Question for public sector workers - What % decuctions for your pension - exactly?

_Kooli_

nesf wrote: »

_Kooli_ you're not a moderator. Please don't tell people to get back on topic. Thanks.

Oh i see. Is it not allowed for the OP to ask for the questions he asked to be answered. Sorry about that.

ParkRunner

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/pensions.shtml

As our wages are so often compared to those working in the public sector in other countries, it's no harm having a pension contribution comparison also.

For the United Kingdom employees contribute 3.5% towards their pensions! Some interesting changes came about in 2007 also which might be worth considering here. The arguments on the site pretty much mirror whats is happening here at present.

Pensions will no longer be based on final salaries, but on "career averages" - see further below. In other words, pensions will be based on a proportion of the pay earned in each and every year of service, rather than on a proportion of the pay earned shortly before retirement. Employers will each year calculate an amount of pension based on that year's salary, and then freeze it. They will then increase that figure by inflation each year so that lots of little bits of pension will eventually make up the total pension.

There will be a cap on any future increase in taxpayers' liabilities if costs rise beyond what is at present anticipated. Initially any extra cost would be split 50:50 with employees, but with an absolute cap that might prevent the employers' contribution rising above 20 per cent of salary from the then current 19.4 per cent. Therefore, if the first actuarial valuation suggests that total contribution rates need to rise by 0.8%, employers' average contributions will rise from 19.4% to 19.8%, and employees' contributions will rise from zero to 0.4% (the Classic scheme) and from 3.5% to 3.9% (the Premium and post-2007 schemes). But any rise over 1.2% may fall entirely on employees - depending on negotiation, and possible legal action, at that time. It is not expected that any adjustment to contribution rates will be needed until 2012 at the earliest, and much will then depend upon recent and forecast changes in life expectancy for the over 60s.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/psp/pensch7.htm

7.11 Financing Arrangements

7.11.1 In most countries the public service pension provision is budgeted with benefits being met on a pay-as-you-go basis. Pensions are fully funded in the Netherlands and a fund now operates in Italy also from the beginning of January 1996. In Finland, Portugal and, since October 1996, Sweden, partially funded systems are in operation.


7.11.2 In some countries members are obliged to make contributions (see section 7.6) while in others the contribution is hidden or notional in that salary levels are adjusted downwards.


7.6 Contributions Payable

7.6.1 In Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, members pay a specific percentage of salary as a contribution towards the Scheme. The rate of contribution varies from 1.5% in the United Kingdom (towards survivor's pension only) to 11.75% in Austria. The rate in most countries is in the 7% to 10% range.


7.6.2 Implicit or notional contributions through either a lowering of salary levels, a levy on the pension, or recoupment of part of the employer's contribution apply in Germany, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

7.6.3 In Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden there is an explicit employer's contribution. The rate varies from 17.25% of salary in Sweden to 23.8% of salary in Italy.

_Kooli_

From what im learning im thinking that the public sector must have some sort of discrimination case.

They all signed a contract when they started working. In that contract were certain conditions.
Those conditions are now being changed on them without them agreing to it.

But the worst part is that they are unfairly taxed. Surely everyone in the country must be treated equally under the current tax regime?

Its like taxing those who work in quick-fit more than those who work in Spar, just because those working in quick-fit started their jobs and a pension was one of the benefits.

Fair enough if any worker, who has a pension provided from their employer is made to pay a levy, but thats not the case.

And it also seems that if someone paid 14% of their salary into a private pension fund for 40 years that they would get a better pension than the public sector workers get and they would get the state pension too.

I started out thinking that the public sector actually got a much better pension but ive founf that they actually pay more for that pension than they should.

There are even public sector workers who will get about the same in their pension as they would from the state pension, but for this they have to make monthly payments plus the normal PRSI and health levies etc.

Surely this isnt fair. If i were a public sector worker i would be talking to my union. Telling them to agree to nothing and start into taking a case against the government.

Sit there and take it and you deserve what you get though. I know if anyone in my job was treated like that they would be going to solicitors.

And these are the reasons they are trying to get the public and private sectors bashing each other. To take the spotlight off themselves. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055720181

pmacdot

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd expect that quite a very percentage did. It's only 14 years ago. I'd also expect that the vast majority of senior public/civil service members are covered by these terms.


It's not as clear cut as just '6.5%'. There will be very different arrangements for staff who joined pre- and post- April 1995. Those who joined the civil/public service before April 1995, including most of the higher paid staff, have substantially lower pension contributions. Individual pension schemes will have different rules and different contribution measurements although I'd expect most to be at around the 6.5% mark for post-April 1995 employees.

6.5% for superannuation,full PRSI post 1995 and reduced PRSI prior to 1995 ( those on reduced PRSI do not qualify for social welfare if unemployed due to ill health or other; salary just stops when sick leave runs out). Pre 1995 can retire on full pension age 60 if they have 40 years; those post 2004 (Maybe 2005) can only collect full pension at age 65.
Pension levy 7.9% plus whatever other levy applies to all workers.
The pension is based on full 40 years. I know ps workers who will not have anything like 40 years who are forced to pay superannuation plus levy plus PRSI etc for what amounts only to a state pension! This is an aspect of the pension issue that is not broadcast. For those with longer service when you deduct the state pension from the payment it is not so great as ps workers do not get a seperate state pension from their stamps.
Many in the public sector are also paying into undefined pension schemes AVCs to supplement their pension as they do not have enough years for full pension.
Some ps workers might start relatively young but many have degrees plus further qualifications and therefore have to make up for years "lost" due to time spent in education.
I believe everyone in a civilised society should have some sort of reliable pension. I do not think it is beneficial for people to be impoverished in old age. The taxpayer will end up paying one way or another.
One last point sick leave in the ps can inlude weekends, bank holidays and holidays, this can distort the sick leave numbers eg ill on Thursday Friday and Monday (certified) it will be counted as 5 days sick leave instead of 3 days.

pmacdot

_Kooli_ wrote: »

From what im learning im thinking that the public sector must have some sort of discrimination case.

They all signed a contract when they started working. In that contract were certain conditions.
Those conditions are now being changed on them without them agreing to it.

But the worst part is that they are unfairly taxed. Surely everyone in the country must be treated equally under the current tax regime?

Its like taxing those who work in quick-fit more than those who work in Spar, just because those working in quick-fit started their jobs and a pension was one of the benefits.

Fair enough if any worker, who has a pension provided from their employer is made to pay a levy, but thats not the case.

And it also seems that if someone paid 14% of their salary into a private pension fund for 40 years that they would get a better pension than the public sector workers get and they would get the state pension too.

I started out thinking that the public sector actually got a much better pension but ive founf that they actually pay more for that pension than they should.

There are even public sector workers who will get about the same in their pension as they would from the state pension, but for this they have to make monthly payments plus the normal PRSI and health levies etc.

Surely this isnt fair. If i were a public sector worker i would be talking to my union. Telling them to agree to nothing and start into taking a case against the government.

Sit there and take it and you deserve what you get though. I know if anyone in my job was treated like that they would be going to solicitors.

And these are the reasons they are trying to get the public and private sectors bashing each other. To take the spotlight off themselves. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055720181

You are right if a Private sector did what the current government have done it would be illegal and seen as breach of contract. However the government can as employer change the law to allow unilateral breach of contract with impunity. Other employers have to obey certain labour laws but not the government. However the law of custom and practice seems to be very sacred when it comes to the government themselves.