Is the Irish Public Service the highest paid in the world ?

Tipp Man

EF wrote: »

I don't get the dissastisfaction with people saying what their take home pay is rather than their net pay, provided only compulsory deductions are included in the calculation. My net pay would be an alright wage but after all the enforced levies I think it is only fair that that figure should be the one used for comparison sake.

You mean gross salary, take home and net are the same:) (sorry but you have just proven my point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!)

In any country i have ever been in, in any job profession i have ever seen, the salary quoted is always gross. Take a look at the jobs supplement in the times tomorrow and show me 1, just 1, job that advertises the take home pay.

To give you all the reason that it is always gross salary, the employer is responsible for how much he pays you,i.e. gross salary. He pays you this amount, you are then responsible for paying all taxes, social insurances, levies, whatever on your gross salary. To make it easier for everyone the employer deducts this from your gross salary, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, and you receive the net (take home) salary. The employer then pays your taxes on your behalf, along with all his employees, to the government usually on the 21st of the following month

I'm not picking on you EF but you just prove that the public sector are throwing take home pay around when nobody anywhere talks about net pay, it is ALWAYS gross pay. Its easy to say how poorly paid public servants are when they are throwing their after tax income around as if it was gross.

Its amzing on here i see public servants saying, oh i am nowhere near the 966 average pay, i only took home 700 last week, i'm 250 below the average, blame all the HSE managers (not saying they're not a problem!!)and they are competly oblivious to the fact that the 966 is Gross and that they actually earn that much

Tipp Man

dodgyme wrote: »

They are not value for money if they are overpaid and hence not worth every penny.

He does however highlight a major problem, he is married to a public servant, there are what 360k public servants which means there must be what 500-600k households with at least 1 public sector income, now if and when the governement does eventually tackle this public sector pay problem there are going to be a lot of discontent households, its not just the number of public sector employees, its the number of households affected, which is why a lot of people, who although not public servants themselves, have a lot to loose by the wage cuts

ParkRunner

Tipp Man wrote: »

You mean gross salary, take home and net are the same:) (sorry but you have just proven my point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!)

In any country i have ever been in, in any job profession i have ever seen, the salary quoted is always gross. Take a look at the jobs supplement in the times tomorrow and show me 1, just 1, job that advertises the take home pay.

To give you all the reason that it is always gross salary, the employer is responsible for how much he pays you,i.e. gross salary. He pays you this amount, you are then responsible for paying all taxes, social insurances, levies, whatever on your gross salary. To make it easier for everyone the employer deducts this from your gross salary, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, and you receive the net (take home) salary. The employer then pays your taxes on your behalf, along with all his employees, to the government usually on the 21st of the following month

I'm not picking on you EF but you just prove that the public sector are throwing take home pay around when nobody anywhere talks about net pay, it is ALWAYS gross pay. Its easy to say how poorly paid public servants are when they are throwing their after tax income around as if it was gross.

Its amzing on here i see public servants saying, oh i am nowhere near the 966 average pay, i only took home 700 last week, i'm 250 below the average, blame all the HSE managers (not saying they're not a problem!!)and they are competly oblivious to the fact that the 966 is Gross and that they actually earn that much

That was a typo sorry, had a long hard day in work The reason why I champion the take home pay (net) is for international comparisons rather than domestic comparisons!

These pay comparisons that are constantly regurgitated in the media seem pretty meaningless as they are always followed by the clause that:
the analysis does not attempt to compare similar jobs between the public and private sectors.

The pay comparisons might as well say a Secretary General in the civil service earns 1500% times the wages of someone on the mininum wage in the private sector i.e. it is true but it is an invalid comparison and achieves nothing.

Jadaol

Tipp Man wrote: »

You mean gross salary, take home and net are the same:) (sorry but you have just proven my point exactly!!!!!!!!!!!)

In any country i have ever been in, in any job profession i have ever seen, the salary quoted is always gross. Take a look at the jobs supplement in the times tomorrow and show me 1, just 1, job that advertises the take home pay.

To give you all the reason that it is always gross salary, the employer is responsible for how much he pays you,i.e. gross salary. He pays you this amount, you are then responsible for paying all taxes, social insurances, levies, whatever on your gross salary. To make it easier for everyone the employer deducts this from your gross salary, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, and you receive the net (take home) salary. The employer then pays your taxes on your behalf, along with all his employees

that the public sector are throwing take home pay around when nobody anywhere talks about net pay, it is ALWAYS gross pay. Its easy to say how poorly paid public servants are when they are throwing their after tax income around as if it was gross.

The employer will also make other deductions for you e.g. pension contributions, subscriptions, saving scheme subscriptions etc., which are technically all part of your net pay but AFTER these are deducted you will get your take-home pay. Only government taxes (NOT pension levies) should be used to deduct from gross pay to get net pay which varies by person. THIS IS WHY GROSS IS BETTER FOR COMPARISON.


And as for whoever said that the pension levy is effectively a pay cut because they get no increased benefits to their pension....That kind of depends on how you look at it. Your pensions are unaffordable as it is, and it could be viewed as making you make an extra contribution to the cost of your current pension. (Some have been forced to take a cut without the benefit of any pension at all - but these are few)

Tipp Man

EF wrote: »

That was a typo sorry, had a long hard day in work The reason why I champion the take home pay (net) is for international comparisons rather than domestic comparisons!

These pay comparisons that are constantly regurgitated in the media seem pretty meaningless as they are always followed by the clause that:
the analysis does not attempt to compare similar jobs between the public and private sectors.

The pay comparisons might as well say a Secretary General in the civil service earns 1500% times the wages of someone on the mininum wage in the private sector i.e. it is true but it is an invalid comparison and achieves nothing.

No worries have had a very long day myself

I'm sorry but i don't think i have ever seen an international comparison of take home pay, it is simply not done as far as i can see.

Salary comparisons are always on Gross pay as everyone's deductions are different depending on their personal circumstances etc so even you and the guy beside you at work can have very different take home pay even though yer gross salary is the same

ParkRunner

Tipp Man wrote: »

No worries have had a very long day myself

I'm sorry but i don't think i have ever seen an international comparison of take home pay, it is simply not done as far as i can see.

Salary comparisons are always on Gross pay as everyone's deductions are different depending on their personal circumstances etc so even you and the guy beside you at work can have very different take home pay even though yer gross salary is the same

Surely it is possible to create an international comparison based on take home pay. The figures can probably be calculated from the public sector pay at any grade, whereas the private sector take home pay is as always left up to guesswork.
We might as well stick to the facts if there is going to be an attempt at a comparison dont you think??

Tipp Man

EF wrote: »

Surely it is possible to create an international comparison based on take home pay. The figures can probably be calculated from the public sector pay at any grade, whereas the private sector take home pay is as always left up to guesswork.
We might as well stick to the facts if there is going to be an attempt at a comparison dont you think??

Why would you even want to do it??

Lets say you and the guy beside you at work, ye both earn exactlly the same gross, he's single, your married, wife not working, pay a pension, union etc. Your take home is significantly different to his, however the salary for both your and his positions is exactly the same just that your personal circumstances are different to his hence the differing take home

I don't get your private sector guess work comment???

Liam Byrne

irish_bob wrote: »

just because the cost of living in 2007 was higher in ireland than in the uk doesnt mean the cost of living will be higher here in years to come , circumstances change , the cost of living will be down in a week if wages and wellfare fall

I agree; it's a chicken-and-egg scenario, and I thought it VERY ironic that Cowen mentioned earlier in the year that we should expect a "10% drop in standard of living".

I remember thinking that if we dropped EVERYTHING by 10% - wages, bills, mortgages, etc - then no-one would be actually worse off, in real terms; I also remember wondering why "inflation" was seen as a good thing, or a sign that an economy was "growing".

What I'm saying is, though, that it's a factor, in that you can't compare wages without comparing that.

Someone could well be on a minimum wage of the fabled €1.86 in another country and still be better off than we are here.

So you're right about what "might" happen; but as it stands we need to compare like with like. That applies to public and private sector.

But yeah, drag the costs and wages down simultaneously (e.g. halve EVERYTHING at the same time) and we'd be a lot more competitive and no-one would be much worse off (apart from imports and foreign hols).

Firetrap

That's a fair point I think but the problem is that you'd never get everyone/everything to drop by 10%. There would always be some greedy b&stards out there.

Tipp Man

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I agree; it's a chicken-and-egg scenario, and I thought it VERY ironic that Cowen mentioned earlier in the year that we should expect a "10% drop in standard of living".

I remember thinking that if we dropped EVERYTHING by 10% - wages, bills, mortgages, etc - then no-one would be actually worse off, in real terms; I also remember wondering why "inflation" was seen as a good thing, or a sign that an economy was "growing".

What I'm saying is, though, that it's a factor, in that you can't compare wages without comparing that.

I agree entirely about the chicken and egg, but when things were on the way up which came first, did inflation get out of control leading to increased wage demands (which were given) or did wages get higher (handed out on a plate), people had more to spend and they spent it, combined with income tax falling a bit and lax lending from the banks we saw prices spiral out of control. So i suppose its good to ask which came first on the way up??

Firetrap wrote: »

That's a fair point I think but the problem is that you'd never get everyone/everything to drop by 10%. There would always be some greedy b&stards out there.

Those greedy b&stards are in fact the government in the main, take a small irish business, they pay the highest electricity in Europe, thanks to a state run body, the rates paid to local Corporations, i.e. local government, have gone up for a lot of businesses, and the minimum wage is way to high coupled with very strict employment laws. These factors alone mean that even if businesses in Ireland wanted to reduce the prices they charge for goods and services the truth is their cost base hasn't actually fallen (raised in a lot of cases) so what are they meant to do??

Cuchulain

jimmmy wrote: »

Also any countries which pay more that the public service pension here ( one and a half years finishing salary lump-sum cheque tax free + then 50% of finishing salary as guaranteed pension )? Do police in other countries , for example, have to work a full 30 years before they are entitled to this amount, like the Gardai are here ? J

Talk about twisting the figures. The majority of the public serve have to work 40 YEARS before they get these figures. Also PS dont get social welfare pension after 66 either.

If its a good place to work jimmmy, did it ever enter you brain to try and get a job there?

optocynic

Cuchulain wrote: »

Talk about twisting the figures. The majority of the public serve have to work 40 YEARS before they get these figures. Also PS dont get social welfare pension after 66 either.

If its a good place to work jimmmy, did it ever enter you brain to try and get a job there?

Those fugures may be correct... I don't care..
What I do care about is the high salaries.. short working week.. no incentive to perform.. annual increments regardless... and union blackmailing of the rest of the country!

And please... stop hiding behind the Nurses and Gardai... what percentage of the PS do they make up?

jimmmy

irish_bob wrote: »

figures dont do much around here as thier usually dismissed as being distorted

is new zealand richer the australia

is austria richer than germany

is portugal richer than spain

ireland doesnt do anything which makes it stand apart as a small country , we are no switzerland , we had a freak of a property bubble which employed one in four in the private sector , our wealth for a brief period was virtual , not permanent , we have no real heavy industry of any kind , we are not rich in natural resources , agriculture still accounts for over 10% of GDP, i could go one but its pretty obvious that we are not as wealthy a country as the uk

True enough, plus the UK and Germany are the 2 biggest contributers to EC funds...Ireland has received something like 100 billion in handouts since the EEC was founded....we were not even a net contributer to EC funds during the Celtic Tiger era. Yet our Govt + their employees think they deserve the best pay,pensions + perks in Europe ? eg the head of our central bank is the highest paid banker in the world ; I gave the figures on another thread.

jimmmy

Cuchulain wrote: »

Talk about twisting the figures. The majority of the public serve have to work 40 YEARS before they get these figures.

I know they do. I have made that point before. Thats why I said
"Do police in other countries , for example, have to work a full 30 years before they are entitled to this amount, like the Gardai are here ? ". I know for most people in the public service its 40 years, for the Gardai its 30 years and for people like Judges its only 15 years

Cuchulain wrote: »

If its a good place to work jimmmy, did it ever enter you brain to try and get a job there?

As I said before, not everyone in the country should or could be this elite group of what seemingly is the highest paid public service in the world.( with pension + perks not unmatched ).

I would have though some public servant come have come up with a country which is at least close to our average p.s. pay.

irish_bob

Tipp Man wrote: »

He does however highlight a major problem, he is married to a public servant, there are what 360k public servants which means there must be what 500-600k households with at least 1 public sector income, now if and when the governement does eventually tackle this public sector pay problem there are going to be a lot of discontent households, its not just the number of public sector employees, its the number of households affected, which is why a lot of people, who although not public servants themselves, have a lot to loose by the wage cuts

i have about a hundred posts on this subject , if thier is one thing irish people treasure , its keeping money in the family

Dannyboy83

Tipp Man wrote: »

He does however highlight a major problem, he is married to a public servant, there are what 360k public servants which means there must be what 500-600k households with at least 1 public sector income, now if and when the governement does eventually tackle this public sector pay problem there are going to be a lot of discontent households, its not just the number of public sector employees, its the number of households affected, which is why a lot of people, who although not public servants themselves, have a lot to loose by the wage cuts

And the other side of the coin, my GF was in the private sector and had a 100% pay cut.
And she is not getting job seekers benefit anymore (12 month expiry).
And they won't give her job seekers allowance because she lives with me and apparently I'm paid too much (looking at my GROSS income, not my net)

Personally I would much prefer to have her in the public sector on a 40% pay cut, than to be sitting at home going out of her mind with boredom & looking for a job.

My father is a public servant btw.
Do I want him to lose money - No, I don't.

The fact is, we are in a vicious circle right now.
The only way OUT of the vicious circle is to reduce expenditure, via PS wage cuts and Social cuts.

They can't increase customs & excise anymore because nobody even goes out for a drink these days and the streets are flooded with Ukranian contraband cigarettes because Irish cigarettes are so overpriced compared to the rest of the world that a whole black market has built up in the last 3 years.
They can't increase commercial taxes because unemployment will skyrocket and the multinationals will leave.
They can't increase income tax, because it compounds the problem and makes the recession worse!
They've introduced property taxes for second homes, won't make a blind bit of difference.

The only way OUT of the vicious circle is to reduce expenditure, via PS wage cuts and Social cuts.

Dannyboy83

Its pathetic to think that there are people on this forum who know exactly what needs to be done to get us out of this mess, yet the government are still waiting for a miracle solution to appear!!!!!

THE LIMB HAS GANGERINE, ITS GOT TO GO OR THE WHOLE BODY WILL DIE, JUST DO IT!!

jimmmy

irish_bob wrote: »

if thier is one thing irish people treasure , its keeping money in the family

Dunno, there are families where the public servant admit they are overpaid / underworked. A case in point is my cousin who is going to avail of the 3 year paid p.s. " career break". She was thinking anyway of taking 2 or 3 years off to be with her kids more while they are growing up, and now this new scheme means she will get 36 grand.
Keeping money in the family is one thing, but when the nation is borrowing approx 22 billion per year to help ensure our p.s. is the highest paid + pensioned in the known world ? There are a lot of people not part of this group who wonder how much longer can they keep going contributing to govt coffers as opposed to taking from it. It does not matter if someone in the family is one of the lucky recipients or not.

gerry28

She was thinking anyway of taking 2 or 3 years off to be with her kids more while they are growing up, and now this new scheme means she will get 36 grand.

Thats 36 grand over 3 years or €12000 per year.

A person on the dole gets 204 * 52 weeks * 3 years = €31824
Add to that rent allowance, fuel allowance, childrens clothing and footwear allowance, medical cards etc and you will have exceeded €36,000.

Nodin

jimmmy wrote: »

Dunno, there are families where the public servant admit they are overpaid / underworked. A case in point is my cousin who is going to avail of the 3 year paid p.s. " career break". She was thinking anyway of taking 2 or 3 years off to be with her kids more while they are growing up, and now this new scheme means she will get 36 grand.
.

You've already used that anecdote in post no 30 on this thread.

They don't appreciate factual status over time, or with re-use.

irish_bob

Firetrap wrote: »

That's a fair point I think but the problem is that you'd never get everyone/everything to drop by 10%. There would always be some greedy b&stards out there.

they can be as greedy as they like but if the purchasing power of thier customer base is below what they are charging , they will soon tired of not being able to offload thier merchandise

thier is a reason why a retailers can charge 15 euro for a cup of coffee in monte carlo but not in downtown lagos and its got little to do with the conscience of either retailer

ReallyDeadThing

it makes me sick the media wont admit that the eu will soon be getting freebies time to act: close the bordesr now oh wait but what about their human rights

optocynic

ReallyDeadThing wrote: »

it makes me sick the media wont admit that the eu will soon be getting freebies time to act: close the bordesr now oh wait but what about their human rights

How do you manage to keep your hooded sheets so white??.. Is it Daz?

slimjimmc

optocynic wrote: »

How do you manage to keep your hooded sheets so white??.. Is it Daz?

with a bit of Vanish Oxi Action Crystal White thrown in to keep "your whites fantastically white" (as it says on the tin) ?

Lockstep

jimmmy wrote: »

for people like Judges its only 15 years

How do realise how long it takes to become a judge right?
You need at least ten years experience as a solicitor or barrister (and remember that this is the bare minimum, you will need a lot more to stand a real chance of being appointed) and you need to be specially appointed by the government after advice from the Judicial Appointment Advisory Board (who choose potential judges from the pool of applicants), so you'll hardly be getting in if you're straight out of college.
15 years for a pension after the long wait/competition it takes to get the post doesn't seem to hefty to me.

jimmmy wrote: »

Keeping money in the family is one thing, but when the nation is borrowing approx 22 billion per year to help ensure our p.s. is the highest paid + pensioned in the known world ? There are a lot of people not part of this group who wonder how much longer can they keep going contributing to govt coffers as opposed to taking from it. It does not matter if someone in the family is one of the lucky recipients or not.

If I'm reading this correctly;
You start a thread asking can anyone prove that Ireland has the highest paid PS in the world,nobody does so and yet you then treat it as an established fact later on in the same thread?

gurramok

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If I'm reading this correctly;
You start a thread asking can anyone prove that Ireland has the highest paid PS in the world and then you treat it as an established fact later on in the same thread?

Nobody can disprove it, you wonder why. I provided some stats from the best economic powers in the world and those stats provided facts about their public service been paid less than their Irish counterparts.

erictheviking

jimmmy wrote: »

Dunno, there are families where the public servant admit they are overpaid / underworked. A case in point is my cousin who is going to avail of the 3 year paid p.s. " career break". She was thinking anyway of taking 2 or 3 years off to be with her kids more while they are growing up, and now this new scheme means she will get 36 grand.
Keeping money in the family is one thing, but when the nation is borrowing approx 22 billion per year to help ensure our p.s. is the highest paid + pensioned in the known world ? There are a lot of people not part of this group who wonder how much longer can they keep going contributing to govt coffers as opposed to taking from it. It does not matter if someone in the family is one of the lucky recipients or not.

Have a day off will you!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
It would cost a hell of a lot more than 36k to keep that woman and her kids on welfare for 3 years!

Lockstep

gurramok wrote: »

Nobody can disprove it, you wonder why. I provided some stats from the best economic powers in the world and those stats provided facts about their public service been paid less than their Irish counterparts.

Because something cannot be disproved does not make it fact. If you want to make a claim that the Irish PS are the best paid in the world, then the onus is on you to show that without exceptions, they are the highest paid. If I was to go about God and my only defence was YOU CAN'T DISPROVE HIM, you'd hardly take this as concrete proof of his existance.

Posting the PS averages for Australia (ignoring that Australia has the 3rd lowest cost of living in the developed world) and the US (lowest cost of living in the developed world) is not proving that the Irish PS is the most well paid.

optocynic

erictheviking wrote: »

Have a day off will you!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
It would cost a hell of a lot more than 36k to keep that woman and her kids on welfare for 3 years!

Indeed it would... hence the other larger elephant in the room..

Our welfare payments are obnoxiously big.. they are almost an insult to the poor saps who are working hard just to make ends meet!!

optocynic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Because something cannot be disproved does not make it fact. If you want to make a claim that the Irish PS are the best paid in the world, then the onus is on you to show that without exceptions, they are the highest paid. If I was to go about God and my only defence was YOU CAN'T DISPROVE HIM, you'd hardly take this as concrete proof of his existance.

Posting the PS averages for Australia (ignoring that Australia has the 3rd lowest cost of living in the developed world) and the US (lowest cost of living in the developed world) is not proving that the Irish PS is the most well paid.

The claim that they are the best paid in the world is completely folly in my opinion.
The real issue here is, are they paid too much by Irish standards... and yes, they are..
If the service we were getting from them was great... it would justify the high PS wage bill... but alas, why would a group of well paid workers deliver a great service, if their performance was not even relevant?