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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

2013 budget preliminaries

124»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭creedp


    murphaph wrote: »
    Ireland also has a "lot" of well paid software engineers and the like.



    Source

    The UK government sees this 8% national average pay premium as even too much and because of collective bargaining, PS workers in the UK (as in Ireland) get the same pay regardless of what region of the UK they live in (London premium excepted) so in some regions the premium compared to an equivalent private sector worker can be double or triple that national average. The UK government is set to introduce local pay bargaining based on postcodes to freeze pay of public servants in poorer regions to allow the premium to be reduced in those regions.

    The Irish government meanwhile stands firm behind an agreement that guarantees the much larger public sector premium in Ireland remains! It's like night and day. Anyone with any sense should get out and head to the UK or further afield tbh. The lunatics are running the asylum at home :(


    You will be surprised to know that the Irish Govt has the a similar strategy but instead of feezing pay it cut it by between 12 - 15% and then froze pay for 4 years. I believe the UK Govt were so interested in how the Irish Govt could achieve this wonder that they sent some Treasury guys to Dublin to have a chat to see how the process was achieved.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    creedp wrote: »
    You will be surprised to know that the Irish Govt has the a similar strategy but instead of feezing pay it cut it by between 12 - 15% and then froze pay for 4 years. I believe the UK Govt were so interested in how the Irish Govt could achieve this wonder that they sent some Treasury guys to Dublin to have a chat to see how the process was achieved.
    You got a link for that? Sounds like BS to me. The UK government IMO has been far more proactive about reducing the public sector pay premium than our lot. The latest figures seem to show it's not even at the 7% anymore, more like half that. Meanwhile in Ireland the premium grows as private sector earnings are falling on average.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭creedp


    murphaph wrote: »
    You got a link for that? Sounds like BS to me. The UK government IMO has been far more proactive about reducing the public sector pay premium than our lot. The latest figures seem to show it's not even at the 7% anymore, more like half that. Meanwhile in Ireland the premium grows as private sector earnings are falling on average.


    This could be because public pay rates have been frozen while private pay rates have increased.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If people want to collect degrees/ PhD's they are free to do so as they will be paying for them themselves.

    As I made clear - currently free fees applied to one's first primary degree (if you fail and have to repeat a year fees are not covered for the repeat), plus some post-grad courses as long as it can be demonstrated one is genuinely up-grading one's qualifications.

    The maximum number of years free fees will be paid for is primary degree x 3 (x 4 for some courses), M.A x 1 or M.Phil x 2 and if one can convince the authorities (and this is by no means a given) PhD x 3.

    Grant or BTEA can be claimed for primary degree or H.Dip only. Not for M.A./M.Phil. or PhD.

    I have two primary degrees - fees were paid for both. My PhD fees were paid for by winning a competitive scholarship and I worked the whole time as well. What does it matter if I get another 3 degrees and a brace of PhD's? - The taxpayer will not be paying and the universities would be getting fees...

    But the number of degrees or the amount of time people choose to spend in college is a tangent - The point is just telling people to 'go to college' is not a solution unless there are jobs available for graduates. If those jobs are not there we are funding the education of people to help them get good jobs when they emigrate.


    Jobs are available, if people do the right courses. At the moment the science and engineering related industries are calling out for people worldwide, and on a smaller scale in Ireland. If we can start producing more science and engineering graduates, we will immediately become more attractive to multinationals looking to invest/reinvest here. These will bring all the other ancillary jobs with them.

    There just isn't as much of an apprectaition of how important maths and science are in primary and secondary schools. More time is devoted to religion that science in primary schools and that is just wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    creedp wrote: »
    You will be surprised to know that the Irish Govt has the a similar strategy but instead of feezing pay it cut it by between 12 - 15% and then froze pay for 4 years. I believe the UK Govt were so interested in how the Irish Govt could achieve this wonder that they sent some Treasury guys to Dublin to have a chat to see how the process was achieved.

    The government did not cut pay by 12-15%. They cut pay by about 6.5% . They also asked people to pay more to fund their pensions. That I'm afraid applies to both public and private sector workers who have pensions above the basic state contributory pension. Anyone with a pension will see the amount needed to fund their pensions has shot up over the last 10 years and that is to ignore the falls in fund values and the new "temporary" tax on pension funds.
    It also ignores pay increments. So, the average teacher is earning more in 2012 than they were in 2007 despite the "pay cut". Same applies to many other PS workers (but I acknowledge not all)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    So, the average teacher is earning more in 2012 than they were in 2007 despite the "pay cut".

    Define average. As teachers do have recruitment at lower rates I very much doubt this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    ardmacha wrote: »
    So, the average teacher is earning more in 2012 than they were in 2007 despite the "pay cut".

    Define average. As teachers do have recruitment at lower rates I very much doubt this.
    For a teacher to be earning more now than they were 5 years ago they had to be working 5 years ago so automatically new entrants would be excluded.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    creedp wrote: »
    This could be because public pay rates have been frozen while private pay rates have increased.

    Oh did the increments stop four years ago ? Thats new to me:rolleyes:

    In the real world that you are obviously unaware of an increment is a pay increase, (when times are good you get that pay increase and when times are bad you don't or get a wage cut). So in Reality the public sector has had four pay increases since they got a wage cut.
    Trying to spin it any other way is just your attempt at spreading more misinformation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Increments will be honoured for all existing staff and so they should. Anyone still on the incremental scale has not reached the true value of pay for their grade. Only when they reach the top of the scale are they properly remunerated for their role. This is the rate that has been deemed appropriate for an experienced worker.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    OMD wrote: »
    The government did not cut pay by 12-15%. They cut pay by about 6.5% . They also asked people to pay more to fund their pensions. That I'm afraid applies to both public and private sector workers who have pensions above the basic state contributory pension. Anyone with a pension will see the amount needed to fund their pensions has shot up over the last 10 years and that is to ignore the falls in fund values and the new "temporary" tax on pension funds.
    It also ignores pay increments. So, the average teacher is earning more in 2012 than they were in 2007 despite the "pay cut". Same applies to many other PS workers (but I acknowledge not all)

    I went onto the Irishlife website to try and sort out a pension for my self. I am 33 now and have therefore 35 years of payments to go before i would get it. If i wanted a pension of €22K when i retire i would have to pay in over €750 euro a month. That would be nearly a third of my wages for 35 years!!!. I don't think this would even be inflation adjusted and would not buy much in 35 years time. This is showing that a public sector worker of the same age is only paying a fraction of the real cost of their pension.

    http://www.irishlife.ie/advice/pension-calculator.html

    Yet i hear the eejits on here complaining about having to pay an extra 6% pension contribution for a pension that is reflective of there final salary, and is generous in the extreme. These complaints by Creep and others are sounding more pathetic by the day. The more people that are listening to this whining and investigate it are realising just how crazy the payments to public sector workers have gotten.

    Why are the mods allowing Creep and the like to post pure and utter lies and misinformation on this board ? Creep you appear to have an excuse for everything that is wrong with the public sector.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Yet i hear the eejits on here complaining about having to pay an extra 6% pension contribution for a pension that is reflective of there final salary, and is generous in the extreme.

    How about those that imply that the pension levy is a pension contribution when the legislation specifically states that it is not? Are they not posting "lies and misinformation"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    mayomaffia wrote: »
    I went onto the Irishlife website to try and sort out a pension for my self. I am 33 now and have therefore 35 years of payments to go before i would get it. If i wanted a pension of €22K when i retire i would have to pay in over €750 euro a month. That would be nearly a third of my wages!!!. I don't think this would even be inflation adjusted and would not buy much in 35 years time.

    http://www.irishlife.ie/advice/pension-calculator.html

    .
    You will have to pay even more to your pension if you also want a tax free lump sum of 1.5 times your salary on retirement.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    ardmacha wrote: »
    How about those that imply that the pension levy is a pension contribution when the legislation specifically states that it is not? Are they not posting "lies and misinformation"?

    Yes. But does that go to lump sums ? There should be no lump sums or no other pensions other than a guaranteed state pension. Therefore everybody should pay the same PRSI % rates and get the same OA pension. If anybody wants a top up pension let them do it themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    Sica wrote: »
    A premium can occur based on the occupations covered by the public sector. For example, healthcare is a big portion of the public sector and doctors are highly trained and skilled and have many years of higher education. This means that they can command quite a high salary. In the education sector all teachers need a minimum of one undergraduate degree and one higher diploma. Conversely a call centre worker in the private sector needs to be neither highly trained or skilled, can be easily replaced and therefore commands quite a low salary.

    This issue is also relevant in the UK, so it's a misnomer to try and bring it into this discussion

    It isn't a misnomer. Someone asked why a premium, or even just a difference can occur between average earnings in the public and private sectors. The two sectors do different things, with the public sector often requiring fairly highly qualified individuals. This difference is important and shouldn't be forgotten in any public v private sector discussion/debate/rant.
    I went onto the Irishlife website to try and sort out a pension for my self. I am 33 now and have therefore 35 years of payments to go before i would get it. If i wanted a pension of €22K when i retire i would have to pay in over €750 euro a month. That would be nearly a third of my wages for 35 years!!!. I don't think this would even be inflation adjusted and would not buy much in 35 years time.

    All public sector workers since 1995 pay full PRSI to get a social welfare contributory pension upon retirement. This is taken into account when calculating the pension paid to a civil servant.

    Eg: A civil servant retires after 40 years of service with a final salary of €35,000. The pension is half the final salary = €17,500.

    The social welfare contributory pension is €11,975.60. To bring it up to €17,500, the civil service pension pays an additional €5,524.40. Hardly a king's ransom.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    I went onto the Irishlife website to try and sort out a pension for my self. I am 33 now and have therefore 35 years of payments to go before i would get it. If i wanted a pension of €22K when i retire i would have to pay in over €750 euro a month. That would be nearly a third of my wages!!!. I don't think this would even be inflation adjusted and would not buy much in 35 years time.
    The government have said they will be standard rating all pension contributions so I've bad news for - you'll never be able to afford a pension. The only people who will have any chance of having a pension will be those with with Defined Benefit pension schemes where the employer takes on most of the pension risk - the PS in other words.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Sica wrote: »
    It isn't a misnomer. Someone asked why a premium, or even just a difference can occur between average earnings in the public and private sectors. The two sectors do different things, with the public sector often requiring fairly highly qualified individuals.
    Why then is this premium not replicated in public/private sectors outside Ireland. Are our public service uniquely over-qualified for their jobs?


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    Not neccessarily. The point is not if the percentage difference between the two sectors in a given economy is justified, the point was identifying why such differences arise.

    For example, one could imagine that in Luxembourg where there is a small population with an almost uniquely high concentration of highly skilled and educated banking and finance professionals that the private sector there would be paid, on average, more than their public sector.

    In order for a comparison between two countries public sectors to be meaningful, consideration must also be given to the composition between their two respective private sectors as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Sica wrote: »
    All public sector workers since 1995 pay full PRSI to get a social welfare contributory pension upon retirement. This is taken into account when calculating the pension paid to a civil servant.

    Eg: A civil servant retires after 40 years of service with a final salary of €35,000. The pension is half the final salary = €17,500.

    The social welfare contributory pension is €11,975.60. To bring it up to €17,500, the civil service pension pays an additional €5,524.40. Hardly a king's ransom.


    Gold plated pension eh? :D


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    woodoo wrote: »
    Gold plated pension eh? :D

    Very very low percentage of the public service finishing on a salary of 35K. Interesting how once again the very lowest wage was picked. But once again your premise is wrong, if your only paying 6.5% of your wages with an average salary of 32K(over a career) then that is an excellent pension. As they are only contributing 2K per year. I would love the opportunity of a pension like that.

    As i explained earlier if you wanted a pension of 17.5K(which also includes the OAP of 12K) in the private sector (after paying for 35 years)you would have to be paying over 2.5K per year. Even then the pension would not be guaranteed or be indexed based for inflation.

    Very easy for some of you to keep coming with the poor mouth if you keep trying to represent everything in the worst possible light. Interesting how you didn't mention teachers who have a pension of 33K which would cost nearly 200 euro a week(10K/annum) in the private market and still not be guaranteed.

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/your-binmans-pension-better-than-yours-2853831.html

    From above article:
    "Despite the recent pensions levy, the State is still drowning in a public sector pensions bill that could be as high as €8bn a year.

    This bankrupt country simply cannot afford that bill -- particularly if it comes at the expense of hard-pressed taxpayers who are already sick to the teeth of cutbacks.

    A bill like that will make it harder for us to shift the mountain of debt that will hold back economic growth for years. And it can't be justified when three-quarters of the workforce are left high and dry with their pensions."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Very very low percentage of the public service finishing on a salary of 35K. Interesting how once again the very lowest wage was picked. But once again your premise is wrong, if your only paying 6.5% of your wages with an average salary of 32K(over a career) then that is an excellent pension. As they are only contributing 2K per year. I would love the opportunity of a pension like that.

    As i explained earlier if you wanted a pension of 17.5K in the private sector (after paying for 35 years)you would have to be paying over 2.5K per year. Even then the pension would not be guaranteed or be indexed based for inflation.

    Very easy for some of you to keep coming with the poor mouth if you keep trying to represent everything in the worst possible light. Interesting how you didn't mention teachers who have a pension of 33K which would cost nearly 200 euro a week in the private market and still not be guaranteed.

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/your-binmans-pension-better-than-yours-2853831.html

    From above article:
    "Despite the recent pensions levy, the State is still drowning in a public sector pensions bill that could be as high as €8bn a year.

    This bankrupt country simply cannot afford that bill -- particularly if it comes at the expense of hard-pressed taxpayers who are already sick to the teeth of cutbacks.

    A bill like that will make it harder for us to shift the mountain of debt that will hold back economic growth for years. And it can't be justified when three-quarters of the workforce are left high and dry with their pensions."

    With the pension levy now i'm paying either 9% or 11% i can't remember. I'll check tomorrow.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    Very very low percentage of the public service finishing on a salary of 35K. Interesting how once again the very lowest wage was picked. But once again your premise is wrong, if your only paying 6.5% of your wages with an average salary of 32K(over a career) then that is an excellent pension. As they are only contributing 2K per year. I would love the opportunity of a pension like that.

    As i explained earlier if you wanted a pension of 17.5K in the private sector (after paying for 35 years)you would have to be paying over 2.5K per year. Even then the pension would not be guaranteed or be based indexed for inflation.

    /QUOTE]

    Stop being paranoid. "The very lowest wage" wasn't picked, a notional salary was picked to demonstrate a mechanic.

    To make is a realistic comparison you should ask Irish Life to quote you for a pension of €10,025 (Soc Wel Pension of €11,975 + €10,025 = €22,000).

    It should also be noted that a privately arranged pension is more portable - you can pay in to it was you move from company to company. Conversely a public sector pension is linked specifically to the public sector - to get the full utility of it you need to work for the organisation for the full 40 years.

    Eg, a civil servant works for 20 years before deciding to take another job with, say, a UK based public service outsourcing firm. When he leaves the civil service he has a final salary of €60,000. As 20 is half of the 40 years the pension system is based on, this gives a preserved benefit of €15,000. Less the €11,975 from Social Welfare gives a balance of €3,025.

    Traditionally people tended to remain with a single employer for a career, however this dynamic is changing rather radically and may leave those who joined the public sector in the last 10 years and wish to go private some difficult decisions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica



    This bankrupt country simply cannot afford that bill -- particularly if it comes at the expense of hard-pressed taxpayers who are already sick to the teeth of cutbacks.

    In truth the bankrupt country can't afford any bills. While public sector paybill size is worthy of some discussion, it should be bourne in mind that even if the civil service worked entirely for free for a year the size of the current deficit would remain truely mindblowing.

    And public sector workers are taxpayers too. I think public sector workers, in USC, PAYE, PRSI and civil service specific pension related contributions keep about 40% of what they warn over the €50k mark.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Sica wrote: »
    It should also be noted that a privately arranged pension is more portable - you can pay in to it was you move from company to company.

    Exactly the government has no business running a pension business, whose shortfall has then to be paid for by overtaxed underpaid workers. Let the OAP pension payment and receipt be obligatory and have everybody make their own additional pension arrangements if they wish. Or else have a guaranteed pension bond that is available to all members of the public.

    Unfortunately due to the current generous arrangements, i cant see the public sector and gutless government agreeing to that. A government bond would allow a proper investment vehicle for infrastructure projects and the like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    Exactly the government has no business running a pension business, whose shortfall has then to be paid for by overtaxed underpaid workers. Let the OAP pension be obligatory and have everybody make their own additional pension arrangements if they wish. Or else have a guaranteed pension bond that is available to all members of the public.

    Unfortunately due to the current generous arrangements, i cant see the public sector agreeing to that.

    Why would they? Who has ever voted for a cut in entitlements? Ever?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,854 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    my dads german pension is E90 per week, no free travel, but free healthcare... dont see why anyone should have their pension looked after, pay it out of your own wages or sell home when you reach retirement age and downsize or lease back etc, think its ridiculous that a lot of pensions are going to fund kids etc inheritance!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sica wrote: »
    The social welfare contributory pension is €11,975.60. To bring it up to €17,500, the civil service pension pays an additional €5,524.40. Hardly a king's ransom.
    No, but it should be up to the civil servant to take care of it themselves on the open market. I would not have a problem with the civil service contributing to an additional private pension fund as is common enough in the private sector (the employee must contribute too of course) but these are not defined benefits, which should really be gotten rid of completely.

    Even the state pension itself is a gigantic defined benefit scheme that needs reform. At present you can theoretically work for just 10 years (paying class A PRSI) before reaching statutory retirement age and retire on a full contributory pension of 230 pw. People my scoff but I know guys who came from (for example) South Africa to work in Ireland (in good faith, might I add) in their early 50's. These guys couldn't believe that they'd just have to clock up 10 years "stamps" to be eligible for such a generous benefit.

    The state pension system is being reformed at present to look at average contributions but that doesn't go far enough. It should be directly related to what you put into into throughout your working life, simple as that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    The state pension system is being reformed at present to look at average contributions but that doesn't go far enough. It should be directly related to what you put into into throughout your working life, simple as that.

    There is very little comment on this , while everyone rants about PS pensions which require 40 years service.

    The government is in a good position as an employer to provide pensions and it makes no sense for try and make people engage with the corrupt and inefficient private pensions industry. There is nothing inappropriate about PS pensions in general, the problem arises with the salaries on which some of these are based and the increasing longevity of the population.

    The existence of these pensions would presumably encourage people into PS jobs and facilitate moderate salaries, but in the boom people had no interest in pensions nor PS jobs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    ardmacha wrote: »
    There is very little comment on this , while everyone rants about PS pensions which require 40 years service.
    Not all of them do, but anyway ;)
    ardmacha wrote: »
    The government is in a good position as an employer to provide pensions
    Erm, the government is currently borrowing vast sums to pay pensions (amongst other things) :confused:
    ardmacha wrote: »
    and it makes no sense for try and make people engage with the corrupt and inefficient private pensions industry. There is nothing inappropriate about PS pensions in general, the problem arises with the salaries on which some of these are based and the increasing longevity of the population.
    Defined benefit pensions are not realistic. Pretty much any private sector defined benefit scheme is now closed to new entrants or completely wound up (or broke). You say defined benefit for PS is ok because the government can just borrow more or tax more to make sure you get your DB payment on top of your already defined state pension. This is grossly unfair as it is not available to anyone outside the PS (with the exceptions of the dieing DB schemes mentioned above) and grossly unfair to the future generations of workers who will get no DB pension who you clearly expect to fund yours.
    ardmacha wrote: »
    The existence of these pensions would presumably encourage people into PS jobs and facilitate moderate salaries, but in the boom people had no interest in pensions nor PS jobs.
    This has been debunked sooooo many times on this forum now it's not even funny any more. Even during the "boom" years, the CSO figures clearly show that PS job competitions were ALWAYS heavily over subscribed. It may provide comfort to you to believe that myth, but it is a myth. PS jobs were sought after, even at the height of the "boom".

    As I've already said, the state pension is also a gigantic defined benefit scheme that will implode someday. It should be reformed to be more like the German system at the very least, which works thus

    (that's just shy of 10% of your gross pay (plus your employer's contribution), EVERY month for your working life to get a pension that is significantly less (assuming 50k gross average salary) than that which you would receive in Ireland for working just 10 years and in many cases having never worked AT ALL)

    Ireland needs to wake up at all levels and realise that retirements are fcuking expensive things and somebody has to pay for them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    woodoo wrote: »
    Increments will be honoured for all existing staff and so they should. Anyone still on the incremental scale has not reached the true value of pay for their grade. Only when they reach the top of the scale are they properly remunerated for their role. This is the rate that has been deemed appropriate for an experienced worker.

    Jesus, the stuff some people come out with and obviously believe. If a paper shuffler was worth 35k well then why didn't they just pay them that at the start? That is effectively what you are saying.

    Sica wrote: »
    It isn't a misnomer. Someone asked why a premium, or even just a difference can occur between average earnings in the public and private sectors. The two sectors do different things, with the public sector often requiring fairly highly qualified individuals. This difference is important and shouldn't be forgotten in any public v private sector discussion/debate/rant.

    Again you don't seem to grasp the fact that the very same argument is relevant in the UK Public sector i.e. more educated etc, etc but the difference there is still 3.5% and in Ireland is 43%

    Sica wrote: »
    Eg, a civil servant works for 20 years before deciding to take another job with, say, a UK based public service outsourcing firm. When he leaves the civil service he has a final salary of €60,000. As 20 is half of the 40 years the pension system is based on, this gives a preserved benefit of €15,000. Less the €11,975 from Social Welfare gives a balance of €3,025.

    You seem to leave out the fact that even if that person leaves the position then their pension when they collect it is based on a % of what the position pays when they collect the pension and not what it was at when the person left the position 20 years earlier. So they are effectively getting way more back than they have ever put in.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭creedp


    Oh did the increments stop four years ago ? Thats new to me:rolleyes:

    In the real world that you are obviously unaware of an increment is a pay increase, (when times are good you get that pay increase and when times are bad you don't or get a wage cut). So in Reality the public sector has had four pay increases since they got a wage cut.
    Trying to spin it any other way is just your attempt at spreading more misinformation.


    In this case I was actually referring to the UK which introduced a public sector pay freeze and made the point that the closing of the gap between public and private pay rates could actually relates to this policy. Anyway it doesn't matter because people like you will not listen to anything that doesn't fit with your views of the world, that is abundantly clear. As for the point that people like me shouldn't be allowed post on here .. fair play to you for your delusions of grandeur concerning your gems of wisdom!

    As I have referred to previously, its the constant sweeping generalisations that are difficult to listen to .. its funny how some posters are castigating others for the innacuracies of their posts while continuing to post factual innaccuracies and sweeping generalisations at the same time. Even take the issue of increments, they are not awared to all ps on an annual basis, and in addition they are capped at a certain level beyond which no further increments are payable. So for incumbents it is increasingly the case that they won't be entitled to increments as time goes by and the simple statement that afer 5 years all PS wil be earning more than they did prior to cuts is just that an over simplification but hey don't let that get in the way of a good rant.

    By the way if the mods did refuse to allow innacurate or misleading posts, there wouldn't be many multiple page threads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica



    Again you don't seem to grasp the fact that the very same argument is relevant in the UK Public sector i.e. more educated etc, etc but the difference there is still 3.5% and in Ireland is 43%

    I'm not not grasping something - the comment stands alone without reference to the UK or anywhere else. It is a very general point: public sectors and private sectors are not indentically composed, therefore they shouldn't be identical.
    You seem to leave out the fact that even if that person leaves the position then their pension when they collect it is based on a % of what the position pays when they collect the pension and not what it was at when the person left the position 20 years earlier. So they are effectively getting way more back than they have ever put in.

    Any pension product anyone buys should track the market and keep pace with inflation. This is not specific to the public sector. The fundamental idea behind pension products is that they are invested with a view to generating a return which will allow someone to retire - if they didn't keep pace with inflation this wouldn't be possible. Indeed, if they didn't aim to track the market and keep pace with inflation then there would be no reason to invest in pension funds - people would be just as well off to bury their money in a ditch and dig it up in 40 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    murphaph wrote: »
    No, but it should be up to the civil servant to take care of it themselves on the open market. I would not have a problem with the civil service contributing to an additional private pension fund as is common enough in the private sector (the employee must contribute too of course) but these are not defined benefits, which should really be gotten rid of completely.

    Even the state pension itself is a gigantic defined benefit scheme that needs reform. At present you can theoretically work for just 10 years (paying class A PRSI) before reaching statutory retirement age and retire on a full contributory pension of 230 pw. People my scoff but I know guys who came from (for example) South Africa to work in Ireland (in good faith, might I add) in their early 50's. These guys couldn't believe that they'd just have to clock up 10 years "stamps" to be eligible for such a generous benefit.

    The state pension system is being reformed at present to look at average contributions but that doesn't go far enough. It should be directly related to what you put into into throughout your working life, simple as that.

    I would have no problem with closing the defined benefit pension. But there is a huge difference between closing a defined benefit pension to newcomers and to retrospectively removing it. If someone has worked for 30 years on the basis that a defined benefit pension will be paid, it would be deeply unfair and unjust to pull the rug out from under them and abolish it overnight. When private sector defined benefit pensions started to close in the 90s employees who were already invested in them did not lose their pension. Afterall, it was in this context that in the 1995 the pension system for the public sector was changed to incorporate the social welfare pension (previously public sector workers made no prsi contributions and thus received no social welfare pension).

    There is no problem with closing a scheme to newcomers. But existing pension arrangements should be honoured.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    murphaph wrote: »
    Even during the "boom" years, the CSO figures clearly show that PS job competitions were ALWAYS heavily over subscribed. It may provide comfort to you to believe that myth, but it is a myth. PS jobs were sought after, even at the height of the "boom".

    For certain PS jobs, but not for low paid jobs. In the boom years no one really wanted to be a clerical officer. People may have fallen in to it, but no one really wanted it (not that I can blame them, its a pretty crap job with limited career prospects).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sica wrote: »
    I would have no problem with closing the defined benefit pension. But there is a huge difference between closing a defined benefit pension to newcomers and to retrospectively removing it. If someone has worked for 30 years on the basis that a defined benefit pension will be paid, it would be deeply unfair and unjust to pull the rug out from under them and abolish it overnight. When private sector defined benefit pensions started to close in the 90s employees who were already invested in them did not lose their pension. Afterall, it was in this context that in the 1995 the pension system for the public sector was changed to incorporate the social welfare pension (previously public sector workers made no prsi contributions and thus received no social welfare pension).

    There is no problem with closing a scheme to newcomers. But existing pension arrangements should be honoured.
    Depends how serious the problem is. Barclays Bank has "pulled the rug" from under DB contributors and switched them to DC schemes. They are not alone. IBM did the same. Why should the public sector be shielded from the fact these DB pension schemes are black holes that nobody knows for sure how much they will cost!

    Pensioners will have to live with increased risk in the future AND work later in life as people live longer. Peoples' expectations need to move with changing demographics. The taxpayers of tomorrow can't afford DB schemes.

    The government at the very least should close all DB schemes to new entrants (including the state pension) and people should be expected to sort out their own retirement plans. The reality is that these pension schemes are totally unsustainable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    murphaph wrote: »
    Depends how serious the problem is. Barclays Bank has "pulled the rug" from under DB contributors and switched them to DC schemes. They are not alone. IBM did the same. Why should the public sector be shielded from the fact these DB pension schemes are black holes that nobody knows for sure how much they will cost!

    Pensioners will have to live with increased risk in the future AND work later in life as people live longer. Peoples' expectations need to move with changing demographics. The taxpayers of tomorrow can't afford DB schemes.

    The government at the very least should close all DB schemes to new entrants (including the state pension) and people should be expected to sort out their own retirement plans. The reality is that these pension schemes are totally unsustainable.

    A) The fact that a small number of companies have pulled the rug out from under their employees does not make it right, nor does it make it the norm.

    B) The amount that these schemes costs is somewhat predictable (current staffing levels, average mortality and birth rates for new taxpayers are known and can be modelled). This doesn't mean such schemes should be closed, perhaps they should be, but the country is not facing a pensions black hole on the same scale as many other developed European countries largely because Ireland has higher birth rates than many of its EU counterparts. There is however a problem whereby employees not covered by pensions provided by their employers (so most private sector people who started working over the last 15 years) have not made sufficient provisions for their retirement, but this is seperate to the PS pension issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sica wrote: »
    A) The fact that a small number of companies have pulled the rug out from under their employees does not make it right, nor does it make it the norm.
    Neither of us knows how prevalent this is, but when 2 large corporations do it, you can be sure it's common enough practice and will likely become more common.
    Sica wrote: »
    B) The amount that these schemes costs is somewhat predictable (current staffing levels, average mortality and birth rates for new taxpayers are known and can be modelled). This doesn't mean such schemes should be closed, perhaps they should be, but the country is not facing a pensions black hole on the same scale as many other developed European countries largely because Ireland has higher birth rates than many of its EU counterparts. There is however a problem whereby employees not covered by pensions provided by their employers (so most private sector people who started working over the last 15 years) have not made sufficient provisions for their retirement, but this is seperate to the PS pension issue.
    Your whole plan centres around birth rates remaining higher than death rates. Ireland will as sure as night follows day begin to become more like Germany or the Netherlands where birth rates have slowed down and our population pyramid will begin to invert. There's no point waiting until that happens before changing the system to put the onus on the individual to cater for their own retirement.

    You say these things can be "modelled". I say this is impossible to do with enough accuracy. Baby booms are usually caused by periods of prosperity in developed countries. Ireland's socio-economic system has been altered forever in recent decades: the Catholic Church does not dictate policy any more. People will be having fewer children as contraception is easily available. Just 20 years ago you needed a prescription for condoms!

    This will all lead to a reduced birth rate. The current economic climate and ongoing "austerity" will certainly not encourage high birth rates and may serve to only encourage our young work force to leave as they see themselves as the fall guys for a corrupt generation before them, and who could blame them when we have people on here who are happy enough to cut their dole in half (which I agree with) but who also expect them to pay for their pensions in a few short years (which I do not agree with).

    Individuals should take care of their own retirement with a subsistence payment being made available to people who are unwilling to do so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 Sica


    murphaph wrote: »

    You say these things can be "modelled". I say this is impossible to do with enough accuracy.

    Statisticians disagree: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/population/current/poppro.pdf and http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-SF-11-023

    While not cast iron certainties, these are well informed, scientifically valid projections of future population growth and age profile.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    murphaph wrote: »
    Why should the public sector be shielded from the fact these DB pension schemes are black holes that nobody knows for sure how much they will cost.

    Because respectable governments shouldn't get involved in that sort of skullduggery.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    woodoo wrote: »
    Because respectable governments shouldn't get involved in that sort of skullduggery.
    A really self respecting government (no such thing exists, btw) would stand up and admit that defined benefit pensions (inclusing the state pension) are not sustainable in the long term unless people work much later in life, if even then.

    The old age pension is a newish thing, at most 100 years or so old (think Prussia may have been the first state to pay one) and people had MUCH lower life expectancies for most of the last century than they do today. People are living far longer than they did and retirement ages are only barely moving up at all.

    State pensions were doable when most people died within 5 years of retirement, but that is not going to be the future trend. So, are you prepared to work till your 70 or 75 before getting your pension? No? Thought not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    murphaph wrote: »
    State pensions were doable when most people died within 5 years of retirement, but that is not going to be the future trend. So, are you prepared to work till your 70 or 75 before getting your pension? No? Thought not.


    Pensions aren't a big thing to me to tell the truth. If i had no mortgage i could live on the state pension no bother.

    Some of the pensions handed out are obscene i'll grant you that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    woodoo wrote: »
    Pensions aren't a big thing to me to tell the truth. If i had no mortgage i could live on the state pension no bother.
    I could just about live on it, even with my mortgage-I wouldn't starve or freeze anyway. With no mortgage I could live comfortably on it. It's extremely generous by European standards for people on lower incomes who never come close to covering the cost of it during their working lives and spectacularly generous for people who were long term unemployed. For top earners who earn top money for their entire working lives, it's not as generous as the German equivalent would be, but for most, they get a very good return in the current state pension.
    woodoo wrote: »
    Some of the pensions handed out are obscene i'll grant you that.
    The state pension, in its current for, being one of them. It's as unsustainable the way it is as any public or private (though there aren't many left and 80% of the ones that remain are in deficit!) defined benefit scheme.

    We simply can't rely on future taxpayers to "somehow" make up the shortfall. We are retiring too early for modern life expectancy rates and not contributing enough towards our own retirements.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    So far, things are as expected or a little bit better.


    THE tax take for the nine months ended September was €26.1bn, €385m ahead of expectations, new Exchequer Return figures show.

    Three of the four main tax sources - income, corporation and VAT - were ahead of target with excise duties below for the third consecutive month.

    The exchequer deficit was just over €11bn, compared with €20.6bn last year, due mainly to the settlement of the IBRC promissory note payment.

    And the Government has warned that pressure points remain, particularly in the departments of health and social protection.

    “Although challenging targets still remain for the last quarter, I am confident that the overall tax revenue target for 2012 can be achieved,” Reform Minister Brendan Howlin said.

    He added that departmental expenditure remains less than 1pc above expectations “with pressures on health and social protection areas.”

    The figures also show that the Government is set to meet budget targets set out by the EU/IMF/ECB troika.

    “The tax base is growing.....and September 2012 is the third month this year that the exchequer revenues exceeded expenditure – this last happened in 2007,” said Finance Minister Michael Noonan.

    He added that the return by the National Treasury Management Agency, which manages the country’s debt, to the bond markets this year was proof that action being taken by the Government to fix Ireland’s finances is being recognised by investors


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 221 ✭✭mollymosfet


    If the tax intake is better than expected, fiscal adjustment should be adjusted accordingly. It took 4 years for any real signs of improvement but there's still no guarantee this isn't just "Bouncing along the bottom". Any growth we're seeing now will likely be destroyed by further cuts. Everything should be left as-is and the tax intake will naturally increase, unemployment eventually go down and we will cover the deficit eventually.

    Further cuts will do nothing but force more people into poverty and delay recovery by months or even years.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 221 ✭✭mollymosfet


    murphaph wrote: »
    A really self respecting government (no such thing exists, btw) would stand up and admit that defined benefit pensions (inclusing the state pension) are not sustainable in the long term unless people work much later in life, if even then.

    The old age pension is a newish thing, at most 100 years or so old (think Prussia may have been the first state to pay one) and people had MUCH lower life expectancies for most of the last century than they do today. People are living far longer than they did and retirement ages are only barely moving up at all.

    State pensions were doable when most people died within 5 years of retirement, but that is not going to be the future trend. So, are you prepared to work till your 70 or 75 before getting your pension? No? Thought not.

    I think if labour markets were more flexible this would be less of an issue. Instead of retirement, people would phase out employment which would probably be more beneficial in general. People need something to do, but on average, are overworked still. Then when they retire, they don't know how to cope.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21 box_car_maker


    murphaph wrote: »
    I could just about live on it, even with my mortgage-I wouldn't starve or freeze anyway. With no mortgage I could live comfortably on it. It's extremely generous by European standards for people on lower incomes who never come close to covering the cost of it during their working lives and spectacularly generous for people who were long term unemployed. For top earners who earn top money for their entire working lives, it's not as generous as the German equivalent would be, but for most, they get a very good return in the current state pension.


    The state pension, in its current for, being one of them. It's as unsustainable the way it is as any public or private (though there aren't many left and 80% of the ones that remain are in deficit!) defined benefit scheme.

    We simply can't rely on future taxpayers to "somehow" make up the shortfall.
    We are retiring too early for modern life expectancy rates and not contributing

    enough towards our own retirements.


    one of the biggest misconceptions among the public is that those on the state pension have more than paid for what they receive , in reality , the average recipient will draw down four times what they made in prsi contributions during their lives

    Those in their thirties today won't see anything like the level of unconditional generosity shown to pensioners today when they retire


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If the tax intake is better than expected, fiscal adjustment should be adjusted accordingly. It took 4 years for any real signs of improvement but there's still no guarantee this isn't just "Bouncing along the bottom". Any growth we're seeing now will likely be destroyed by further cuts. Everything should be left as-is and the tax intake will naturally increase, unemployment eventually go down and we will cover the deficit eventually.

    Further cuts will do nothing but force more people into poverty and delay recovery by months or even years.

    Which European country's citizens have you determined should pay our deficit while we take our time balancing the books ? Im sure they won't mind making the sacrifices that we should be doing?:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭creedp


    Which European country's citizens have you determined should pay our deficit while we take our time balancing the books ? Im sure they won't mind making the sacrifices that we should be doing?:rolleyes:

    I thought it was probably the same citizens who received interest payments in return for their 'investment'. I didn't realsie they were supplying free money


Advertisement