Increments to be paid to highest earners

woodoo

Good loser wrote: »

That's an absolutely brilliant post.

Yeah a brilliant post of the truth doesn't matter to you.

woodoo

Riskymove wrote: »

on a seprate note, the differentials for pay to women is eye-opening. Is this due to the more likely equal treatment in pay in the PS I wonder?

True, a lot of women in the private sector are being underpaid. Sexism alive in well in the private sector. I'd say that accounts for a lot of the pay differential at the lower ends. The Irish private sector needs to come into the 21st century.

Japer

Head The Wall wrote: »

Only 2.6% of the PS claim to be managers and administration. Why so few when according to other PS there's too many of them and they are too well paid?

I also don't see this great disparity between education levels which is used to explain the massive average wage difference. The PS also has it's fair share of people that don't even have a leaving cert 16%

Thats pretty amazing when statistics show average pay in the public service is a whopping €49,000 a year.

Godge

Sleepy wrote: »

Checked it out:



So, one could argue just as validly that the Public Sector is actively discriminating against men and women that haven't taken maternity leave by paying them the same rates as colleagues with less experience.

And since a premium also exists for male workers, it's pretty clear that while adjusting the increments system to exclude time spent on maternity leave might deal with some of the over-payment, it's not likely to largely eliminate the current premium for public sector pay.

Except that discrimination against women on maternity leave is outlawed under EU law.

Transparent equitable salary scales in the public sector mean that women cannot be discriminated against.

Hidden methods of calculating pay, theoretically based on performance but often based on who you drink with on a Friday, in the private sector allow for illegal discrimination against women. I have seen how the "boys club" scene works in the private sector.

Good loser

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah a brilliant post of the truth doesn't matter to you.

Your own attachment to the truth and reality is pretty tenuous.

The public service apologists in general seem to believe that the critics of their terms and conditions are personal and based on resentment.

In my own case there is none of that and it is not necessary for others to feel this way either.

The arithmetic and maths of the situation are plain as day. The budget deficit will not be fixed without reducing PS pay and pensions (and social welfare) significantly. If they were 10% lower than they currently are and the budget deficit was as it now is there would be an equal need to cut further.

This country is poorly served by its press. Over and over again the debate in the media about PS allowances and increments is killed stone dead by one sentence 'Most of these are paid to low earners'. The question then moves to the high earners. 'There are not enough of them to make a fuss over'. Laughable it is not.

Head The Wall

And according to the recent CSO report it's the lower paid that get overpaid the most. There's plenty of them and that's where the biggest savings should be made. Alongside compulsory redundancies, welfare reforms, political reforms etc.

Diarmuid

Godge wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. There has been a pension levy and pay cuts followed by more pay cuts for new entrants.

The idea that you can call a reduction in the starting salary of people who haven't yet got a job, a pay cut, shows the mind set involved

EDIT: reading the past few pages I see I was beaten to this one. Glad is was so obvious to most other posters too

Icepick

Godge wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. There has been a pension levy

that's not a cut

Godge wrote: »

and pay cuts

One cut of 5-8% in '09

Godge wrote: »

followed by more pay cuts for new entrants.

People who don't even work yet cannot get a cut.

Godge wrote: »

Please provide any reliable independent analytical source (i.e. not a rag journalist) that describes the cuts as superficial.

You are making claims so you have to provide evidence.

ardmacha

that's not a cut

Of course it is a cut. The Minister of Finance described it as such.
The continual flat earth style denial of this is becoming boring and embarrassing to those who continue to make it.

Surely there are enough real things to debate without making them up.

Godge

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course it is a cut. The Minister of Finance described it as such.
The continual flat earth style denial of this is becoming boring and embarrassing to those who continue to make it.

Surely there are enough real things to debate without making them up.

You are right, at least on the thread about the CSO report, there is at least a half-hearted attempt to debate the details.

This place is like a creche for baby politicians. Find a catchphrase and repeat ad nauseum.

The Clown Man

Godge wrote: »

You are right, at least on the thread about the CSO report, there is at least a half-hearted attempt to debate the details.

This place is like a creche for baby politicians. Find a catchphrase and repeat ad nauseum.

I'm sorry, I don't want to get personal here, but all I see is regular people (not necessarily regular Politics/Economy posters) making valid points only to be dragged into micro-assessments and derailed from their original points by others who are both aggressive in their approach and completely incapable of seeing or even acknowledging any perspective not aligned with their own. And who all seem to just band up reasonable, coherent and widespread opinion into "PS bashing" and resorting to literally rubbishing everyone else who does not share their perspective/agenda.

ted1

What annoys me is that they don't acknowledge them.as pay rises but pass than off as increments.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

The overwhelming suggestion from the CSO data is that private sector employers get away with exploiting women and taking advantage of them as much as they can (it is the ugly side of the profit motive).

Off the top of my head I can think of a number of reasons for a change that has nothing to do with exploiting women. Is it possible that the jobs which have high number of women in the pubic sector (teaching, nurses) pay higher than those in the private sector (retail, childcare)? Where jobs are similar which may also have a higher number of women in it (such as clerical) at the moment possibly pays higher in the public sector than private sector. In the current economic climate this is likely down to overpayment in the PS as opposed underpayment in the private sector. Where I work many of the women I work with earn the same hourly rate as I do but have reduced their hours to 60-80% due to having kids, thus their salary will be lower. Furthermore they tend to have a bigger problem with balancing homelife and worklife. As a result they have to leave work and are unable to stay back at work for extended periods of time. This unfortunately reduces their prospects of promotion. While that may be unfair it is hardly exploitation. This kind of half assed approach to analysis plagues Boards and really lowers the level of debate.

BrianD3

The Clown Man wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't want to get personal here, but all I see is regular people (not necessarily regular Politics/Economy posters) making valid points only to be dragged into micro-assessments and derailed from their original points by others who are both aggressive in their approach and completely incapable of seeing or even acknowledging any perspective not aligned with their own. And who all seem to just band up reasonable, coherent and widespread opinion into "PS bashing" and resorting to literally rubbishing everyone else who does not share their perspective/agenda.

You made a bullsh*t claim about public servants getting 2-3 years paid maternity leave. You provided no evidence to back up this claim.

Your post was not reasonable, not coherent and not accurate but you are right about one thing - bullsh*t posts like yours are indeed widespread and we can see how the usual suspects "thanked" your post.

FYI
http://hr.per.gov.ie/maternity-leave/

If I came onto a politics forum and made a claim that "Nigerian immigrants are being given free cars by the state" I'd be (rightly) pulled up on it and probably banned even if the rest of what i was saying was correct and even if a few clowns "thanked" my post.

In your case there were plenty of other inaccuracies in your post as well.

The Clown Man

BrianD3 wrote: »

You made a bullsh*t claim about public servants getting 2-3 years paid maternity leave. You provided no evidence to back up this claim.

Your post was not reasonable, not coherent and not accurate but you are right about one thing - bullsh*t posts like yours are indeed widespread and we can see how the usual suspects "thanked" your post.

My case in point. Thank you.

I'll tell you what, here's my point very clearly:

It is true in the case of the vast majority of PS workplaces in Ireland that there is at least one employee who's performance is far below what would be reasonably acceptable in any system where punitive action up to termination is an option. It is true that these workers cannot lose their incomes, will recieve guaranteed pay raises in the form of increments and, on the whole, cost the economy billions.

It is true that this behaviour can be seen in the Private Sector to a fraction of a degree but that the net losers in these cases are the private companies themselves that put up with them. In fact, they are of net benefit to the economy as a whole because they are still paying taxes, spending money and not claiming welfare.

Refute that please.

ardmacha

It is true in the case of the vast majority of PS workplaces in Ireland that there is at least one employee who's performance is far below what would be reasonably acceptable in any system where punitive action up to termination is an option.

This is true.

It is true that these workers cannot lose their incomes, will recieve guaranteed pay raises in the form of increments and, on the whole, cost the economy billions.

Not true. Such people can be sacked. They may not be in practice, and this must change. And it does not cost "billions".

woodoo

The Clown Man wrote: »

customer service desks that only open from 10am - 3pm with an hour lunch

They would be few and far between.

woodoo

The Clown Man wrote: »

My case in point. Thank you.

I'll tell you what, here's my point very clearly:

It is true in the case of the vast majority of PS workplaces in Ireland that there is at least one employee who's performance is far below what would be reasonably acceptable in any system where punitive action up to termination is an option. It is true that these workers cannot lose their incomes, will recieve guaranteed pay raises in the form of increments and, on the whole, cost the economy billions.

It is true that this behaviour can be seen in the Private Sector to a fraction of a degree but that the net losers in these cases are the private companies themselves that put up with them. In fact, they are of net benefit to the economy as a whole because they are still paying taxes, spending money and not claiming welfare.

Refute that please.

But nobody here is defending wasters being allowed to get away with that. If people are lazy turf them out.

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

But nobody here is defending wasters being allowed to get away with that. If people are lazy turf them out.

While some may claim that it is the employers job to deal with these wasters it should be obvious to the majority of workers in the PS who are doing a good job that the govt are not willing to do much about it. If the majority of workers tried to do something about it they may succeed but to people on the outside it looks like nobody cares about this issue.

If I knew that some employee in the company I worked for was not pulling their weight. making cock ups all the time and down the road these actions would directly affect me or other employees in the company via wage cuts or redundancies well you can be damn sure I wouldn't sit on my ass and wait around for that to happen and I would be on to who ever is is charge and at least trying to get it rectified.

Sadly the PS seem happy to sit idly by and do nothing about it and in the meantime pretend that cutting wage scales and allowances for new entrants will fix the problem. Well it won't!!

dean23

I think they should be cut but the 8 FG Td’s that wrote the letter has some neck and the way they are screwing this country with their expenses claims
Conlon €40000
Kyne €50000
Griffin €43000
Connaughton €49000
Harrington €53000
Lawlor €41000
Murphy €18557
Deering €44000
That is 338 k or you could employ 14 nurses
Those idiots knew where the Dail was but yet you Pay tax to put fuel in their car so they can go to work

ardmacha

Kyne €50000
Connaughton €49000
Harrington €53000

Person earning €100,000 in PS
net pay €50,807 (Taxcalc.eu)

These guys are ranting about expenses, but nobody gets expenses quite like they do themselves.

sarumite

At school we were always thought to avoid Ad hominem arguments when trying to defend a position. I personally disagree with the amount the TD's are claiming. That said if they were claiming twice as much and making the opposite argument would that somehow change the validity of their position?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

That is completely unrealistic. Not only would it be unconstitutional, it would also be against EU law. A bit silly to be proposing something that you know won't work.

This type of post only proves my point that these public sector threads are only started for one reason - to give people a reason to rant and rant about the public sector.

I saw a report today where the Minister said that he couldn't touch increments for those over €100k. He gave the reason that for a cut such as that to be constitutional, it would require:

(1) to be generally applied;
(2) to make a significant saving;

Nobody in this thread has even attempted to address this argument either by pointing out legal cases or argument that makes a different position logical or producing figures that show the cost is significant enough to make a difference to the State's financial position.

Instead we have had all the usual rants about the public service. Is there anyone who can make a reasoned argument addressing these points or are you all like the bloated football fan shouting at the television for the manager to make a subsitution two minutes before the target of your anger scores the first goal of a hat-trick?

Make some real arguments.

Good point well made , however if I was Enda I would put forward a new benchmarking (III) to replace the CPA when it expires. Allow the CPA run its course and then let the cuts begin. Every union in the country agreed on benchmarking during the good days and can hardly complain if the same process and criteria is adhered too. But here is the kicker the what is measured against PS in other oced countries have come down since the last bout of benchmarking, same goes with the private sector. The unions have no idea how much the bog standard private sector employee hates them and let them strike if it comes to it, we need to break the unions if they are not willing to play ball. No one here is asking for crazy cuts...Just cuts that start from the top down and start giving value back to the tax payer and stop crazy scenarios where our kids are taught in prephabs or where disabled kids have no access to special needs aids or where there are not enough beds for our sick and dying..These are unfortunately the horrible scenarios where we are being forced to contemplate. We need to save money on ps pay and pensions as we do with social welfare and we need to pay more in tax..no more sacred lambs...Kenny needs to grow a pair and tell the unions strike if you dare see who blinks first.

fliball123

jfinnerty wrote: »

i agree. i feel that in this country there is a lack of knowledge and understanding of employment laws and european laws which effect employees. although there is a need for savings there is also a need to protect the pay and conditions of employees. with the croke park agreement there has been significant changes to work practices for example the changes to the garda roster which has put more gardai on the streets. let us not forget what occured in 1913 with the lockout when irish people fought for these rights.
alot of people talk about 1916 and this era including politicians who just use it for publicity. 1916 was not only a fight for freedom but it was a socialist fight to break away from capitalism and to create an equal society.

1 word for you benchmarking how were pay and conditions changed under this process..Surely we can use the same process to reduce pay and conditions. As for you last statement an equal society..How is it equal when a person no matter how poorly they work cannot be fired and will continue to get paid by the tax payer a fair chunk of money until they die typically till their 80 years old and their spouse can continue this...Hardly equal..Its animal farm here some animals are more equal than others...I mean people in this country no longer seem to adhere to simple logic...We are borrowing 2.5 million an hour...how long is this sustainable..We all need to take a hit both taxes need to rise and ps wages and social welfare and all other costs to the state need to take a hit... Anyone arguing that they should not take a hit present your case to people and the majority will be able to tell you someone who is worse off. This needs to start from the top down..For starters increments should be stopped. PS wage above 100k should have an increased % paid for a pension levy somewhere along the lines of 75%. All pensions should be cut ps and OAP by about 10% same goes with child allowance and social welfare. Tax rates need to be broadened bring more into the tax net, both tax brackets raised by 1/2% and a third rate brought in for those over 100k at 60%....If we can get our deficit down to 0 the gov can tell the Trioka to fcuk off with their bank debts and then the country might see a turn around and when things are on the upper then we can start reducing taxes again not to the same levels as before...Same goes with welfare and ps pay we can start increments again...but until people understand that we are banjaxed and special interests groups regardless of how big they are , are told to fcuk off we are not going to get anywhere

fliball123

tayto lover wrote: »

You need to examine what has happened to many in the Private Sector of which I am one. I have not suffered one bit and have had no cuts and neither have many I know. Moral is very high where I work.
I think there are many trolls on these threads just mischief making.

Why dont you ask the 350k people who joined the dole which sector they previously worked in and what % of a cut they took...You are very lucky not to have suffered a cut in your wage. Your company must be making a profit or at least breaking even..Why dont you talk to the 4 companys per week since the start of 2010 what measures they have taken in order to survive..My wife worked in one such company..where at the start hours were cut, then they put a lot of concentration on getting as many hours out of employees for the same wage..They were still losing cash..They then cut hours, they then gave them a choice of a cut in wage or numbers..The consensus was wage..So they took 20% cut...Still made a loss ...Then 1/3 of the work force were made redundant...2 weeks each yearsstatutory no golden handshakes or 5/6 weeks for each year...After these measures the company due to other companies which owed them money going under ..went to the wall..she was on the dole for 4 months before getting employment again...now compare that to the PS the measures taken...Has hours in the ps been cut, YES, have they been asked to work more hours NO (they get paid for each hour worked), thy have had a cut in wage 7% (you can fcuk right off with the pension levy ) where people made redundant NO there was an offer where people who were close to retiring took advantage of a very generous offer to leave and a lot of these where rehired....Now put in anomalies the rediculous allowances still being paid and increments..Like I say your private company must not be making a loss...you need to compare the private companies making a loss to the state which is making a loss also

fliball123

Warden13 wrote: »

Hey my real world consists of being spat at attacked stabbed having urine and excrement thrown at me stopping the scum of the earth from killing each other I knew what I was getting into so I am complaining but that's my real world and not having enough money to buy new socks so I can buy glasses for my child but thank Christ this does not happen in your real world

Really try going into copper face jacks any night of the week..some people pay good money for the urine and excrement being thrown...:) ...but in all seriousness I bet you get well remunerated for doing this job otherwise no sane person would remain in it.

fliball123

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ah yes, twist the metrics to suit your needs rather than taking account of the majority of PS who are on rates well in excess of new entrants under the new rates...

Also kind of ridiculous to include new employees when there is a recruitment embargo on we are hardly saving anything under these cuts

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

Why dont you ask the 350k people who joined the dole which sector they previously worked in and what % of a cut they took...You are very lucky not to have suffered a cut in your wage. Your company must be making a profit or at least breaking even..Why dont you talk to the 4 companys per week since the start of 2010 what measures they have taken in order to survive..My wife worked in one such company..where at the start hours were cut, then they put a lot of concentration on getting as many hours out of employees for the same wage..They were still losing cash..They then cut hours, they then gave them a choice of a cut in wage or numbers..The consensus was wage..So they took 20% cut...Still made a loss ...Then 1/3 of the work force were made redundant...2 weeks each yearsstatutory no golden handshakes or 5/6 weeks for each year...After these measures the company due to other companies which owed them money going under ..went to the wall..she was on the dole for 4 months before getting employment again...now compare that to the PS the measures taken...Has hours in the ps been cut, YES, have they been asked to work more hours NO (they get paid for each hour worked), thy have had a cut in wage 7% (you can fcuk right off with the pension levy ) where people made redundant NO there was an offer where people who were close to retiring took advantage of a very generous offer to leave and a lot of these where rehired....Now put in anomalies the rediculous allowances still being paid and increments..Like I say your private company must not be making a loss...you need to compare the private companies making a loss to the state which is making a loss also

No you can't, it was a cut and a hefty one at that. Until you start talking in plain language don't expect public servants to meet you half way.

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

Really try going into copper face jacks any night of the week..some people pay good money for the urine and excrement being thrown...:) ...but in all seriousness I bet you get well remunerated for doing this job otherwise no sane person would remain in it.

You didn't read what the man said. He says he is struggling.

Gumbo

God flifleaball, your posts are very hard to read. I gave up on most of them tbh. Any chance of plain English.

Edit. Stupid auto correct on phone.

Idbatterim

You need to examine what has happened to many in the Private Sector of which I am one. I have not suffered one bit and have had no cuts and neither have many I know. Moral is very high where I work.
I think there are many trolls on these threads just mischief making.

If you havent suffered its obviously your company and its staff are doing well, CONGRATULATIONS, you should be rewarded for this, or dont you think so?

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

No you can't, it was a cut and a hefty one at that. Until you start talking in plain language don't expect public servants to meet you half way.

Well considering peoples claim that most people in the PS are lower paid then it was only a 5% cut and even at that they could write some of it off as a pension contribution so I don't accept your claim that it was a hefty cut. Maybe you have some figures to prove otherwise

woodoo wrote: »

You didn't read what the man said. He says he is struggling.

Somebody can be struggling because they didn't manage their finances very well. That has nothing to do with getting overpaid or well remunerated for their job. According to Sean Quinn he is struggling, we know damn well that's not the case, he just didn't look after his/Anglos finances very well.

ardmacha

How is it equal when a person no matter how poorly they work cannot be fired

People can be fired now. They may not always be, of course.
Perhaps we should fire the managers who won't fire them.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well considering peoples claim that most people in the PS are lower paid then it was only a 5% cut and even at that they could write some of it off as a pension contribution so I don't accept your claim that it was a hefty cut. Maybe you have some figures to prove otherwise
.

Foe some it was up to 15% on top of the paycut.

How could they write it off as a pension contribution?

Mr. teddywinkles

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course it is a cut. The Minister of Finance described it as such.
The continual flat earth style denial of this is becoming boring and embarrassing to those who continue to make it.

Surely there are enough real things to debate without making them up.

How its it a pay cut when your contributing to ur own pension?

Idbatterim

whatever about the Ps and their increments, an even bigger piss take is leaving the poor old OAP's untouched again, the ones with all the debt, dependents etc... all their free allowances, really wonder how they get by sometimes...

woodoo

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How its it a pay cut when your contributing to ur own pension?

Yeah and the paycut was only contributing to the deficit.

ardmacha

How its it a pay cut when your contributing to ur own pension?

It's also contributing to your pension.

Mr. teddywinkles

woodoo wrote: »

Yeah and the paycut was only contributing to the deficit.

Say what? I thought the whole idea behind it was to be taken from salary and contribute to ps penions or am
I misinformed?
Jezz if half the people in this country have any sort of pension when they retire theyd be lucky.
The youth are so screwed!

woodoo

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Say what? I thought the whole idea behind it was to be taken from salary and contribute to ps penions or am
I misinformed?
Jezz if half the people in this country have any sort of pension when they retire theyd be lucky.
The youth are so screwed!

The pension levy has absolutely no effect on Public service pensions. The final pension does not change one cent from before the pension levy to after the pension levy. It was just the government dipping their hand in and taking money of public servants (a fancy paycut). It has no effect on the overall pension.

E.g If a public servant was going to get 300 per week pension before the pension levy they will still only get 300 after the pension levy.

Good loser

woodoo wrote: »

The pension levy has absolutely no effect on Public service pensions. The final pension does not change one cent from before the pension levy to after the pension levy. It was just the government dipping their hand in and taking money of public servants (a fancy paycut). It has no effect on the overall pension.

E.g If a public servant was going to get 300 per week pension before the pension levy they will still only get 300 after the pension levy.

That's pretty absurd reasoning. You're assuming the pension (paid by the State) was affordable before and after the levy, whether or not it was introduced.

In neither of these cases is the assumption correct.

It is not affordable at the current level - even with the levy.

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

No you can't, it was a cut and a hefty one at that. Until you start talking in plain language don't expect public servants to meet you half way.

Sorry your contributing more for a defined benefit. So have all the mortgage holders in AIB just taken a pay cut due to AIB increasing their interest rates? they are down more money? Why wasnt it just called a pay cut? If you can answer these 2 questions. Sure you guys think that increments are not pay fcuking rises..absolute jokers so you are.

Here is my full thinking on the pension levy

1. If the "pension levy" applied to all PAYE workers it would never have been described as a "paycut" by anyone.

2. If the "Pension levy" were applied to all PAYE workers from tomorrow public sector workers would not accept that they'd had a "pay rise" equivalent to the amount of the levy.

3. All calculations based off gross income remained unaffected by the levy.

1, 2 and 3 combined tells us the pension levy does not meet the criteria for a pay cut. It's a cut in take home pay which is a feature of all taxes. The levy does not directly fund the pension of the public servant paying it however that is a feature both of all income taxes as paid in this country and of the structure of the public sector pension scheme.

So why was the levy applied instead of cutting pay?

1. It allowed those in receipt of public sector pensions to remain unaffected thus reducing opposition.

2. It is easier in the future to reverse or reduce the levy than it is to increase pay.

Prediction for the future: Nobody in the public sector will accept they've had a "pay rise" if the levy is reduced or eliminated.

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

You didn't read what the man said. He says he is struggling.

Well then leave the job and find a new one...Oh wait there are no jobs..welcome to the world of the private sector...He has the same choices the rest have, leave the job join the dole queue, emigrate or shut up and get on with it..We are all struggling

Lumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Prediction for the future: Nobody in the public sector will accept they've had a "pay rise" if the levy is reduced or eliminated.

I'd gladly accept it. You can argue all you want. My pay (net) was greatly reduced after the introduction of the pension levy.

fliball123

Lumbo wrote: »

I'd gladly accept it. You can argue all you want. My pay (net) was greatly reduced after the introduction of the pension levy.

Once again it does not meet the criteria of a pay cut which I outlined in my previous post..If you can find me an equivalent pay cut then show me..So do you consider an increase in income tax a pay cut?

K-9

fliball123 wrote: »

Well then leave the job and find a new one...Oh wait there are no jobs..welcome to the world of the private sector...He has the same choices the rest have, leave the job join the dole queue, emigrate or shut up and get on with it..We are all struggling

Just a reminder that this is the Politics forum not Ranting and Raving, replies like this aren't helpful to the discussion so tone it down please.

itzme

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry your contributing more for a defined benefit. So have all the mortgage holders in AIB just taken a pay cut due to AIB increasing their interest rates? they are down more money? Why wasnt it just called a pay cut? If you can answer these 2 questions. Sure you guys think that increments are not pay fcuking rises..absolute jokers so you are.

Here is my full thinking on the pension levy

1. If the "pension levy" applied to all PAYE workers it would never have been described as a "paycut" by anyone.

2. If the "Pension levy" were applied to all PAYE workers from tomorrow public sector workers would not accept that they'd had a "pay rise" equivalent to the amount of the levy.

3. All calculations based off gross income remained unaffected by the levy.

1, 2 and 3 combined tells us the pension levy does not meet the criteria for a pay cut. It's a cut in take home pay which is a feature of all taxes. The levy does not directly fund the pension of the public servant paying it however that is a feature both of all income taxes as paid in this country and of the structure of the public sector pension scheme.

So why was the levy applied instead of cutting pay?

1. It allowed those in receipt of public sector pensions to remain unaffected thus reducing opposition.

2. It is easier in the future to reverse or reduce the levy than it is to increase pay.

Prediction for the future: Nobody in the public sector will accept they've had a "pay rise" if the levy is reduced or eliminated.

I'm pretty certain this has all been covered before, I can't remember which poster said it but please do look up the act, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2009 which details its implementation and all aspects of the pension levy. You can look up the bill here

The truth is that the contributions do not go into the pension pot for public servants and do not give any additional benefit to the payees pension themselves. The money goes to the exchequer not the pension pot. To prove this, I bring your attention to page 9 of the act

15 7.—
(1) Nothing in this Act is to be read as conferring any
additional benefit payable, or that may become payable, under a public service pension scheme.
(2) A deduction under section 2 is not a pension contribution for the purposes of the Pensions Act 1990.

Now can you and others accept that the pension levy is not a contribution to the pension pot for PS, is not paying for their own pension and all the other myths that seem to keep on being fostered here.

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

Foe some it was up to 15% on top of the paycut.

How could they write it off as a pension contribution?

How many people are included in the "some"? I guarantee you not very many. I think you are also adding the average of the paycut and levy to arrive at the 15% so no it wasn't 15% on top of the paycut.


The pension levy is deducted before PAYE tax is calculated. Therefore the net impact is reduced by whatever marginal rate of tax you're paying. On a salary of up to €15,000 you pay 3%, from €15,000 to €20,000 you pay 6%, on earnings over €20,000 you pay 10%.


There's a good post here from Politics.ie explaining it

The pension levy ranges from 3-10%. So a TD at €100k pays 8.75%, a Department Secretary at €220k pays 9.8% whereas a married Executive Officer on €45k with a non-working spouse pays 5%. But after tax relief, where the Executive Officer is only standard rated the EO pays net circa 3.75%, the TD 4.5% and the Department Secretary 5.25%. Is that equitable? You can see when it is netted out how those higher civil servants who constructed the scheme made sure that they were not going to pay a proportionate share particularly when you consider that it is higher civil servants that are the big benificiaries of the current pension arrangements.

I really shouldn't have to be explaining how "your" pension scheme and levies work, that's something you should be doing yourself because payroll people and the taxman do make mistakes so you need to watch these things yourself


The relevant info is here in section 15.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/0509/b0509d.pdf

woodoo wrote: »

The pension levy has absolutely no effect on Public service pensions. The final pension does not change one cent from before the pension levy to after the pension levy. It was just the government dipping their hand in and taking money of public servants (a fancy paycut). It has no effect on the overall pension.

E.g If a public servant was going to get 300 per week pension before the pension levy they will still only get 300 after the pension levy.

Theoretically by paying the pension levy you should still receive the same pension and by not paying it you would probably receive less of a pension so effectively you are receiving something for it.

You might also explain what private sector pension people are getting for their pension levy apart from the (cough cough) reduced unemployment numbers thanks to Jobsbridge and the jobs programme.

Head The Wall

itzme wrote: »

The truth is that the contributions do not go into the pension pot for public servants and do not give any additional benefit to the payees pension themselves. The money goes to the exchequer not the pension pot. To prove this, I bring your attention to page 9 of the act

Now can you and others accept that the pension levy is not a contribution to the pension pot for PS, is not paying for their own pension and all the other myths that seem to keep on being fostered here.

The pension pot for the PS is the current account, how hard is it for people to understand that.

itzme

Head The Wall wrote: »

Theoretically by paying the pension levy you should still receive the same pension and by not paying it you would probably receive less of a pension so effectively you are receiving something for it.

I'm sorry but I have just shown you the legislation which states categorically that what you state in the above is untrue. Please back this up with something concrete other than the use of the word "probably".