CSO report on public-private pay gap

frankosw

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Suits me.

I'm under no illusions that i'll retire on the sort of pensions being seen now..the pension fund has already been plundered to pay the dole,the banks,overseas aid,asylum seekers and other forbidden topics that affect the countries finances.

itzme

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Treating this point seriously it would seem obvious to me.
The current PS pensioners are being paid by the current PS pension contributions, there isn't enough in the pension pot for them. So if they axed the public service pension, they would first have to give all contributions back to those that have been paying and then they would have to find money to fund the current pensioners.
Not saying its not a bad idea but it would take a couple of years to implement (if its possible that is)

K-9

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Its an option I suppose, you also have the issue of the state pension which is underfunded by both public and private sector workers though.

tayto lover

Tipp Man wrote: »

why don't they just axe the public sector defined benefit pension (obviously they would keep what they currently have), axe the pension levy and let the workers look after their own pension

Yes and also stop the grants the farmers get. These people are the real "entitled" but only contribute .9% of the entire tax take which is disgraceful. Not even 1%.
There are too many depending on the taxes paid by too few.

not yet

Just to try clear this up, My gross weekly pay is 940e from that I pay 189e in pension contribution and superannuation ect. 189 x 52 = 9828 x by 40 years service is 393,120. Thats what people pay, end of.

fliball123

K-9 wrote: »

I'll look after my own pension seeing as I'm private sector but as others and me have pointed out, they do pay a significant portion towards pensions, not the 7% you tried to make out. That's one error you've been corrected on so I'll expect not to see it repeated again.

The pension issue is a major issue, not just with the public sector, the pension levy goes in some way to help with for the future. I'd say they'll be asked to pay more and private sector workers will be asked for a compulsory deduction, but that's a Government policy decision.

A significant potion and the other significant potion is asked of the tax payer who many in the private sector cant afford their own...but should feel good bout themselves as they contribute to the thousands and thousands of current and future public sector pensions...

Jaysoose

not yet wrote: »

Just to try clear this up, My gross weekly pay is 940e from that I pay 189e in pension contribution and superannuation ect. 189 x 52 = 9828 x by 40 years service is 393,120. That what people pay end of.

So your pay rate will never increase? your figures need to be adjusted for inflation, increments etc.

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Aib.

Bailed out by the taxpayers and still paying bonuses top senior staff.

Owned by the taxpayer but its obvious that the tax payer have no say in this, last i head the banks are cutting back on staff...Dont get me wrong I dont agree with what these greedy fcuks are doing but they are now state owned hardly private sector now are they

Head The Wall

not yet wrote: »

The 7% pay cut was in effect reverse benchmarking....then again thats noyt good enough for some people, the same people who would have PS workers pay cut by 40% as I've read on these forums.

If it hasn't brought the wage down to the comparable current private sector level well then it is not enough. If you get paid 40% more than you should then a serious cut is needed.

not yet wrote: »

Just to try clear this up, My gross weekly pay is 940e from that I pay 189e in pension contribution and superannuation ect. 189 x 52 = 9828 x by 40 years service is 393,120. That what people pay end of.

So your first year of work you earned 48k, the very same as your finishing salary will be. You do not pay that kind of money, should you even get paid that wage by the taxpayers if that is your grasp on numbers. The mind boggles

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

The usual pension contribution for a PS worker is in the region of 15%.

Anybody hired after 1996 must pay this and has no choice in the matter.


This is in addition to prsi that they also pay.

Can you show me evidence that this will cover the cost of their pensions...?

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

The 7% pay cut was in effect reverse benchmarking....then again thats noyt good enough for some people, the same people who would have PS workers pay cut by 40% as I've read on these forums.

Sorry it may be in money terms a reverse..but they never bothered measuring again against the private sector which since 2008 has been decimated..a third round of benchmarking is badly needed in this country in order to get the public finances we spend of pUblic sector pay and pensions back under control...It has spiraled out of control in the last decade

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

Can you show me evidence that this will cover the cost of their pensions...?

obviously each individual case is different

as an example, ignoring inflation

someone who joined post april 1995 and retires on, say €50,000 on full 40 years service

will get (a) the state pension - currently around €12,000

(b) an occupational pension of €13,000

(c) lump sum of €75,000

so they will have paid 40 years PRSI for the state pensions

and 15 years of around 8% contribution and 25 years contributions at around 14% for the rest


basically post 95 entrants are paying around 20-25% of salary, notionally towards their pension


people who joined after 2011 will have the same system althought the pension and lum sum is based on an average earning rather than final salary which will reduce the figures.

Farmer Pudsey

Lets look at the cost of a PS pension's.

To do a simple calculation lets assume that any rise in the value of the fund will be negated by the general pay rises ( not increments or promotions) that a PS recieve throughout there working life. We will also ignore that public servants because of the socio economic group have a higher life expectancy the other sections of society.
We will assume that this low paid CS retires on 40k with apension of 20K after 40 years. Let there average earning be 33k so at 12% this gives a fund of 158K. Now from the pension we disregard the OAP leaving a pension difference of 7.5K. However we have to take away 60K for there retirement lump sum (it may be even higher as OTis not pension calculated) this leaves less than 100K to buy a grauity whick at present are in the region of 5%( for someone at 60) I think. So even relativeing low paid PS's will recieve a pension more than they contribute.

However the real issue is higher paid people in the PS some of these will retire on pension way in excess of 25k. For ever 5K in pension the will also recieve a lumpsum of 7.5K maybe costing them 30-40K again I am assuming that they recieve large pay rises in the last 10 years of service which is often the case even if they did not and were on fairy stabe pay rates it would only cost 50K/10k pensionable pay.

This is going to be a huge issue ''going forward'' as Brien Cowen would say sitting happily on his nice pension pot. At presen some CS can retire after 30 years service in there fifties and most can retire at 60 with 40 years being full service. While a OAP will have to average over is 40 weeks insurable income to recieve the OAP which again the PS will score on as they will be paying PRSI for 52 weeks/year.

Tipp Man

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes and also stop the grants the farmers get. These people are the real "entitled" but only contribute .9% of the entire tax take which is disgraceful. Not even 1%.
There are too many depending on the taxes paid by too few.

Can you provide a source for this .9% please

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

Dont get me wrong I dont agree with what these greedy fcuks are doing but they are now state owned hardly private sector now are they

Yes,the banks are private sector..they are registered as public limited companies...they are driven by profits and have a board of directors.

Do you actually have trouble telling the difference between public and private anymore in your haste to vent spleen on PS workers?

Riskymove

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

lets assume that any rise in the value of the fund will be negated by the general pay rises

there is no fund

(it may be even higher as OTis not pension calculated)

? OT doesn't increase your lump sum either

Let there average earning be 33k so at 12% this gives a fund of 158K. Now from the pension we disregard the OAP leaving a pension difference of 7.5K. However we have to take away 60K for there retirement lump sum this leaves less than 100K to buy a grauity whick at present are in the region of 5%( for someone at 60) I think. So even relativeing low paid PS's will recieve a pension more than they contribute.

its 20% contribution since 2011


this example would compare to a fund of €98,000 paying out €7,500 ayear so would be 13 years before deficit?

Late 70s - around average lifspan i would have thought

However the real issue is higher paid people in the PS some of these will retire on pension way in excess of 25k.

well of course, although obviously the more they earn the larger their contributions

two thirds of PS earn less than €60

At presen some CS can retire after 30 years service in there fifties and most can retire at 60 with 40 years being full service

Nope; only guards can do this Ithink?

While a OAP will have to average over is 40 weeks insurable income to recieve the OAP which again the PS will score on as they will be paying PRSI for 52 weeks/year.

anyone working full time, pays PRSI 52 weeks, not sure what your point is

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

A significant potion and the other significant potion is asked of the tax payer who many in the private sector cant afford their own...

Can they not get a better job then?

In my experience "many in the private sector" can afford thier own pensions but they just dont bother setting one up and would rather have the money in thier pocket.

How many builders making upwards of 1000 euro a day put some money by for a pension?

If they didnt its nobody else's fault..i would rather have teh extra 15% in my pocket too but as a PS worker i have no choice...and this isnt contributing to a lavish pension in 25 years time,its nothing more that another form of sector-specific taxation.

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

obviously each individual case is different

as an example, ignoring inflation

someone who joined post april 1995 and retires on, say €50,000 on full 40 years service

will get (a) the state pension - currently around €12,000

(b) an occupational pension of €13,000

(c) lump sum of €75,000

so they will have paid 40 years PRSI for the state pensions

and 15 years of around 8% contribution and 25 years contributions at around 14% for the rest


basically post 95 entrants are paying around 20-25% of salary, notionally towards their pension


people who joined after 2011 will have the same system althought the pension and lum sum is based on an average earning rather than final salary which will reduce the figures.

I accept some do pay what they get out..but on a whole does the current ps pension levys and other pension contributions cover all future pensions coming from the ps..No it doesnt..where is the deficit got from ?? The tax payer...until everyone is paying in what they get out and not getting subsidised there is going to be an issue with this with me and the majority or of other tax payers

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Yes,the banks are private sector..they are registered as public limited companies...they are driven by profits and have a board of directors.

Do you actually have trouble telling the difference between public and private anymore in your haste to vent spleen on PS workers?

And owned by the state...or partly owned by the state...did you not hear the tax payer actually took stakes in all domestic banks when we bailed them out..there fore it is not a typical private company as if it were the tax payer would have more of a say on how it does business

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

..but on a whole does the current ps pension levys and other pension contributions cover all future pensions coming from the ps..No it doesnt..where is the deficit got from ?? The tax payer...

It is a very important issue and it should concern all employees PS or private, however, there is no fund and therefore there is no fund deficit as such

pensions are paid from current funds each year so really its about what do exisiting PS pay per annum in terms of levys, contributions, prsi and tax?

and what do the PS pensions cost per annum?

a number of measures have been taken to reduce the future costs:

pay cut
pension levy
average instead of final salary
increased retirement age
reduction in numbers

and so on.


I am sure more measures will be taken in the future

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Can they not get a better job then?

In my experience "many in the private sector" can afford thier own pensions but they just dont bother setting one up and would rather have the money in thier pocket.

How many builders making upwards of 1000 euro a day put some money by for a pension?

If they didnt its nobody else's fault..i would rather have teh extra 15% in my pocket too but as a PS worker i have no choice...and this isnt contributing to a lavish pension in 25 years time,its nothing more that another form of sector-specific taxation.

Only a person working in the protected realm of the public sector would ask can they not get a better job...their are very few jobs out there..have a look at the emigration numbers and get back to me..Yeah you tell me how many builders presently are making upwards of 1000 a day in this day and age..the point still stands on average people on current and future pensions the majority will have the tax payers paying for some of their pensions

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

And owned by the state...or partly owned by the state...did you not hear the tax payer actually took stakes in all domestic banks when we bailed them out..there fore it is not a typical private company as if it were the tax payer would have more of a say on how it does business

they are private companies whose majority shareholder is the state; thats very different to being state run

Bank managemnt decisions are still privately operated

Farmer Pudsey

Riskymove wrote: »

there is no fund



1.? OT doesn't increase your lump sum either



2. its 20% contribution since 2011


3.this example would compare to a fund of €98,000 paying out €7,500 ayear so would be 13 years before deficit?

4. Late 70s - around average lifspan i would have thought



5. well of course, although obviously the more they earn the larger their contributions

6. two thirds of PS earn less than €60





7. Nope; only guards can do this Ithink?



8. anyone working full time, pays PRSI 52 weeks, not sure what your point is

Just dealing with your itty nitty picking I know there is no fund however I was replying to a earlier post where a low paid PS stated they would be beeter of not contributing.
1 OT increases the lump sum it is not calculated
for pension
2. I was replying to a quote od 12% for a low paid CS
3. It varies across the PS
4 In correct dependind on socio economic grouping it is higher and defined benifits scheme now take this into accound I believe that the banks etc are costing on higher lifespans of retiree's.
5 Most contributions increse only on promoyions/pay rires and as older CS retire on half pay the extra contribution sare minimal compared to benfits
6I presume 60K which is equivlent to 10-Kpension compared to a 40K salery
7Prision officers as well and maybe thers
8 you are not always fulltime in the private sector and may suffer terms of longterm unemployment as well as there that have to go to Canada/US for work at present. so interruption to stamps

frankosw

fliball123 wrote: »

Only a person working in the protected realm of the public sector would ask can they not get a better job...their are very few jobs out there..have a look at the emigration numbers and get back to me..Yeah you tell me how many builders presently are making upwards of 1000 a day in this day and age..the point still stands on average people on current and future pensions the majority will have the tax payers paying for some of their pensions

You're very fond of words like "majority" and "average" arent you?

I assume thats to mask your complete lack of real figures.

You also seem to forget that PS workers pay more tax thsan thier private sector counterparts in the form of pension contributions and pension levy...the PS *is* the taxpayer that you're constantly going on about.

Somebody on minimum wage pays little or no tax..in the private sector usually,somebody self employed pays whatever they feel like and hopes for the best...private sector again,Stubbs gazette is full of judgements against people who have defrauded the revenue commisioner and they're ALL private sector.

Anybody in the public sector gets thier tax deducted at source leaving no room for a spot of creative book-cooking and it was bankers,developers and builders that caused this bloody mess in teh first place and they for the most part have wriggled off the hook leaving the PS taxpayers to foot teh bill.

Farmer Pudsey

frankosw wrote: »

Can they not get a better job then?

In my experience "many in the private sector" can afford thier own pensions but they just dont bother setting one up and would rather have the money in thier pocket.

How many builders making upwards of 1000 euro a day put some money by for a pension?

If they didnt its nobody else's fault..i would rather have teh extra 15% in my pocket too but as a PS worker i have no choice...and this isnt contributing to a lavish pension in 25 years time,its nothing more that another form of sector-specific taxation.

fliball123 wrote: »

Only a person working in the protected realm of the public sector would ask can they not get a better job...their are very few jobs out there..have a look at the emigration numbers and get back to me..Yeah you tell me how many builders presently are making upwards of 1000 a day in this day and age..the point still stands on average people on current and future pensions the majority will have the tax payers paying for some of their pensions

Even in the heady days of the boom it was only a hand full of developers that were earning massive money. Now very few are. Even in the heady days when trademen were in demand only again a few big sub contractors made serious money. The average trademan employed add a basic of 1K-1100/week at most . Small self employed trades made in the region of 1.5-2.5K alot of young people got sucked into building work and wen on as General opertatives earning 5-700/week depending on location. In general these were young workers who had an easy come easy go attutide to money and it has ruined there employment prospects.

Most of these people wifes/girlfriends worked in solicitors/auctioneers offices or even got jobs in the PS. Yes some made money just like guards and othere teachers made money on OT or special payrise see the URL on a post of mine from late last evening and read it

not yet

Just a small point some people may find interesting......Their is 25 billion worth of business done on the black economy each year. Would you say these people pay towards pensions from that.

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Just dealing with your itty nitty picking I know there is no fund however I was replying to a earlier post where a low paid PS stated they would be beeter of not contributing.
1 OT increases the lump sum it is not calculated
for pension
2. I was replying to a quote od 12% for a low paid CS
3. It varies across the PS
4 In correct dependind on socio economic grouping it is higher and defined benifits scheme now take this into accound I believe that the banks etc are costing on higher lifespans of retiree's.
5 Most contributions increse only on promoyions/pay rires and as older CS retire on half pay the extra contribution sare minimal compared to benfits
6I presume 60K which is equivlent to 10-Kpension compared to a 40K salery
7Prision officers as well and maybe thers
8 you are not always fulltime in the private sector and may suffer terms of longterm unemployment as well as there that have to go to Canada/US for work at present. so interruption to stamps

Without meaning to sound unpleasant you really are in no position to offer ecnonomic advice with that level of written English.

frankosw

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Even in the heady days of the boom it was only a hand full of developers that were earning massive money. Now very few are. Even in the heady days when trademen were in demand only again a few big sub contractors made serious money. The average trademan employed add a basic of 1K-1100/week at most . Small self employed trades made in the region of 1.5-2.5K alot of young people got sucked into building work and wen on as General opertatives earning 5-700/week depending on location. In general these were young workers who had an easy come easy go attutide to money and it has ruined there employment prospects.

Most of these people wifes/girlfriends worked in solicitors/auctioneers offices or even got jobs in the PS. Yes some made money just like guards and othere teachers made money on OT or special payrise see the URL on a post of mine from late last evening and read it

So what happened to the grand a week they were earning? Did they put it towards thier pensions? Fill out income tax returns or self assesment forms?

How much of that did builders pay in tax?

I knew of blokes i went to school with working cash in hand on building sites for 700 quid a week in the mid-1990's.....why were they paying no tax?

How many tradesmen now are tax compliant? Any work on my house i've had done in the last six months offered a cash in hand price or a "VAT inluded" price which differed substantially...some didnt even bother with the VAT included option and several wanted either cash or cheques made out to cash.

If you're worried about the state of teh irish economy at least make sure everybody is paying thier share and not just victimising public sector staff.

not yet

Most PS workers I know earn the average industrial wage,or slighty above.

For this wage they are on the whole dedicated, professional, have long service, and never earned huge money in the boom.

Are we now to go trough this sh1t for another 5 years about cut wages across the board. Yes, I know we are in a deep recession but for christ sake do people really want to smash the ordinary PS worker. I am the first to say something needs to be done about consultants earning 250k a year or County managers earning more then the spanish prime minister but a guy on 25-35k a year ?.........................

frankosw

not yet wrote: »

Most PS workers I know earn the average industrial wage,or slighty above.

For this wage they are on the whole dedicated, professional, have long service, and never earned huge money in the boom.

Are we now to go trough this sh1t for another 5 years about cut wages across the board. Yes, I know we are in a deep recession but for christ sake do people really want to smash the ordinary PS worker. I am the first to say something needs to be done about consultants earning 250k a year or County managers earning more then the spanish prime minister but a guy on 25-35k a year ?.........................

Somebody is gonna come on and tell you that the average Joe is earning 65k or somthing like that and that they are also earning 50% more than the same person(if they existed) in teh privsate sector.

There's a cliche for ever occasion round here.

not yet

frankosw wrote: »

Somebody is gonna come on and tell you that the average Joe is earning 65k or somthing like that and that they are also earning 50% more than the same person(if they existed) in teh privsate sector.

There's a cliche for ever occasion round here.

True, but the strange thing is for the purposes of the PS average wage everyone from Kenny down is taken into account which skews the real figure the average Joe earns, In the private sector Senior bank staff, senior managers in multi-nations etc are not added in.

Head The Wall

not yet wrote: »

Most PS workers I know earn the average industrial wage,or slighty above.

For this wage they are on the whole dedicated, professional, have long service, and never earned huge money in the boom.

I am the first to say something needs to be done about consultants earning 250k a year or County managers earning more then the spanish prime minister but a guy on 25-35k a year ?.........................

Firstly a clerical officer with long service can earn up to 37,341 this is one of the more basic jobs in the PS that doesn't even require a leaving cert. Your definition of "never earned huge money in the boom" is also incorrect. The ESRI report in 2008 stated that it was these "lower paid" positions that had the biggest actual pay differential for comparable jobs. It was around 38% at the time and the most recent CSO report also re-iterated this point again about the lower paid being the most overpaid.

The data was also modelled using quantile regression. These results showed that the 2009 pay gap was highest at
the lower end of the earnings distribution and, in general, decreased as earnings increased.

not yet wrote: »

True, but the strange thing is for the purposes of the PS average wage everyone from Kenny down is take into account which skews the real figure the average Joe earns, In the private sector Senior bank staff, senior managers in multi-nations etc.

The same can be said for the private sector where there are very well paid CEO's and entrepreneurs as well as lower paid. These are again all issues in the UK where the average pay differential is around 7% but in Ireland it's 40%, why is that? It wouldn't be anything to do with the PS being overpaid would it.

not yet

Report issued only this week said the difference is between 3-10% does not suit your argument thou.

Jaysoose

not yet wrote: »

True, but the strange thing is for the purposes of the PS average wage everyone from Kenny down is taken into account which skews the real figure the average Joe earns, In the private sector Senior bank staff, senior managers in multi-nations etc are not added in.

How does it skew the real figure? This is a profound misrepresentation of statistics to say that the top earners are bringing the average up that much. With 300'000 public sector workers enda kenny and the lad
wages barely even move the figures as there simply isnt enough of them when the sample size is 300,000 plus.

Head The Wall

not yet wrote: »

Report issued only this week said the difference is between 3-10% does not suit your argument thou.

Well it's obvious you haven't read the report. Page 7 (Summary of findings) Point 5 as it's the lower paid we are discussing here.

Also Page 30, third paragraph of the conclusion

Tell us where exactly in the report this 3-10% differential for the lower paid.

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

How does it skew the real figure? This is a profound misrepresentation of statistics to say that the top earners are bringing the average up that much. With 300'000 public sector workers enda kenny and the lad
wages barely even move the figures as there simply isnt enough of them when the sample size is 300,000 plus.

this particular report is based on a survey, not global figures

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

You're very fond of words like "majority" and "average" arent you?

I assume thats to mask your complete lack of real figures.

You also seem to forget that PS workers pay more tax thsan thier private sector counterparts in the form of pension contributions and pension levy...the PS *is* the taxpayer that you're constantly going on about.

Somebody on minimum wage pays little or no tax..in the private sector usually,somebody self employed pays whatever they feel like and hopes for the best...private sector again,Stubbs gazette is full of judgements against people who have defrauded the revenue commisioner and they're ALL private sector.

Anybody in the public sector gets thier tax deducted at source leaving no room for a spot of creative book-cooking and it was bankers,developers and builders that caused this bloody mess in teh first place and they for the most part have wriggled off the hook leaving the PS taxpayers to foot teh bill.

Would you go and **** how much more would they be paying in tax if you took what a private sector employee would have to pay to garnish a public sector pension... I agree with those on the lower ebbs of the private sector the tax net needs to be widened and tighter scrutiny needs to be enforced on self employed...And sorry but the bankers builders didnt cause the mess..it caused about 1/3rd of the mess this has been done to death on boards..the other 2/3rds were from over borrowing for the day to day running of the country..so even if the banks didnt get into trouble we would still be in a massive hole...sorry to spoil your rant on bankers and builders..I agree they did substantial damage but not as much as our over borrowing for public sector pay / perks / pensions and social welfare.

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

Just a small point some people may find interesting......Their is 25 billion worth of business done on the black economy each year. Would you say these people pay towards pensions from that.

No they dont but this is one of the fall outs from over taxing your citizens unfortunately

fliball123

frankosw wrote: »

Without meaning to sound unpleasant you really are in no position to offer ecnonomic advice with that level of written English.

Attack the ball not the man

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

Most PS workers I know earn the average industrial wage,or slighty above.

For this wage they are on the whole dedicated, professional, have long service, and never earned huge money in the boom.

Are we now to go trough this sh1t for another 5 years about cut wages across the board. Yes, I know we are in a deep recession but for christ sake do people really want to smash the ordinary PS worker. I am the first to say something needs to be done about consultants earning 250k a year or County managers earning more then the spanish prime minister but a guy on 25-35k a year ?.........................

Once again I think the majority of people would say leave those on under 30 odd k alone, the point has to be made that we cannot afford this and the government are being forced into unreal scenarios where blind people on welfare are having cuts to their payments...There needs to be wage reform from the top down, but those at the top hide behind the lower paid and the front line public servants

sarumite

Riskymove wrote: »

It is a very important issue and it should concern all employees PS or private, however, there is no fund and therefore there is no fund deficit as such

pensions are paid from current funds each year so really its about what do exisiting PS pay per annum in terms of levys, contributions, prsi and tax?

and what do the PS pensions cost per annum?

a number of measures have been taken to reduce the future costs:

pay cut
pension levy
average instead of final salary
increased retirement age
reduction in numbers

and so on.


I am sure more measures will be taken in the future

My understanding is that the pension levy doesn't actually affect the cost of pensions. It was specifically designed so that it wouldn't affect the cost of pensions as it is neither a contribution nor does it reduce the gross pay.

sarumite

frankosw wrote: »

Somebody is gonna come on and tell you that the average Joe is earning 65k or somthing like that and that they are also earning 50% more than the same person(if they existed) in teh privsate sector.

There's a cliche for ever occasion round here.

If you are going to attack someone on their spelling and typographical errors, you really need to be beyond reproach yourself. Otherwise you end up looking like a foolish hypocrite.

cosbloodymick

Japer wrote: »

fixed that for you

Jaysus I wish you were really doing my payroll .
I am only posting the facts as they apply to me.
If you were serious about the issue maybe you could respect that.

cosbloodymick

fliball123 wrote: »

Mick the private sector is being decimated, there are some sectors flourishing and making a profit the ps see some pay incresases and think that they should be entitled to the same..They neglect to see the companies in trouble cutting an slashing and inevitably going to the wall..The gov is borrowing 2.5million an hour...now do you think the ps should follow the model of the flourishing sectors or ones that are in trouble...I mean increments and allowances are a complete jock given the state the country finds itself in.. I think the majority of people here are looking for common sense...cuts from the top..major cuts at the top and maybe tiny ones from those under say 30k...People are looking for the ps to adhere to the real world...like no more allowances for holding a key or making a fcuking box or for traveling to work or paying unvouched expenses. They are looking for the gov to stop paying increments temporarily until we are out of the sh1tstorm which in any private sector company which is in the same financial mess the gov are in would of happened back in 2008... The private sector has woken up to the fact that every cent that cannot be brought back in from the ludicrous social partnership agreement will have to come from increased taxes.... The private sector do not want to destoy the ps terms and conditions all we want is value for the taxes we pay..We have seen our taxes increased by a very large % when both direct and indirect taxes are taken into account and yet the service being offered has been diminished year in year out for the last 5 years....

Sorry but to give you an analogy with in the private sector...if you were shopping in Dunnes and you had 100 euros a week to do your shopping and Dunnes upped their prices and cut service such as no more trollies, no more cleaning etc and then you found that your 100 had been cut to 60...would you still shop in dunnes? No you wouldnt you would be off to Aldi or Lidle but unfortunately we have no competition for the public sector in this country so the private sector are told to shut up and get on with it..So sorry if you think we are having a go at your terms and conditions as we look at the sick and dying in this country not having a bed to die on due to cuts to services instead of core pay

I am well aware of the hardship in the private sector and anyone that loses their job has my utmost sympathy.
With regard to your point regarding allowances and increments, I would also prefer if their were none of either. But unfortunately in the Public Sector workers have to undergo an incremental progression to get to the proper rate for the job they do. If the powers that be don't want an incremental scale and a never ending rising Public sector pay bill they can put staff on the correct rate for the job (as what happens in most private sector companies). Leo Varadkar who recently called for an end or suspension of increments is in the happy position of starting at the rate for the job he does, which happens to be remunerated at double what most Public servants earn.
I also agree some of the allowances are wrong, especially the ones politicians get, but unfortunately over the years rather than give a pay rise for extra work they gave an allowance which in my opinion should never have been the way to go about things.
I pay the same taxes as any private sector worker and I also use public services. Am I happy with the service provided? Overall no. But hammering ordinary people at the coalface trying their best to provide same services with reduced resources is counterproductive.

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

No they dont but this is one of the fall outs from over taxing your citizens unfortunately

So why don't all the people so desperate to save money go chase this..

cosbloodymick

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry on average 7% how anyone can defend the pension levy when what the ps pay with levy will not cover the costs of the existing members is a joke..Hows about you take you pension levy back and look after your own pensions

In companies that have pension schemes the employer usually makes some degree of contribution towards the scheme. It did when I worked in the private sector.
Many in the public sector would withdraw from the scheme in exchange for the old age state pension which public sector workers are not entitled to.
If a private company took pension contributions from its employees and did not put those contributions into a fund they would be before the courts, however the government takes the contributions of its staff and spends them ensuring that there is no fund for our contributions.
We are not going to get the pension that we were promised in our contract and we will have paid through the nose for it.

cosbloodymick

Head The Wall wrote: »

So you had a 15% pay cut in the first year . Yeah right, are you the taoiseachs right hand man or what?

Pension Levy of 7.5% + Pay cut of 8.5 % = 15% reduction aswell as the USC and other tax increases.
The Taoiseachs right hand men walked into his office and said the public sector pay cuts don't apply to me and my senior public sector colleagues and amazingly the Taoiseach agreed. Quelle surprise!!
One rule for the elite another for the rest of us

tayto lover

cosbloodymick wrote: »

Pension Levy of 7.5% + Pay cut of 8.5 % = 15% reduction aswell as the USC and other tax increases.
The Taoiseachs right hand men walked into his office and said the public sector pay cuts don't apply to me and my senior public sector colleagues and amazingly the Taoiseach agreed. Quelle surprise!!
One rule for the elite another for the rest of us

Is that true? Were the senior PS left untouched? Find it hard to believe but I have been shocked before.

cosbloodymick

tayto lover wrote: »

Is that true? Were the senior PS left untouched? Find it hard to believe but I have been shocked before.

It is true. They appealed to Brian Lenihan on the grounds that they no longer got a bonus so they should be spared the pay cut and he acquiesced.

tayto lover

cosbloodymick wrote: »

It is true. They appealed to Brian Lenihan on the grounds that they no longer got a bonus so they should be spared the pay cut and he acquiesced.

How that minister got away with that is astounding. The same lad who guaranteed Anglo etc :mad:!!!!