Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Time to Reduce Retired Civil Servants Pensions
Options
Comments
-
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.
Why thank you. I wouldn't begrudge myself a pension either if I had one!!:D
Seriously though, I do have a problem with the idea that a person can retire after 21 years on a pension. It doesn't matter what capacity they serve one's country. Plenty of people work damn hard in the service of this country, and they are not entitled to such generous renumeration.
Having said that though, it's not so much the pension arrangements themselves that annoyed me about that post, but the notion that they should be entirely untouched. The poster stated he works in the private sector at the moment, and finds it hard going. Yet he receives a €15k pa boost to his earnings that I'm pretty certain his colleagues do without. That is what my post was directed at, more than the pension arrangements themselves.0 -
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.
They've the nerve to criticise Politicians, who claim an ex-ministerial pension whilst still working. As descibed above, this is exactly what some former Public Servants are actually doing.
If the ex-Army man can't manage on his wage, plus the 15k top up, he's obviously living way beyond his means. 290euro a week on top of his wages is a nice little earner!
Oh, but I'm a begrudger, aren't I? No, I'm not - I'm just sick of having to subsidise the Public Sector's unreasonable (defined benefit) pensions.0 -
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.
I served just under 22 yrs, I have a job in the private sector. I take it you never took the time to understand what it is to be a soldier, so I won't have a go at you for that, let's just say that after 21yrs most of us would have done more hours (average for me was approx 50hrs p.w.) and carry enough knocks and muscular damage (I've had two broken shoulders, cracked ribs, cracked vertebrae and multiple knee ops, injuries common to most soldiers undergoing training and operations) to warrant leaving at that point in their careers, however I left for other reasons.
I don't consider it a subsidy, why do you? Isn't the old age pension such a subsidy? For that matter isn't jobseekers benefit, something I won't get if I lost my job tomorrow, also a state subsidy? So, you feel I should be punished for my career choice, just because you (or my colleagues) chose not to go into the public sector?0 -
By PKen They've the nerve to criticise Politicians, who claim an ex-ministerial pension whilst still working. As descibed above, this is exactly what some former Public Servants are actually doing.
If the ex-Army man can't manage on his wage, plus the 15k top up, he's obviously living way beyond his means. 290euro a week on top of his wages is a nice little earner!
I am not going to explain my personal circumstances to the likes of you, suffice to say that I am living within my means. I am just maximising my earning potential to ensure a better life for my family, am I wrong to do that?Oh, but I'm a begrudger, aren't I? No, I'm not - I'm just sick of having to subsidise the Public Sector's unreasonable (defined benefit) pensions.
Yes, yes you are and I find your tone insulting.0 -
Why thank you. I wouldn't begrudge myself a pension either if I had one!!:D
Seriously though, I do have a problem with the idea that a person can retire after 21 years on a pension. It doesn't matter what capacity they serve one's country. Plenty of people work damn hard in the service of this country, and they are not entitled to such generous renumeration.
Having said that though, it's not so much the pension arrangements themselves that annoyed me about that post, but the notion that they should be entirely untouched. The poster stated he works in the private sector at the moment, and finds it hard going. Yet he receives a €15k pa boost to his earnings that I'm pretty certain his colleagues do without. That is what my post was directed at, more than the pension arrangements themselves.
So, what you want is for former public service workers on the low end of the scale to be punished for having a pension?
As I've stated previously, I pay tax and income levy on my pension and pay tax, PRSI and income levy on my current pay.
How much more do you want from us?
By virtue of the fact that I am now a private sector worker, possibly just like you, I am now contributing to my pension through my taxes and will continue to do so until I finally retire. So... what's the problem there?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't consider it a subsidy, why do you? Isn't the old age pension such a subsidy? For that matter isn't jobseekers benefit, something I won't get if I lost my job tomorrow, also a state subsidy? So, you feel I should be punished for my career choice, just because you (or my colleagues) chose not to go into the public sector?
No, I don't feel you should be punished at all. But I do think that you fail to realise that you are in a relatively good position, in that you have a state pension of €15k pa to supplement what you earn in the private sector. Many of your colleagues don't have that cushion, and I think it's unreasonable that your pension should be exempt from any cuts.0 -
No, I don't feel you should be punished at all. But I do think that you fail to realise that you are in a relatively good position, in that you have a state pension of €15k pa to supplement what you earn in the private sector. Many of your colleagues don't have that cushion, and I think it's unreasonable that your pension should be exempt from any cuts.
Believe me, I fully comprehend the position I have and glad that I have my pension.
Let me give you some perspective though, a few months ago I had to work reduced hours because, as my boss put it: 'you have a pension so you can afford it'. No discussion, nothing asked about what I actually get, when I tackled him on it, he honestly thought I was on about 30k of a pension! All this he got from newspapers and forums such as these. I had to show him a payslip before he would believe me!
So, try to understand my position too.0 -
I am not going to explain my personal circumstances to the likes of you, suffice to say that I am living within my means. I am just maximising my earning potential to ensure a better life for my family, am I wrong to do that?
Yes, yes you are and I find your tone insulting.
The "likes of me" will have to work until I'm 68 or older. In effect, I've to work untill that age to pay for your pension. The facts are, that a Soldier can retire in his/her 40s and a Garda when in his/her 50s. Is it fair to expect an older person (in their 60s) to support a younger soldiier (in their 40s potentially)? Don't you see a little injustice in this?
Nothing wrong with "maximising your earning potential". We all do that to "ensure a better life for our families". But we don't all expect the taxpayer to cough up for a pension, while we're still working. Most of us have to wait until we actually "Retire" (stop working). And that won't be this side of 68, I'm afraid.
My tone was not intended to be insulting. I'm sorry if you find my forthright views offensive. They're not meant to be. I just think everyone (not just ex-soldiers) should be mindfull of the fact, that everything (including pensions) has to be paid for, by someone.0 -
I served just under 22 yrs, I have a job in the private sector. I take it you never took the time to understand what it is to be a soldier, so I won't have a go at you for that, let's just say that after 21yrs most of us would have done more hours (average for me was approx 50hrs p.w.) and carry enough knocks and muscular damage (I've had two broken shoulders, cracked ribs, cracked vertebrae and multiple knee ops, injuries common to most soldiers undergoing training and operations) to warrant leaving at that point in their careers, however I left for other reasons.
I fully understand that active duty soldiering is a fit young person's game and the rationale for allowing soldiers to leave with some pension payment after twenty years or so makes perfect sense to me.
But it would make no sense for someone recruited at the age of 18 to retire at less than 40 years of age and expect to get a pension of a level that would mean he would never have to work again. So for you and your colleagues to come on here and say we're on state pensions and we don't get anything like the teachers and need to work to make ends meet is a completely apples to oranges comparison.0 -
My god, now we're attacking soldiers and guards. If people wanted to retire early they could've entered these professions. We should be focusing on those CS/PS who retired on massively inflated pensions that were benchmarked/index linked after retirement and who have very confortable pensions. Senior CS should be hit first, it should go top down and frontline staff and soldiers should be approached last to look for savings in the pension bill.0
-
Advertisement
-
I fully understand that active duty soldiering is a fit young person's game and the rationale for allowing soldiers to leave with some pension payment after twenty years or so makes perfect sense to me.
But it would make no sense for someone recruited at the age of 18 to retire at less than 40 years of age and expect to get a pension of a level that would mean he would never have to work again. So for you and your colleagues to come on here and say we're on state pensions and we don't get anything like the teachers and need to work to make ends meet is a completely apples to oranges comparison.
I think all he is saying is that if you are looking at taxing/cutting PS pensions then don't lump his in with the more lucrative arrangements set up by others0 -
Laminations wrote: »We should be focusing on those CS/PS who retired on massively inflated pensions that were benchmarked/index linked after retirement and who have very confortable pensions. .
pensions were niether benchmarked nor index-linked
they were given national wage agreement increases which is pretty illogical all right
what's a 'comfortable' pension?0 -
pensions were niether benchmarked nor index-linked
they were given national wage agreement increases which is pretty illogical all right
what's a 'comfortable' pension?
I dunno, what's a comfortable wage? I'm not saying soldiers pensions shouldn't be touched ever, I'm saying any claw backs should be done on a progressive scale and the lower pensions should be cut last and least.0 -
The "likes of me" will have to work until I'm 68 or older. In effect, I've to work untill that age to pay for your pension. The facts are, that a Soldier can retire in his/her 40s and a Garda when in his/her 50s. Is it fair to expect an older person (in their 60s) to support a younger soldiier (in their 40s potentially)? Don't you see a little injustice in this?
Nothing wrong with "maximising your earning potential". We all do that to "ensure a better life for our families". But we don't all expect the taxpayer to cough up for a pension, while we're still working. Most of us have to wait until we actually "Retire" (stop working). And that won't be this side of 68, I'm afraid.
As will I have to work until I'm 68 too, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. Seeing as I am now in the private sector, paying taxes and levies that will be used to pay pensions to people in the public sector, now and in the future, I just have to get on with it.
Having said that, I am not going to accept my minimal pension being cut whilst those at higher levels in the PS receive grossly large pensions where cuts to them will be felt less harshly. Most of those at the higher end will have little or no outgoings (mortgages, childcare etc) unlike me or anyone at the lower end of the scale where a cut will have a real and tangible impact.My tone was not intended to be insulting. I'm sorry if you find my forthright views offensive. They're not meant to be. I just think everyone (not just ex-soldiers) should be mindfull of the fact, that everything (including pensions) has to be paid for, by someone.
No problem, your views are forthright, yes I am very mindful, now more than ever, seeing as I am paying for it.0 -
Ifully understand that active duty soldiering is a fit young person's game and the rationale for allowing soldiers to leave with some pension payment after twenty years or so makes perfect sense to me.
But it would make no sense for someone recruited at the age of 18 to retire at less than 40 years of age and expect to get a pension of a level that would mean he would never have to work again.
Believe me, I agree with you on that point, I have to work, I would love to fully retire and live a life of ease, but not on the pension I receive though. I am in my mid 40's, I couldn't get into the army when I left school (there was a recession on) and had to find work until I got in when I was in my early 20's. I don't expect to receive such a generous pension nor would I be comfortable accepting one at this stage in my life, it doesn't make sense.So for you and your colleagues to come on here and say we're on state pensions and we don't get anything like the teachers and need to work to make ends meet is a completely apples to oranges comparison.
I'm sorry, I lost you there, are being pro or con in this? If you mean that soldiers pensions are nowhere near as generous as the long service pensions of teachers you would be right, it is apples and oranges, but we are/were two different classes of state employee with very different service requirements.0 -
Laminations wrote: »My god, now we're attacking soldiers and guards. If people wanted to retire early they could've entered these professions. We should be focusing on those CS/PS who retired on massively inflated pensions that were benchmarked/index linked after retirement and who have very confortable pensions. Senior CS should be hit first, it should go top down and frontline staff and soldiers should be approached last to look for savings in the pension bill.
Partly agree with you there, just not comfortable with mine being sliced and diced, seeing as it is govt policy to hurt those hardest who can least afford it.0 -
Laminations wrote: »My god, now we're attacking soldiers and guards. If people wanted to retire early they could've entered these professions. We should be focusing on those CS/PS who retired on massively inflated pensions that were benchmarked/index linked after retirement and who have very confortable pensions. Senior CS should be hit first, it should go top down and frontline staff and soldiers should be approached last to look for savings in the pension bill.
+1
The level of mealy mouthed begrudgery on this thread is appaling.
People are actually asking why the taxpayer should fund the pay of public servants like frontline troops?
Some people need to take a long hard look at themselves on this thread. Pathetic stuff. If he has it so easy, off you go to the Curragh and sign up.0 -
As will I have to work until I'm 68 too, I can see your point, I just don't agree with it. Seeing as I am now in the private sector, paying taxes and levies that will be used to pay pensions to people in the public sector, now and in the future, I just have to get on with it.
Having said that, I am not going to accept my minimal pension being cut whilst those at higher levels in the PS receive grossly large pensions where cuts to them will be felt less harshly. Most of those at the higher end will have little or no outgoings (mortgages, childcare etc) unlike me or anyone at the lower end of the scale where a cut will have a real and tangible impact.
No problem, your views are forthright, yes I am very mindful, now more than ever, seeing as I am paying for it.
The main issue being forgotten about, is the concept of paying ANYONE a pension, whilst still young enough to keep working. Don't you see a strange anomaly existing, where potentially a person would have to work well in to their 60s to, in effect, support someone in their 40s? I thought the "Young" were supposed to support the "Old". The reverse would seem to be the case here.
We constantly slag off our Politicians for doing this. You're doing the same. Pensions need to be there, for people who can no longer work (and need to be properly funded). This sense of "Intitlement" and the "Dont Cut Me, Cut Someone Else Instead" mentality, is what has the country on it's knees. However, I agree with you, regarding the higher levels within the Public Sector.
What you've paid in (and will pay in) towards your pension will never cover the cost of your pension. Defined Benefit pensions would be illegal in the Private Sector. They'd be unsustainable because there would not be sufficient funds to back up the pension payouts. You seem to think these pensions are self funded - they're not. The "Funds" in your pension scheme are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
Do these facts not make you feel a little bit selfish? The Banks are being "Bailed Out", but so too, are Public Sector workers and ex-workers.0 -
Do these facts not make you feel a little bit selfish? The Banks are being "Bailed Out", but so too, are Public Sector workers and ex-workers.
Are you conceptually questoning the idea that the state pays its employees? Seriously?
The man was a soldier for 21 years. Of course he will have a state pension at the end of his career and of course the state will pay part of that.
The issue here is not a soldier getting a moderate pension, and if you think it is, then the problem us with you. Its a politician who spends one day as a minister getting a huge one. Start there.0 -
The main issue being forgotten about, is the concept of paying ANYONE a pension, whilst still young enough to keep working. Don't you see a strange anomaly existing, where potentially a person would have to work well in to their 60s to, in effect, support someone in their 40s? I thought the "Young" were supposed to support the "Old". The reverse would seem to be the case here.
We constantly slag off our Politicians for doing this. You're doing the same. Pensions need to be there, for people who can no longer work (and need to be properly funded). This sense of "Intitlement" and the "Dont Cut Me, Cut Someone Else Instead" mentality, is what has the country on it's knees. However, I agree with you, regarding the higher levels within the Public Sector.
What you've paid in (and will pay in) towards your pension will never cover the cost of your pension. Defined Benefit pensions would be illegal in the Private Sector. They'd be unsustainable because there would not be sufficient funds to back up the pension payouts. You seem to think these pensions are self funded - they're not. The "Funds" in your pension scheme are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
Do these facts not make you feel a little bit selfish? The Banks are being "Bailed Out", but so too, are Public Sector workers and ex-workers.
Ok, ok, I get it you are terminally aggrieved that the public sector is getting something you don't, fair enough.
And no, I don't feel selfish, I (and, by default, my family) made many sacrifices over the years, some of which would never be expected of a private sector worker and most public sector, as have most of my former colleagues, were it not for certain circumstances, I would be still there to this day and onwards. I'm not saying I'm owed it, but I have paid for it and not just monetarily either...
If you're looking for a target, fire away, I'm used to it.0 -
Advertisement
-
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Are you conceptually questoning the idea that the state pays its employees? Seriously?
The man was a soldier for 21 years. Of course he will have a state pension at the end of his career and of course the state will pay part of that.
The issue here is not a soldier getting a moderate pension, and if you think it is, then the problem us with you. Its a politician who spends one day as a minister getting a huge one. Start there.
I'm not questioning the idea that the state should/should not pay its employees. I'm only pointing out the strange pension arrangements. If I spend 20 years working for a Private company, I'm not handed a pension (unless I'm a banker) when I leave. I've to wait until I "Retire" at 68 to get it. I'm baffled why some, can't (won't) see the huge gulf that exists in pensions between the Public and Private sector.
In Ireland, there's always been this unwritten rule, where you daren't question what a Soldier, Garda or Nurse earns. It's as if, they've been promoted to sainthood and you cannot criticise them, no matter what. We continually get this "Martyr" complex from them, every time their income comes into the spotlight.
My issue is not "a soldier getting a moderate pension", but the idea that pensions are paid at all, to people so young and still working. When did I ever say that Politicians should not be tackled? And how can you say, that some Public Sector workers like Politicians should be cut while leaving untouched other Public Sector workers like Soldiers? Are they not all funded from the same pot?
The real problem is, the "What I Have, I Keep" brigade (including politicians) are costing us too much. Tax revenue is dramatically down, due to high unemployment. We're borrowing heavily to pay for public services AND pensions. It's not unreasonable to expect ALL (including ex-soldiers) to take some cut. Some of us have taken 100% pay cuts!0 -
I'm not questioning the idea that the state should/should not pay its employees. I'm only pointing out the strange pension arrangements. If I spend 20 years working for a Private company, I'm not handed a pension (unless I'm a banker) when I leave. I've to wait until I "Retire" at 68 to get it. I'm baffled why some, can't (won't) see the huge gulf that exists in pensions between the Public and Private sector.
In Ireland, there's always been this unwritten rule, where you daren't question what a Soldier, Garda or Nurse earns. It's as if, they've been promoted to sainthood and you cannot criticise them, no matter what. We continually get this "Martyr" complex from them, every time their income comes into the spotlight.
My issue is not "a soldier getting a moderate pension", but the idea that pensions are paid at all, to people so young and still working. When did I ever say that Politicians should not be tackled? And how can you say, that some Public Sector workers like Politicians should be cut while leaving untouched other Public Sector workers like Soldiers? Are they not all funded from the same pot?
The real problem is, the "What I Have, I Keep" brigade (including politicians) are costing us too much. Tax revenue is dramatically down, due to high unemployment. We're borrowing heavily to pay for public services AND pensions. It's not unreasonable to expect ALL (including ex-soldiers) to take some cut. Some of us have taken 100% pay cuts!
Rubbish. This is pure begrudgery. They HAVE to retire soldiers out, every military in the world does it. Your problem is you couldn't negotiate as good a pension, so want to drag them down with you.0 -
I'm sorry, I lost you there, are being pro or con in this? If you mean that soldiers pensions are nowhere near as generous as the long service pensions of teachers you would be right, it is apples and oranges, but we are/were two different classes of state employee with very different service requirements.
Public sector workers (including the military) gave a hostage to fortune in successfully campaigning for salaries to be benchmarked against private sector salaries. The logic of their position was that they exposed themselves to pay cuts if the private sector salaries they were benchmarked against fell, as they have, in many cases. To the extent that public sector pensioners benefited from benchmarking, the same applies to them.
I don't see why army pensions should be exempt. The age range on general service enlistment is 17 to 25. Soldiers who retire between 37 and 45 therefore have twenty or more years of working life ahead of them in which to accumulate further pensionable service/savings in some other field to bring their pension up to a "normal" level. If they don't manage to do so, that is not the state or taxpayer's responsibility.
By the way, I am not anti-public sector (my wife's a lecturer), nor am I anti-military (I served for a number of years in the FCA myself and have many relatives who served, from the foundation of the state and before.)0 -
every military in the world does itOhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Rubbish. This is pure begrudgery. They HAVE to retire soldiers out, every military in the world does it. Your problem is you couldn't negotiate as good a pension, so want to drag them down with you.
do you know any other military who s union sued it government for deafness , come to think of it do you know any other military with a union ?. like most public servants in this country our army is inefficient , over paid and over unionized .0 -
every military in the world does it
do you know any other military who s union sued it government for deafness , come to think of it do you know any other military with a union ?. like most public servants in this country our army is inefficient , over paid and over unionized .
Same old assinine public sector bashing....
Inefficient? Only way we can find that out is if we go to war...
Overpaid? Compared to most other armies, they most certainly are not.
Over-unionised? Completely in the eye of the beholder that one.
This vitriolic attack on every employee of the state is beyond tiresome at this state. Give it a rest.0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Same old assinine public sector bashing....
Inefficient? Only way we can find that out is if we go to war...
Overpaid? Compared to most other armies, they most certainly are not.
Over-unionised? Completely in the eye of the beholder that one.
This vitriolic attack on every employee of the state is beyond tiresome at this state. Give it a rest.
we don't do wars so i guess we dont need them . how much does the average American soldier earn in comparison and they are putting their necks on the line ? .
the reason people like me attack employees of the state and their unions is because we are sick of funding the nonsense that is the public service in this country , with bond rates at 7.38% tonight i am sure the IMF are at the door and hopefully they will sort out this public sector monster once and for all including public sector pensioners .0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Rubbish. This is pure begrudgery. They HAVE to retire soldiers out, every military in the world does it. Your problem is you couldn't negotiate as good a pension, so want to drag them down with you.
You're being over emotive and not being logical. It's not begrudgery - it's just common sense, to suggest that we ALL take a hit. Why should a whole sector be protected from the recession, while others are being decimated? I'm only asking for an even playing field. How is that begrudgery? If I have to leave a job after 20 years, I'm made redundant. I then seek out another job until I can retire. I'm not handed a pension!
You're right, I couldn't negotiate as good a pension. Such a pension would be illegal outside the Public Sector. Or haven't you fully read any of my Posts? Why have you an issue with showing solidarity with your Private Sector brothers and sisters? You don't seem to care, that they've largely been left to carry the can. N.B. The biggest part of government expenditure goes on Public Sector pay and pensions. Social Welfare comes in second.
By the way, do you think it's morally acceptable, that some have to work until they're 68 and by default, subsidise 40+ year old retirees? Hypathetically, this can and does happen. And you would accuse 60+ year olds (and myself) of begrudgery?! Get a grip - stop being so selfish. :mad:0 -
Public sector workers (including the military) gave a hostage to fortune in successfully campaigning for salaries to be benchmarked against private sector salaries. The logic of their position was that they exposed themselves to pay cuts if the private sector salaries they were benchmarked against fell, as they have, in many cases. To the extent that public sector pensioners benefited from benchmarking, the same applies to them.
I don't see why army pensions should be exempt. The age range on general service enlistment is 17 to 25. Soldiers who retire between 37 and 45 therefore have twenty or more years of working life ahead of them in which to accumulate further pensionable service/savings in some other field to bring their pension up to a "normal" level. If they don't manage to do so, that is not the state or taxpayer's responsibility.
By the way, I am not anti-public sector (my wife's a lecturer), nor am I anti-military (I served for a number of years in the FCA myself and have many relatives who served, from the foundation of the state and before.)
Ok, got you now, tbh at the time that I joined, pay for soldiers was below the poverty line and it was seen that one of the few benefits we had were the pensions after such a short period of service. That was the contract you offered in return for your service and second class citizen rights.
At that time, nothing nor nobody could have predicted the advent of the Celtic Tiger years and the increases in pay that followed.
You will find it hard to believe, but I knew that when pay cuts were required the govt should have taken the bull by the horns and not gone the route of death by a thousand paper cuts, much and all as it hurt me, financially. I understand the rationale. So the cuts were done and I felt that was that over and done with.
Now that I have left the army, after giving a lot, more is to be taken away? I can see the point of it, I just don't agree with it. My family is a military family and have served proudly done the years too, but this constant harping on at sacrifices need to be borne by all when, in fact, not everyone is going to be equally affected (especially at the top) and that really ticks me off.
If the burden was going to be shared equally, fair enough, but you and I know that is not what is going to happen.
FYI, the pension entitlements for Defence Force members have been radically overhauled and now anyone who has joined since 2001 and serves to pension (21 years) will not receive pension payment upon discharge, but will have to wait until they reach, I think their late 50's - 60's? I would have to check. Considering the major changes to service commitments and requirements for continuation in service, in years to come very few soldiers, serving now and in the future will receive pension payments.0 -
we don't do wars so i guess we dont need them . how much does the average American soldier earn in comparison and they are putting their necks on the line ? .
the reason people like me attack employees of the state and their unions is because we are sick of funding the nonsense that is the public service in this country , with bond rates at 7.38% tonight i am sure the IMF are at the door and hopefully they will sort out this public sector monster once and for all including public sector pensioners .
If you are 'sick of funding nonsense' like a soldier with 21 years experience getting a €15,000 pa pension, piss off to Somalia where you can keep all you earn and not have to live in a society that employs public sector workers.
We are all angry, but taking it out on teachers, nurses and soldiers from behind your keyboard is bedwetting behaviour.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're being over emotive and not being logical. It's not begrudgery - it's just common sense, to suggest that we ALL take a hit. Why should a whole sector be protected from the recession, while others are being decimated? I'm only asking for an even playing field. How is that begrudgery? If I have to leave a job after 20 years, I'm made redundant. I then seek out another job until I can retire. I'm not handed a pension!
You're right, I couldn't negotiate as good a pension. Such a pension would be illegal outside the Public Sector. Or haven't you fully read any of my Posts? Why have you an issue with showing solidarity with your Private Sector brothers and sisters? You don't seem to care, that they've largely been left to carry the can. N.B. The biggest part of government expenditure goes on Public Sector pay and pensions. Social Welfare comes in second.
By the way, do you think it's morally acceptable, that some have to work until they're 68 and by default, subsidise 40+ year old retirees? Hypathetically, this can and does happen. And you would accuse 60+ year olds (and myself) of begrudgery?! Get a grip - stop being so selfish. :mad:
I didn't get past the part where you claimed the public sector hadn't taken a hit. :rolleyes:
As I say to all the foaming mouths on here, if the public service is such a well paid doss, why in the name of thundering jaysis aren't you in it?0
Advertisement