Time to Reduce Retired Civil Servants Pensions

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

Because we've had deflation in the economy over the last two years, meaning that the value of pensions is now greater.

so. so what. if the opposite were true should they be subsidised?...methinks not.

Typically, a Public Servant gets 40/80ths of his final salary as a pension, per year of service. (Plus a tax free lump sum of 60/80ths per year of service.)

thats wrong.

A Public Servant with 40 years service would have been earning €150k pa at retirement to get a pension of €75k. If he/she had less than 40 years service the final salary would have been greater.

this ^^ does not compute.

Ah but, it doesn't stop there. That pension is then linked to the salary of serving grades - any increase they get, even if it is for taking on additional responsibilities, retraining, whatever, is also given to pensioners. This means that some Public Sector pensioners, including Politicians, are receiving more in their pensions than their salary when working.

We are being ripped off. Simple as...

also not copletely true.pensions are index linked. all pensions are.plus CS contribute to their own pensions also.
same as other workers.
hell my last boss contributed 5% of my wages to my pension...@ his expense.
whilst i contributed 10%.

its all jealousy @ the end of the day.

NewHillel

thebullkf wrote: »

thats wrong.

You're right, some Public Servants do not need forty years service to retire on half pay.

thebullkf wrote: »

this ^^ does not compute.

Methinks you need a new computer.

thebullkf wrote: »

also not copletely true.pensions are index linked. all pensions are.plus CS contribute to their own pensions also.
same as other workers.
hell my last boss contributed 5% of my wages to my pension...@ his expense.
whilst i contributed 10%..

The contribution made by CS towards the cost of their pension, even after the minor adjustment, falls well short of what is required. In no way does it compare with the private sector.

thebullkf wrote: »

its all jealousy @ the end of the day.

It all about fairness and equity in society. The impact of the downturn is being unfairly spread accross society with the public sector, and politicians, being substantially protected.

thebullkf

NewHillel wrote: »

You're right, some Public Servants do not need forty years service to retire on half pay.

Methinks you need a new computer.

your initial quote made no sense;)

The contribution made by CS towards the cost of their pension, even after the minor adjustment, falls well short of what is required. In no way does it compare with the private sector.

what is requiredfor what? CS contribute to their own pension.
not all CS are on big money.
in fact i would say the majority are on less than 35k a year.

(politicians excluded-they're the ones bumping up the average figures.)

It all about fairness and equity in society. The impact of the downturn is being unfairly spread accross society with the public sector, and politicians, being substantially protected.

i agree with some of your sentiment,but its still down to jealousy and begrudgery.

fat needs to be trimmed, i agree.

cyclopath2001

NewHillel wrote: »

The contribution made by CS towards the cost of their pension, even after the minor adjustment, falls well short of what is required. In no way does it compare with the private sector.

The bulk of private sector pensions are made up of the state contributory pension. Are you arguing that people who receive that have actually paid the full cost of this?

rodento

How can they be indexed linked if they don't go down when civil/public service pay goes down:rolleyes:

NewHillel

rodento wrote: »

How can they be indexed linked if they don't go down when civil/public service pay goes down:rolleyes:

Because these are custom contracts for Public Servants and Politicians!!!
If there was any semblance of fairness, pensions would be tracking the changes in the wider economy. Instead, its all upside.

coffee_cake

I don't think existing pensioners should be cut, except to cut the index-link stuff. Just give them a level pension.
I think for anyone who is retiring in the next say 5-10 years should be left in DB with no future pension increases.
Everyone else should have the total contributions stuck in a DC scheme. DB is too expensive for them to be running particularly with increases

NewHillel

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't think existing pensioners should be cut, except to cut the index-link stuff. Just give them a level pension.
I think for anyone who is retiring in the next say 5-10 years should be left in DB with no future pension increases.
Everyone else should have the total contributions stuck in a DC scheme. DB is too expensive for them to be running particularly with increases

It's not the index linking that the biggest issue, expensive and all as that was. The bigger issue is the inflated cost of retired pensioners pensions as a result of applying benchmarking increases to them.

gizmo555

thebullkf wrote: »

also not copletely true.pensions are index linked. all pensions are.plus CS contribute to their own pensions also.
same as other workers.

That's incorrect. For any defined contribution pension plan, taking the option to have pension payments indexed to inflation, as opposed to just taking a flat rate pension which will never increase as time passes, will substantially reduce pension income. Also, even where the indexing option is taken, increases for inflation are often capped at about 5% p.a. - if inflation is greater than that, it's just tough luck. As for indexing to the rate of your former salary, this is quite simply unobtainable from any private sector pension provider.

The indexing of civil and public service pensions, whether to inflation or the salary in the grade the pensioner retired from, is a huge benefit which would be extremely costly to fund for a private sector retiree.

NewHillel

gizmo555 wrote: »

The indexing of civil and public service pensions, whether to inflation or the salary in the grade the pensioner retired from, is a huge benefit which would be extremely costly to fund for a private sector retiree.

The cost is such that it is simply not affordable.

Anyway, the good news is that sanity appears to be breaking out, at last.
Mr Lenihan is now targeting existing public sector pensioners who have up until now remained unscathed from any cut.

coffee_cake

NewHillel wrote: »

It's not the index linking that the biggest issue, expensive and all as that was. The bigger issue is the inflated cost of retired pensioners pensions as a result of applying benchmarking increases to them.

Sorry yes I meant any kind of increases at all

elland white

hello there, i served for 21 years in the defence forces and
am in receipt of a pension, i can assure people here that my pension and those of my friends who left as well is no way near the 700 euro a week ive seen quoted for a retired teacher, in fact i work a 48 hour week, just to make ends meet with my pension, i dont have my mortgage paid off and a lot of disposable income like ive seen mention in todays sunday indo, if my pension is cut, i would have trouble paying my mortgage and might even lose my house, ive 3 kids to support , us lower paid public servants are not all on the gravy train.

end of rant

good luck to ALL in the next budget

thebullkf

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's incorrect. For any defined contribution pension plan, taking the option to have pension payments indexed to inflation, as opposed to just taking a flat rate pension which will never increase as time passes, will substantially reduce pension income. Also, even where the indexing option is taken, increases for inflation are often capped at about 5% p.a. - if inflation is greater than that, it's just tough luck. As for indexing to the rate of your former salary, this is quite simply unobtainable from any private sector pension provider.

The indexing of civil and public service pensions, whether to inflation or the salary in the grade the pensioner retired from, is a huge benefit which would be extremely costly to fund for a private sector retiree.

says you.

gizmo555

thebullkf wrote: »

As for indexing to the rate of your former salary, this is quite simply unobtainable from any private sector pension provider.

says you.

Well, if you know different, by all means share the information with us. The government can do this because it pays pensions out of current funding. How would a private sector pensions provider forecast, and make funding provision for, the rates of pay for any given trade or profession decades into the future?

FINGAL FAN

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year . With 40 years work behind them they would therefore qualify for pensions between 15k and 20k a year and some on hear are looking for this to be reduced. Get real and stop listening to the guff from government cheerleaders in the media . The non contributary pension is approx 10k.

NewHillel

FINGAL FAN wrote: »

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year . With 40 years work behind them they would therefore qualify for pensions between 15k and 20k a year and some on hear are looking for this to be reduced. Get real and stop listening to the guff from government cheerleaders in the media . The non contributary pension is approx 10k.

Quite a statement. Where's your reference?

gizmo555

FINGAL FAN wrote: »

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year.

That assertion is certainly not borne out by these figures. Also, people at retirement would in general tend to be at the the top of the salary scale for whatever post they are in, which would in turn tend to mean they would be on a higher than average rate for that post.


Average wages by sector, 1998-2009

Riskymove

gizmo555 wrote: »

That assertion is certainly not borne out by these figures. Also, people at retirement would in general tend to be at the the top of the salary scale for whatever post they are in, which would in turn tend to mean they would be on a higher than average rate for that post.

you are putting forward averages in this case which means little

one third of the PS earn less than 40k and two thirds less than 60k

the majority of the CS are at the lower grades...many retire at those grades...many retire without full service

for example the average PS wage bandied about here of €50k is higher than the highest point for a number of grades

there have already been a number of changes which will reduce pension rates further in the future

gizmo555

Riskymove wrote: »

you are putting forward averages in this case which means little

one third of the PS earn less than 40k and two thirds less than 60k

You are throwing out figures without any source or reference to back them up, which means nothing at all. Even if they are correct, they would mean that two thirds of PS workers are paid at least 11% more than the average for all sectors and industries, which in Q2 2010 was just under €36,000, according to the CSO, with one third of all PS workers paid at least 67% more than this.

Riskymove wrote: »

the majority of the CS are at the lower grades...many retire at those grades...many retire without full service

Your point being? Or do you think if you retire from a private sector job without full service you get a full pension?

Riskymove

gizmo555 wrote: »

Your point being?

whats with the hostility?

my point is that average wage rates mean little compared to trying to determine average pension rates

someone may be earning 50k on retirement but may not get full pension

retirements also take place on an ongoing basis rather than in one snapshot of time so are harder to analyse through cso wage stats

NewHillel

FINGAL FAN wrote: »

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year . With 40 years work behind them they would therefore qualify for pensions between 15k and 20k a year and some on hear are looking for this to be reduced. Get real and stop listening to the guff from government cheerleaders in the media . The non contributary pension is approx 10k.

Where's your reference?

OhNoYouDidn't

gizmo555 wrote: »

You are throwing out figures without any source or reference to back them up, which means nothing at all. Even if they are correct, they would mean that two thirds of PS workers are paid at least 11% more than the average for all sectors and industries, which in Q2 2010 was just under €36,000, according to the CSO, with one third of all PS workers paid at least 67% more than this.

But your figures have one fundamental flaw. The overwhelming majority of serious earners in the private sector are self employed so not in your stat.

When you exclude barristers, doctors, solicitors, accountants etc from the private, include them in the public and add in the minimum wagers that don't exist in the public - of course they 'earn more'.

Rob67

elland white wrote: »

hello there, i served for 21 years in the defence forces and
am in receipt of a pension, i can assure people here that my pension and those of my friends who left as well is no way near the 700 euro a week ive seen quoted for a retired teacher, in fact i work a 48 hour week, just to make ends meet with my pension, i dont have my mortgage paid off and a lot of disposable income like ive seen mention in todays sunday indo, if my pension is cut, i would have trouble paying my mortgage and might even lose my house, ive 3 kids to support , us lower paid public servants are not all on the gravy train.

end of rant

good luck to ALL in the next budget

Hi there, similar situation with me too, went into private sector a while ago, making enough to have a reasonable life, definitely not a high one though!

Sadly, anyone here who is fervently anti-public sector is not going to listen to you or I. They are too busy trying to tar everyone in the public sector, serving and retired, with the same brush so as to service their sense of righteous indignation that they wear like a comfy blanket.

All the best.

Rob67

NewHillel wrote: »

Where's your reference?

Me!!

I receive an army pension of 15k, which is taxed and income levied because I work in the private sector now, where I pay more tax, income levy and PRSI.

Yep... livin' the high life, me.... not.

NewHillel

NewHillel wrote: »

FINGAL FAN wrote: »

The bulk of Civil Servants are on wages of 30k to 40k a year . With 40 years work behind them they would therefore qualify for pensions between 15k and 20k a year and some on hear are looking for this to be reduced. Get real and stop listening to the guff from government cheerleaders in the media . The non contributary pension is approx 10k.

Where's your reference?

Rob67 wrote: »

Me!!

I receive an army pension of 15k, which is taxed and income levied because I work in the private sector now, where I pay more tax, income levy and PRSI.

Yep... livin' the high life, me.... not.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that people be reduced to penury. Everyone should have a mimimum pension on retirement.

What I am suggesting is that it is unfair that any sector of society be enriched at the expense of others. The specific case I am referring to here is public sector pensioners, already on good pensions, who got totally unjustified pension increases as a result of benchmarking. I am suggesting that these specific increases should be rolled back.

Einhard

elland white wrote: »

hello there, i served for 21 years in the defence forces and
am in receipt of a pension,

You worked for 21 years and are in receipt of a pension? And you're complaining that it's not enough?! Therein lies the problem with this country methinks...

PKen

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of serious earners in the private sector are self employed so not in your stat.

Where are you getting this from? Most self employed people are the "New Poor". Businesses going to the wall every week, due to high costs. And no Dole for them, even though they've paid loads in Income Tax, Emloyers PRSI and Council Rates.

Einhard

Rob67 wrote: »

Me!!

I receive an army pension of 15k, which is taxed and income levied because I work in the private sector now, where I pay more tax, income levy and PRSI.

Yep... livin' the high life, me.... not.

How many years service did you put in with the army to gain your pension? Was it the standard 20 years? If so, I really don't know what you're complaining about. You are free to go out and get a job and earn as much as you can, all while the government is topping you up to the tune of €15k pa. How can anyone complain about such a scenario. Do you colleagues in the private sector get a similar subsidy from the state? I think we both know what the answer is to that.

NewHillel

Einhard wrote: »

How many years service did you put in with the army to gain your pension? Was it the standard 20 years? If so, I really don't know what you're complaining about. You are free to go out and get a job and earn as much as you can, all while the government is topping you up to the tune of €15k pa. How can anyone complain about such a scenario. Do you colleagues in the private sector get a similar subsidy from the state? I think we both know what the answer is to that.

That's harsh. People in the private sector do not put themselves in harms way to serve their country. I do not begrudge Einhard his pension. In my view it is well earned.

Rob67

NewHillel wrote: »

I'm not suggesting for a moment that people be reduced to penury. Everyone should have a mimimum pension on retirement.

What I am suggesting is that it is unfair that any sector of society be enriched at the expense of others. The specific case I am referring to here is public sector pensioners, already on good pensions, who got totally unjustified pension increases as a result of benchmarking. I am suggesting that these specific increases should be rolled back.

Strange as it may seem, I don't believe that pensions should be index linked, but to roll them back at this point especially for those on the lower scales would be a penury activity.

I left the army partly because my pay was being reduced to a level beyond which I could economically survive, I went into the private sector to maximise my earning potential, now (if these cuts were to go ahead) I could be facing that situation again.

At this point I hardly feel I am being enriched at the expense of others, however, I do feel harangued and castigated for (a) simply having been a public sector worker, and (b) having a pension that I had no choice but to accept as a condition of service. Added to this, we were not allowed to pay into a private pension fund whilst in service.

This is not a case of 'poor bugger me', I am regularly given grief from my private sector 'colleagues' for having the minimum pension for my former rank/position, it does become very wearing.

It is galling to hear calls for cuts when your pension is well below the minimum wage level and that if I lost my job tomorrow, due to the fact that I had paid only half stamps for most of my military career (condition of service, not my choice) and having not built up sufficient stamps to date, I would not be entitled to full unemployment benefits.

I served in the army for over 21 years, spent many a Christmas on duty at the expense of my family as have many of my colleagues, sometimes long hours/days away from home on low pay, but I really loved it and my family accepted that. I left something that I loved doing, so as to ensure the financial stability of my family and our home, because it was a necessity, and now some agitated people/ govt want to threaten that?

No way...