go Dutch on healthcare, save €10 billion minimum, lets go mad and say €12 billion, thats half your problem solved right there. Take 20% off social welfare, thats a whopping €40 a week leaving the average recipient in receipt of €160 a week plus other allowances (with means testing and other austerity measures, for example adjusting rental allowance to account for lower rents), very doable, brings your savings up to €16 billion, and cut back the quangos and general built up excess, level pension schemes between the public and private sectors, you have minimum another €4 billion saved.

So that only leaves you with a €4 billion shortfall annually, very few people let go, no tax increases, and the record low tax returns of a recessionary environment means you can make up the difference in actual tax when things turn up. Assuming you don't take any stimulus measures yourself, which you really should do.

go dutch on health and get rid of the HSE by all means but leave the dole alone for the simple reason that our wellfare is so geneous in this country , their is no reason that anyone cannot afford health insurance , thats if we had a service which was worth having insurance for , presently we dont but under an entirely privatised system , thier is no reason that single people who are on the dole could not afford 13 quid a week for insurance or a couple with four kids could not afford 50 quid a week , the only role the goverment should have is that of preventing gouging by insurance companies like happens in america , a privatised system would do away with surplus to requirements whos only purpose is to bring in votes for local td,s

If we were at 2004 levels of expenditure, we'd be breaking even around now, and its not that hard to reach those levels.

go dutch on health and get rid of the HSE by all means but leave the dole alone for the simple reason that our wellfare is so geneous in this country , their is no reason that anyone cannot afford health insurance , thats if we had a service which was worth having insurance for , presently we dont but under an entirely privatised system , thier is no reason that single people who are on the dole could not afford 13 quid a week for insurance or a couple with four kids could not afford 50 quid a week , the only role the goverment should have is that of preventing gouging by insurance companies like happens in america , a privatised system would do away with surplus to requirements whos only purpose is to bring in votes for local td, , a privatised system would remove all the politcs and union interferance that has crippled the current system

irish_bob

ifconfig wrote: »

I watched the frontline on Monday also.

What was the point that the public service chap in the audience was trying to make about the performance of public sector pensions versus the poor performance of private sector ones?

He is right about private sector pensions being poorly managed in Ireland, management fees, etc and having a poor return. However, I thought it was a bit crazy trying to compare apples with lemons since most private sector pensions are defined contribution type and as Pat Kenny said public sector pensions are funded out of the general exchequer afaik.

that guy wasnt as dumb as he was letting on , he was spreading confusion

btw , i think it was a good idea the ps were seperated from the privater sector , the foaming at the mouth , glaring eyed ps workers looked very very scary and the private sector side came across as very meek , it was a security measure i suspect , ambulance driver was clearly unhinged , would have nutted eddie hobbs had he been near him , the glasses woudlnt have saved eddie boy

Amhran Nua

irish_bob wrote: »

their is no reason that anyone cannot afford health insurance , thats if we had a service which was worth having insurance for , presently we dont but under an entirely privatised system , thier is no reason that single people who are on the dole could not afford 13 quid a week for insurance or a couple with four kids could not afford 50 quid a week ,

Well we have it fairly clearly laid out in the health and education policy in the sig there, lower earners and those on the dole would have their mandatory insurance subsidised by the state, which overall would still be very much less than cost of paying for the HSE and co out of the tax coffers directly. The Dutch system not only works, it was voted best in the world and second best value for money by the WHO.

irish_bob wrote: »

the only role the goverment should have is that of preventing gouging by insurance companies like happens in america , a privatised system would do away with surplus to requirements whos only purpose is to bring in votes for local td, , a privatised system would remove all the politcs and union interferance that has crippled the current system

You are right about the privatisation, but the US system is a disaster, you have people going bankrupt when they have illnesses that last longer than a year.

irish_bob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Well we have it fairly clearly laid out in the health and education policy in the sig there, lower earners and those on the dole would have their mandatory insurance subsidised by the state, which overall would still be very much less than cost of paying for the HSE and co out of the tax coffers directly. The Dutch system not only works, it was voted best in the world and second best value for money by the WHO.


You are right about the privatisation, but the US system is a disaster, you have people going bankrupt when they have illnesses that last longer than a year.

the american system is indeed a disaster but thier has to be a 3rd way between the american system and its gouging insurance companies and the irish system and its gouging unions

those on wellfare should be able to afford insurance , presently i pay 700 quid a year , i am single , this entitles me to 50% refund on all GP visits , physio therapists , private consultants , even psychiatricst if i so wish , it also gives me access to a private room in a public hospital or a semi private room in a private hospital , this is at a cost of slightly more than 13 euro a week , i dont believe that those on 204 a week could not afford this , many would spend 13 quid a week on pizza or beer , surely the state should not have to bail out someone if they decide to over spend on take aways and neglect to cover themselves for health problems

the cost for a couple with four kids is around 2500 a year , this is 50 quid a week , again , most on social wellfare take in around 350 quid a week between dole , childrens allowance and other benefits so i see no reason why they could not afford health insurance , theese proposals i make are based on the assumption that our current shambles of a health system would be deconstructed and a new business like system free of union and political interferance would replace it , under the present system , the advantages of health insurance are not at all clearly defined

i am not an idealogue and i dont see what is wrong with having a private run health system providing responsible people who insure themselves, recieve value for money in return , i think many others would agree

Amhran Nua

irish_bob wrote: »

the american system is indeed a disaster but thier has to be a 3rd way between the american system and its gouging insurance companies and the irish system and its gouging unions

Yes, thats the Dutch system which we are proposing.

irish_bob wrote: »

i am not an idealogue and i dont see what is wrong with having a private run health system providing responsible people who insure themselves, recieve value for money in return , i think many others would agree

Look at it this way, half of the national budget gone on healthcare and everyone still has health insurance.

Enough is enough.

optocynic

Danco wrote: »

Public sector employees (some of them at least) have had their pension funds added into the National Pension Reserve Fund so that money will have been mis-invested long ago by the time most current public sector workers retire. There won't be any money for public sector pensions in future.

Don't be ridiculous. They will just tax the private sector workers even more to pay it!

Danco

optocynic wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. They will just tax the private sector workers even more to pay it!

Who's being ridiculous? It's a fact that the pension payments are going to the fund, and that fund has been earmarked to bail out the banks. I'm making a valid point, don't try to dismiss it with a bad joke. The money won't be there for it's intended purpose, it will be squandered. As a result public sector employees won't get their pensions.

jimmmy

Danco wrote: »

As a result public sector employees won't get their pensions.

easy come, easy go. A Guard retiring now on early retirement has a pension pot worth over a million. This is so much more than he would ever have expected when he joined the force in 1979. A pint was about 50 pence then. Imagine telling him then when he retired what his pension would be like !
Eddie Hobbs made an interesting point about Garda pensions on Frontline the other evening....when he said Garda contributions to pension should be 48% of salary if they were paying the economic cost of their pensions.;)
Fair play to him. P.S. pensions are unsustainable.

Danco

jimmmy wrote: »

easy come, easy go. A Guard retiring now on early retirement has a pension pot worth over a million. This is so much more than he would ever have expected when he joined the force in 1979. A pint was about 50 pence then. Imagine telling him then when he retired what his pension would be like !
Eddie Hobbs made an interesting point about Garda pensions on Frontline the other evening....when he said Garda contributions to pension should be 48% of salary if they were paying the economic cost of their pensions.;)
Fair play to him. P.S. pensions are unsustainable.

I'm dubious about that figure for a retiring guard, but feel free to post a reliable source (Eddie Hobbs is not a reliable source). The bottom line is that public sector workers are currently paying their pension contributions into a fund that is entirely unreliable and in the hands of the Minister for Finance. He can do what he likes with that money and he's decided to use it to shore up the banks. Private sector workers at least get to choose where they mis-invest their pensions, public sector workers don't.

jimmmy

Danco wrote: »

I'm dubious about that figure for a retiring guard, but feel free to post a reliable source (Eddie Hobbs is not a reliable source). .

Eddie Hobbs simply verified what is public knowledge in the pensions industry. There was a sperate thread on public service pensions here on this board some time ago, and there was a link to a study which confirmed what I said. Do not forget Guards can retire after 30 years service, and many may live for another 30 years after that, or more. Do not forget about the 18 months worth of salary tax free payment p.s. employees get on completion of service too.

P. Breathnach

Danco wrote: »

Who's being ridiculous? It's a fact that the pension payments are going to the fund...

Not really. The amount invested in the Pensions Reserve Fund is not linked to pension contributions from those in the public service, and the fund is not intended solely for paying public service pensions. It's a general reserve to provide for future pension liabilities, both public service and social welfare.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The amount invested in the Pensions Reserve Fund is not linked to pension contributions from those in the public service, and the fund is not intended solely for paying public service pensions. It's a general reserve to provide for future pension liabilities, both public service and social welfare.

Correct. However, the position remains. P.S. pensions in this country are simply unsustainable, to say the least.

hmmm

If you went to buy a pension today you'd expect to receive about 4.3% based on annuity rates- i.e. for every 100,000 you give to Irish Life or the like you'd receive 4,300 a year as a pension.

A pension pot of a million would buy a pension of 43,000 a year, less if indexed linked.

I don't know what annual pension a retired guard receives, but you should be able to work out what size pot is required. Don't forget that PS pensions are index and wage linked, which is not the case when an annuity is bought.

Danco

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not really. The amount invested in the Pensions Reserve Fund is not linked to pension contributions from those in the public service, and the fund is not intended solely for paying public service pensions. It's a general reserve to provide for future pension liabilities, both public service and social welfare.

Yes really, pension contributions are being taken from public service workers and placed in the fund, that's a fact. The bottom line is private sector workers get to choose their pension plan and the risk they want to take with it, public sector workers do not. A cut of their gross pay is taken at source and they have no say in how it is invested. The potential for loss of that money is enormous under the current system. Once lost it cannot be recovered. There is no certainty with public sector pensions anymore so the original point I answered, that it is not akin to a pay cut, is incorrect. It's the same as a pay cut. Ask any public sector employee whether given the chance they'd have that money put into the pension reserve fund or take it and save it themselves and you know what their answer would be. But that option has not been given to them.

NewDubliner

Danco wrote: »

Yes really, pension contributions are being taken from public service workers and placed in the fund, that's a fact. .

Wasn't the fund raided to bail out the banks?

Danco

NewDubliner wrote: »

Wasn't the fund raided to bail out the banks?

Yep, it certainly was.

optocynic

Danco wrote: »

Yes really, pension contributions are being taken from public service workers and placed in the fund, that's a fact. The bottom line is private sector workers get to choose their pension plan and the risk they want to take with it, public sector workers do not. A cut of their gross pay is taken at source and they have no say in how it is invested. The potential for loss of that money is enormous under the current system. Once lost it cannot be recovered. There is no certainty with public sector pensions anymore so the original point I answered, that it is not akin to a pay cut, is incorrect. It's the same as a pay cut. Ask any public sector employee whether given the chance they'd have that money put into the pension reserve fund or take it and save it themselves and you know what their answer would be. But that option has not been given to them.

Take that issue to your union!
But do you expect us to believe that the PS 'workers' will not get their pensions?

jimmmy

hmmm wrote: »

If you went to buy a pension today you'd expect to receive about 4.3% based on annuity rates- i.e. for every 100,000 you give to Irish Life or the like you'd receive 4,300 a year as a pension.

A pension pot of a million would buy a pension of 43,000 a year, less if indexed linked.

I don't know what annual pension a retired guard receives, but you should be able to work out what size pot is required. Don't forget that PS pensions are index and wage linked, which is not the case when an annuity is bought.

The average guard gets approx twelve hundred euro a week during his working career. What his / her average salary is at retirement ( which is what the 50% pension is based on ) must surely be higher than that, due to age, promotion etc. Also dont forget the 1.5 times annual salary windfall cheque he / she gets on completion of service / retirement.
Eddie Hobbs said on frontline on Monday night that a Guard would be paying 48% of their salary in to their pension if they were paying the full economic cost.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

The average guard gets approx twelve hundred euro a week during his working career.

thats not accurate jimmmy...the average wage in an garda siochana is €1,200but thats based on all grades


it is true however that they would have to pay the most compared to a private sector as they can retire at a much earlier point...i.e. 30 years rather than 40

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

thats not accurate jimmmy...the average wage in an garda siochana is €1,200but thats based on all grades

Correct...thats what I meant to say..."the average wage in an garda siochana is €1,200" rather than "The average guard gets approx twelve hundred euro a week". ....I was trying to remember the precise figure, which I think is 1220 per week or something like that. Anyway, the point is....another poster asked " I don't know what annual pension a retired guard receives, but you should be able to work out what size pot is required ".....there was a study done on this, with a link on a pensions thread on this board, showing the average pension pot of a Guard to be worth over a million when they take early retirement.
Nice liittle number if ye can get it.

boyneviaduct

As we all know, there are over 400k people currently on the live register claiming €204 per week. That is equivalent to €81 million per week, or €4.2 billion a year. That’s a lot of money to be paying out and nothing in return.

My mad idea would give everybody on the live register a job working for the Government, after all it is the Government who are paying their cheque every week. My idea would involve every person that is on jobseeker allowance (€204 per week)to work a 4 day week, Monday to Thursday from 10am to 1pm. That is equal to 3 hours a day and 12 hours a week. Failure to show up at your work-point on a given day would incur a €26 reduction in your take-home pay at the end of the week. Basically the same rate of pay as a person on minimum wage. So it would be in the person best interest to show up for duty. The afternoon of each day as well as Friday can be used to search for a job.

Since people would be working for the Government, job could include keeping Ireland tidy such as sweeping the streets, ensuring the streets are litter free, removal of graffiti on buildings, potholes filled in rural communities, etc.

It is only a thought, it is a wonder it wasn’t included in the McCarthy report. This way everybody is making some kind of contribution

jimmmy

boyneviaduct wrote: »

As we all know, there are over 400k people currently on the live register claiming €204 per week. That is equivalent to €81 million per week, or €4.2 billion a year. That’s a lot of money to be paying out and nothing in return.

My mad idea would give everybody on the live register a job working for the Government, after all it is the Government who are paying their cheque every week. My idea would involve every person that is on jobseeker allowance (€204 per week)to work a 4 day week, Monday to Thursday from 10am to 1pm. That is equal to 3 hours a day and 12 hours a week. Failure to show up at your work-point on a given day would incur a €26 reduction in your take-home pay at the end of the week. Basically the same rate of pay as a person on minimum wage. So it would be in the person best interest to show up for duty. The afternoon of each day as well as Friday can be used to search for a job.

Since people would be working for the Government, job could include keeping Ireland tidy such as sweeping the streets, ensuring the streets are litter free, removal of graffiti on buildings, potholes filled in rural communities, etc.

It is only a thought, it is a wonder it wasn’t included in the McCarthy report. This way everybody is making some kind of contribution

Not a bad idea...to give " everybody on the live register a job working for the Government " .....problem is, they would form a union, and demand the same wages, pensions and perks as everybody else working for the Government. All joking aside, you do have a point....seeing as the dole is three times (approx ) here what it is in N. Ireland for example, it should be either reduced here or else people should have to earn it.

NewDubliner

optocynic wrote: »

But do you expect us to believe that the PS 'workers' will not get their pensions?

Well, the law was that the pension fund was untouchable. So, they changed the law, took the pension money and gave it to the banks.

To save its cronies, this government can do anything.

boyneviaduct

Their wages would be the same as the minimum wage. This would also cut down in the number of women that stroll about there day wearing pink pj and boots. Plus it would have them all up early in the day been pro-active.

Amhran Nua

jimmmy wrote: »

or else people should have to earn it.

Most of them did earn it, what did you think PRSI was for.

jimmmy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Most of them did earn it, what did you think PRSI was for.

I take your point : however, PRSI falls a long way short of what is paid out on unemployment benefit / social welfare by the govt. per year. ( I think thats 20 billion ? ). Also, the situation where our "dole" + social welfatre is approx three times what it is in the UK is unsustainable.

Amhran Nua

jimmmy wrote: »

I take your point : however, PRSI falls a long way short of what is paid out on unemployment benefit / social welfare by the govt. per year. ( I think thats 20 billion ? ). Also, the situation where our "dole" + social welfatre is approx three times what it is in the UK is unsustainable.

Agreed, but its fairly inequitable to characterise people as needing to "earn" dole when they were mostly the ones carrying everyone else for decades. PRSI might not cover it but everything else they paid did, VAT, income tax, capital gains tax, and so on. I'd much rather concentrate on getting them working again/using their time to the best potential via education programmes.

As regards the UK, the cost of living is a lot less there as well.

jimmmy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Agreed, but its fairly inequitable to characterise people as needing to "earn" dole when they were mostly the ones carrying everyone else for decades.

Not sure about "mostly the ones carrying everyone else for decades"....ok some people claiming the dole in Ireland now did work / pay tax etc for decades, but many did not.

Some people I know who worked hard for decades and who have no income now, cannot claim the dole, as they were / are self employed.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

PRSI might not cover it but everything else they paid did, VAT, income tax, capital gains tax, and so on. I'd much rather concentrate on getting them working again/using their time to the best potential via education programmes.

Dunno, if I was on the live register I would not mind doing a bit of work in return for it eg mowing grass on public areas, picking up litter etc.
It would help our tourist industry + civic pride too.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

As regards the UK, the cost of living is a lot less there as well.

Agreed, but get the govt to reduce vat, business rates , the cost of supporting the public service overhead so. If / when public expenditure come down / so will the cost of living fall faster than it has already.

PeteHeat

Hi,

Possibly one of the greatest changes in our society over the past 10 > 12 years or so was brought about by the introduction of community employment schemes.

Many of the schemes had different titles but they achieved the same result which was to break the cycle of endemic reliance on unemployment and other social welfare payments by entire communities.

As an employer I recall trying to employ people of all ages at a time when their biggest concern was how holding a job would impact on their state entitlements.

There were families who had not "officially" held a job in three generations, it took a lot of work on such schemes to reintegrate many such families into the jobs market, one of which was allowing people to keep lower benefits for a time while they got used to the whole concept of gainful employment.

I believe there is nothing more demoralising than having people que up for hand outs from the state, they don't want to be there, the state doesn't want them there and the tax payer doesn't want them there.

So what is wrong with introducing employment schemes where people who can't find a job within say three months can get work in areas that will improve their community ?

So many skilled, highly educated people are being left to stagnate at home because there are no jobs for them, even worse we have young people who have never experienced gainful employment being paid the equal of 20 hours minimum pay to do nothing except lie in bed.

Surely that does not benefit anyone ?

.