Entitlement Culture killing the will to work in Ireland

Sheldons Brain

You're very much entitled to your opinions but the reality is PS pay was cut between 12- 15% plus a further cut of 5.5% last July for the higher paid PS.

In fact the pay rate was cut for everyone in July as hours were increased and many higher paid people were cut then by more than 5.5% as well.

skafish

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

In fact the pay rate was cut for everyone in July as hours were increased and many higher paid people were cut then by more than 5.5% as well.

This point, is of course, ignored by such stalwart PS bashers as fliball123.
The average increase in the working week of 2 hours net equals another 5% pay cut in real terms.

However, we have done the whole public/private debate on boards ad nausium. Can we at least agree to differ and revert to topic?

fliball123

Idbatterim wrote: »

it devalues it and if it is frozen for several years, it is eating away at it cumulatively...

Inflation is being outstipped by interest we need inflation at a rate of 3% or higher to combat the interest we are paying on the 200billion we already owe and we need inflation of 10billion next year just to cover what we will borrow..I understand the point your trying to get at as in if we were just with the 200billion loan and had no interest to pay on it..then yes inflation would devalue it but as it stands the interest accruing takes that out of the equation..This may not be the case in the future but thats how it stands at present..It also doesnt devalue how much I am paying in tax

srsly78

The point is e50,000 salary in 2008 is not the same as e50,000 salary in 2013.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2014/EstimateStatement.aspx


"I would like to acknowledge the contribution that public servants have made to our recovery.

Over the course of the last 5 years, the Public Service has reduced in size by almost 10%. The cost of the pay bill has fallen even further, by some 17%, and the Haddington Road Agreement that I reached with Public Service unions earlier this year will permit that cost to fall further again.

These savings need to be protected and sustained, which means that we must continue to demand further efficiency in the system. And we must ensure that Public Service managers across every sector make full use of the 15 million extra hours and the other hard-won workplace flexibilities agreed in Haddington Road."


Instead of just posting rubbish, maybe you should do a little bit of research.

Hang on I know that they have taken cuts..Considering how lofty a position there were in after 2 rounds of benchmarking making them one of the highest paid public sectors in the world....My point is that if there employer is broke it is immoral to be paying increments until we were out of a deficit scenario, As soon as we have a surplus bring them back in.. I also believe that there is more cuts needed at the upper end..In a lot of areas across the public sector we are still not getting value for money even with the haddington road efficiencies...

But I do acknowledge they have taken cuts 2 cuts on average of 7% each time..one the pension levy a contribution to a defined benefit that would be an incredible perk within any section of the private sector...But what must also be acknowledged is that in that same period there have been 6 rounds of increments ... costing in the region of of between 1 and 1.5billion.

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

Very convenient, to propose a figure for 2015 and state that estimates cannot be used to refute your figure, meaning that it will be two years before you are uncovered.

No serious commentator has suggested this. Some commentators have quibbled over whether the cut will be 15% or 20%, but nobody has suggested an increase.

How will I be uncovered ... I would rather look at the trend of how much ps pay and pensions are going up by with increments then taking a figure in 2009 directly after the pay cut as proof. The cuts were on average 7% pay cut and the same again an average of 7% for the pension levy

Sheldons Brain

How will I be uncovered ...

You will be uncovered because you stated that PS pay and pensions would not decline, or would even increase, when they will have declined by some 20% in 2015.

I would rather look at the trend of how much ps pay and pensions are going up

How could you look at a trend that is not there?

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

So how much of a PS pay cut are you prepared to admit to?



This old chestnut again. Its very unfortunate that so many private sector employees lost their jobs but I still don't see what this has got to do with relative pay cuts for those remaining in employment. A PS employees has the same cost of living has a private sector employee, same mortgage/rental costs, same food, heat, childcare costs, etc, etc.

You're very much entitled to your opinions but the reality is PS pay was cut between 12- 15% plus a further cut of 5.5% last July for the higher paid PS. While you are correct that too many private sector employees have lost their jobs the other side of the equation that many of those who remain in employment have not done so badly with pay freezes and modest pay increases being the norm.

What it has to do with is a comparison within both sectors..both have taken cuts but one sector has been sheltered from forced redundancies... My arguments is that 1/4 of a billion private sector employees taking a paycut of 100% - dole is a lot more severe than the cuts in the public sector anyone arguing any differently is deluded..

Also a lot of private sector employees have taken paycuts and hour cuts aswell and thats not even factoring in the 1/4 of a billion who joined the dole queue..So I would like evidence of modest pay increases..The norm has mostly been pay freezes or cuts. Also there would be very few private sector companies (if any) giving pay rises whilst their employer is broke and borrowing 10billion for next year to stay in business? The exceptions being banks (now mostly public sector) and semi states.

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

In fact the pay rate was cut for everyone in July as hours were increased and many higher paid people were cut then by more than 5.5% as well.

Hang on so an increase in hours is being shown as a pay cut? FFS if only these boyos worked in the private sector you work till the job is done no O.T or any crap like this.

fliball123

srsly78 wrote: »

The point is e50,000 salary in 2008 is not the same as e50,000 salary in 2013.

Whats 50k plus interest?

fliball123

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

You will be uncovered because you stated that PS pay and pensions would not decline, or would even increase, when they will have declined by some 20% in 2015.



How could you look at a trend that is not there?

I said that we would be paying as much in 2015 for P.S pay and pensions as we were back in 2008

srsly78

The same calculation applies to private sector salaries as well.

I love to bash the public sector, but at least try to understand basic finance before throwing numbers around please.

fliball123

srsly78 wrote: »

The same calculation applies to private sector salaries as well.

I love to bash the public sector, but at least try to understand basic finance before throwing numbers around please.

That is true but what I am getting at is how much we have to pay in tax to cover not only this figure of say 50k but also interest so in fact even do 50k in 2008 is not the same as 50k in 2013..The real sum here is 50k in 2008 plus 6 year of interest which is a lot more to pay back than 50k in 2013.

srsly78

Yes but not all of that 50k is borrowed. Go calculate it properly and you will see the real amount is eroded. Not as much as we would like of course... but still.

fliball123

srsly78 wrote: »

Yes but not all of that 50k is borrowed. Go calculate it properly and you will see the real amount is eroded. Not as much as we would like of course... but still.

We are borrowing 10 billion next year..that is all borrowed. We got into this argument as I was saying we are being overtaxed and my kids and grandkids will be paying for decisions made in the last decade along with one going forward..Such as stopping increments to ps until we are in a surplus. Now I understand the inflation argument but its not a valid argument if it is not outstipping intersted owed on the money already borrowed..Which currently it isnt. It is also not a valid argument as we are borrowing 10 billion next year..the following year it will be 6/7 the following 4/5 the following 1/2 ...All of that has to be paid back with interest along with 200billion...

Now I understand the whole rollover scenario and how it devalues going forward but it still has to be paid back and the cost to the tax payer will burden them for at least the next 30/40 years..even with the inflation effect

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

What it has to do with is a comparison within both sectors..both have taken cuts but one sector has been sheltered from forced redundancies... My arguments is that 1/4 of a billion private sector employees taking a paycut of 100% - dole is a lot more severe than the cuts in the public sector anyone arguing any differently is deluded..

Also a lot of private sector employees have taken paycuts and hour cuts aswell and thats not even factoring in the 1/4 of a billion who joined the dole queue..So I would like evidence of modest pay increases..The norm has mostly been pay freezes or cuts. Also there would be very few private sector companies (if any) giving pay rises whilst their employer is broke and borrowing 10billion for next year to stay in business? The exceptions being banks (now mostly public sector) and semi states.

My point being is that you are advocating pay cuts for one sector to compensate for the fact that more workers from another sector workers have been made redundant. Of couse you would be deluded in thinking that PS pay cuts are more severe than unemployment but why is it that employees from sector should take excessive pay cuts in solidarity with workers from another sector?

Looking at overall figures on pay across the economy it is clear (plenty links have already been supplied in support of this argument but have a look at the CSO website if you want to see for yourself) that in general private sector pay [for those who remain in employment obviously] has not reduced dramatically during this recession and many are now looking at modest pay increases. In general private sector employers avoid imposing pay cuts due to the demotivating effect on productivity so prefer to make people redundant than cut the pay for those remaining. Unlike the private sector, the PS pay was cut rather that imposing compulsory redundancies ... can you imagine the furore from some quarters if stated Govt policy was to impose redundancies to protect pay.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

We are borrowing 10 billion next year..that is all borrowed. We got into this argument as I was saying we are being overtaxed and my kids and grandkids will be paying for decisions made in the last decade along with one going forward..Such as stopping increments to ps until we are in a surplus. Now I understand the inflation argument but its not a valid argument if it is not outstipping intersted owed on the money already borrowed..Which currently it isnt. It is also not a valid argument as we are borrowing 10 billion next year..the following year it will be 6/7 the following 4/5 the following 1/2 ...All of that has to be paid back with interest along with 200billion...

Now I understand the whole rollover scenario and how it devalues going forward but it still has to be paid back and the cost to the tax payer will burden them for at least the next 30/40 years..even with the inflation effect

You just move from one argument to another without presenting any facts.

You get the facts wrong on so many issues it is incredible.

Now you are saying that we are overtaxed. Here is a challenge.

Can you find me another country in Europe with a financial challenge where a person earning €35k pays less tax than in Ireland?

You see, if you bothered to check you will find that Irish workers especially those on low to middle incomes are undertaxed on their income.

srsly78

High earners also pay lower tax here than most other european countries, only the uk is lower really. All of these tax moaners have obviously never worked abroad. Oh, places like Poland etc have really low tax - but noone earns any money there so it hardly counts.

Now I suppose we will swiftly move on to "but we get nothing for what we pay".

Idbatterim

earning €35k pays less tax than in Ireland?

its E32,800 for a single person, not far off 35k, but a very small figure given the extortionate rates they reach after this. Also below this figure I would agree, that the levels of income taxes are very low...

woodoo

fliball123 wrote: »

Hang on so an increase in hours is being shown as a pay cut? FFS if only these boyos worked in the private sector you work till the job is done no O.T or any crap like this.

In some areas of the private sector perhaps. It is by no means all. Any companies i worked for in the private sector i had set hours and i clocked out on the dot after each day. If i did overtime it was because i was asked if i wanted to do it and i was paid extra for it if i did it. You are trying to present a fantasy of the o so efficient and put upon private sector. You are not fooling anyone.

johnr1

woodoo wrote: »

In some areas of the private sector perhaps. It is by no means all. Any companies i worked for in the private sector i had set hours and i clocked out on the dot after each day. If i did overtime it was because i was asked if i wanted to do it and i was paid extra for it if i did it. You are trying to present a fantasy of the o so efficient and put upon private sector. You are not fooling anyone.

You sound perfectly suited to be a public "servant" tbh.

golfwallah

This breaking news clearly demonstrates that there are big differences between PS & Private Sector workers - when it comes to pensions:
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/thousands-of-oaps-facing-the-shock-of-cuts-in-their-pensions-29768766.html

Whether it's jobs or pensions, private sector workers faces losses in income or jobs to compensate for losses, unlike their PS counterparts, where losses can be covered by Government borrowing.

Where's the equity & social justice in all this?

Godge

golfwallah wrote: »

This breaking news clearly demonstrates that there are big differences between PS & Private Sector workers - when it comes to pensions:
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/thousands-of-oaps-facing-the-shock-of-cuts-in-their-pensions-29768766.html

Whether it's jobs or pensions, private sector workers faces losses in income or jobs to compensate for losses, unlike their PS counterparts, where losses can be covered by Government borrowing.

Where's the equity & social justice in all this?

You are wrong but right.

Public service pensioners (above a certain threshold) have already had a cut in their pensions several years ago.

Private sector pensioners have escaped those cuts.

srsly78

Nope, pension levy of 0.4% per year.

golfwallah

Godge wrote: »

You are wrong but right.

Public service pensioners (above a certain threshold) have already had a cut in their pensions several years ago.

Private sector pensioners have escaped those cuts.

Yes, there were cuts in PS Pensions - but, unlike Private Sector employees, this was from a salary base already heavily inflated by Benchmarking.

Most of us well remember the unbelievable double digit Benchmarking increases, while private sector pay was either frozen or in low single figures.

And, unlike private sector workers, protected PS workers:

• have no fear of redundancy
• are very slow to change working practices in line with a rapidly changing environment!
• do not have to deal with "Performance Management" processes to retain / increase their pay levels

Sheldons Brain

golfwallah wrote: »

Yes, there were cuts in PS Pensions - but, unlike Private Sector employees, this was from a salary base already heavily inflated by Benchmarking.

Most of us well remember the unbelievable double digit Benchmarking increases, while private sector pay was either frozen or in low single figures.

In the general period of benchmarking private and public salaries rose by a similar amount, I suspect your memory is selective.

golfwallah wrote: »

And, unlike private sector workers, protected PS workers:

have no fear of redundancy

demand for things like health, education does not vary much so people do not become redundant.

golfwallah wrote: »

are very slow to change working practices in line with a rapidly changing environment!
do not have to deal with "Performance Management" processes to retain / increase their pay levels

this is where you have something of a point. The problem is the performance of the PS as much as what they are paid.

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

My point being is that you are advocating pay cuts for one sector to compensate for the fact that more workers from another sector workers have been made redundant. Of couse you would be deluded in thinking that PS pay cuts are more severe than unemployment but why is it that employees from sector should take excessive pay cuts in solidarity with workers from another sector?

Looking at overall figures on pay across the economy it is clear (plenty links have already been supplied in support of this argument but have a look at the CSO website if you want to see for yourself) that in general private sector pay [for those who remain in employment obviously] has not reduced dramatically during this recession and many are now looking at modest pay increases. In general private sector employers avoid imposing pay cuts due to the demotivating effect on productivity so prefer to make people redundant than cut the pay for those remaining. Unlike the private sector, the PS pay was cut rather that imposing compulsory redundancies ... can you imagine the furore from some quarters if stated Govt policy was to impose redundancies to protect pay.

No I am advocating pay cuts in 1 sector because compared to other Public sectors in other countries with in the OCED they are overpayed. Also their pay went up in the years between 1999 and today by nearly 60% over all (that takes both benchmarking and pay cuts and increments into account) and it had a knock on effect of increasing the pension burden 5 fold in that time..We have a looming public sector pension problem of about 116billion. (according to Eddie Hobbs on Pat Kenny this morning)

Also have one guess which section of the public sector within the whole of the OCED are on average the oldest? Anser our Health sector meaning they are going to push our pensions crisis in sooner rather than later.. (once again discussed on PK)

I am also advocating the pay cuts as we are still (yes still) borrowing 10 billion a year to pay for this wage bill along with other expenditure.

Once again you bring in private sector pay increases..Show me one company in the private sector (excluding the banks and the semi state as the government for some phucking reason are supporting these) that are in debt of 200 billion and borrowing 10 billion next year to keep the lights on?


My experience of the private sector is this over the last 8 is that we took a pay cut 20% and no pay increase and people also got let go..This was to protect the company from going under as they were in debt back in 2009 ..For 3 months we did not get paid and the place was close to going to the wall...Fortunately things picked up the CEO remortgaged the house to pump 50k in to pay wages for a few months and a few deals were done..They are now making a small profit but still no pay rises and with a less people working we all have to chip in and do more...

Also why cant people who are duplicating work not be fired from the public service..The amalgamation of the health boards into the HSE come to mind

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

You just move from one argument to another without presenting any facts.

You get the facts wrong on so many issues it is incredible.

Now you are saying that we are overtaxed. Here is a challenge.

Can you find me another country in Europe with a financial challenge where a person earning €35k pays less tax than in Ireland?

You see, if you bothered to check you will find that Irish workers especially those on low to middle incomes are undertaxed on their income.

Anything over 32k you lose 52% ..32k is about the average wage. The problem being that if you tax those on the lower end then the dole are in competition with low income earners. Which is yet another problem we have..

You cannot take just PS on its own, its all expenditure I have a problem with we over pay in all areas and we get problems when trying to increase tax for the lower paid.. ..Do I agree with this? no. We should be paying more in tax at the lower end as well..But at the same time we should be getting value for our money..

Also when all of our indirect taxes are taken into consideration we are overtaxed and anyone earning above 32k is overtaxed..But I take your point on the lower paid but what can you do when if you tax more they see no value in working?

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

In some areas of the private sector perhaps. It is by no means all. Any companies i worked for in the private sector i had set hours and i clocked out on the dot after each day. If i did overtime it was because i was asked if i wanted to do it and i was paid extra for it if i did it. You are trying to present a fantasy of the o so efficient and put upon private sector. You are not fooling anyone.

If a private sector company is inefficient they soon go to the wall..Look at stats between 2009 and 2011 private sector companies were going to the wall at a rate of 2/3 a week.. You try to compare the sectors yet I have not seen one private sector company survive (with the exception of the banks and semi states) that are in the condition that the employer is borrowing 10 billion next year and in over 200billion in debt..So who is fooling who here?

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

No I am advocating pay cuts in 1 sector because compared to other Public sectors in other countries with in the OCED they are overpayed. Also their pay went up in the years between 1999 and today by nearly 60% over all (that takes both benchmarking and pay cuts and increments into account) and it had a knock on effect of increasing the pension burden 5 fold in that time..We have a looming public sector pension problem of about 116billion. (according to Eddie Hobbs on Pat Kenny this morning)

As a matter of interest have you any data on how private sector wages in Ireland compare to the OECD average? By the way what business opportunity is Eddie plugging these days? ..

I am also advocating the pay cuts as we are still (yes still) borrowing 10 billion a year to fund the deficit between taxes generated and public expenditure (of which public pay is approx 30%) pay for this wage bill along with other expenditure.

Just thought I'd change the emphasis of your message slightly - the % figure is indicative.

My experience of the private sector is this over the last 8 is that we took a pay cut 20% and no pay increase and people also got let go..This was to protect the company from going under as they were in debt back in 2009 ..For 3 months we did not get paid and the place was close to going to the wall...Fortunately things picked up the CEO remortgaged the house to pump 50k in to pay wages for a few months and a few deals were done..They are now making a small profit but still no pay rises and with a less people working we all have to chip in and do more...

Are you presenting yourself as representative of the entire private sector?

Also why cant people who are duplicating work not be fired from the public service..The amalgamation of the health boards into the HSE come to mind

Good point .. presumably you are advocating compulsory redundancies with compensatory redundancy packages in areas where there is a surplus of staff?

sarumite

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

In the general period of benchmarking private and public salaries rose by a similar amount, I suspect your memory is selective.

I think that depends on your source though.For example, according to Ronan Lyons (apparently using CSO data) average earnings in the PS rose by 20K per annum compared to 15K per annum in the private sector for the period of 1998 to 2008.

demand for things like health, education does not vary much so people do not become redundant.

The demand for goods that have not become redundant or have reached max capacity rarely drops, merely the ability for people to pay/fund those services reduces their sales capacity. We see this is in the consumer goods market all the time, when a company announces a price drop and see a upswing in sales. The demand was always there, it was just the product was priced too high.

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

As a matter of interest have you any data on how private sector wages in Ireland compare to the OECD average? By the way what business opportunity is Eddie plugging these days? ..




Just thought I'd change the emphasis of your message slightly - the % figure is indicative.




Are you presenting yourself as representative of the entire private sector?



Good point .. presumably you are advocating compulsory redundancies with compensatory redundancy packages in areas where there is a surplus of staff?

Why are you trying to compare to the private sector? If someone in the public sector seen private sector wage as being higher than what they earn they have the choice to leave the public sector and get a job in the private sector?

Also if a private sector person earns more, the government gets more in cash in tax meaning a nett profit for this worker..If a public sevant earns more it means we have to pay more out of tax meaning a nett loss

In fairness to Hobbs I know he does a lot of self promotion but he didn't say anything about anything that he is personally involved in.

Fair enough change the emphasis..but put it in black and white...so its 30% so that means that 30% of the 200 billion we owe is due to ps pay and pension and 3 billion out of the 10billion is still being borrowed next year to pay ps pay and pensions...

Also I know other sectors in the private sector are/were booming during the crash but for the public sector to point at such sectors that are making profits and pointing at their pay rises as a template for themselves when their employer is broke and borrowing is wrong. Increments should of been suspended back in 2009

I advocating streamlining the public sector and actually getting value for money if that means compulsory redundancies so be it

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

No I am advocating pay cuts in 1 sector because compared to other Public sectors in other countries with in the OCED they are overpayed. Also their pay went up in the years between 1999 and today by nearly 60% over all (that takes both benchmarking and pay cuts and increments into account) and it had a knock on effect of increasing the pension burden 5 fold in that time..We have a looming public sector pension problem of about 116billion. (according to Eddie Hobbs on Pat Kenny this morning)

Now that you have educated yourself by listening to a tabloid news programme on the radio, perhaps you could answer some of the points below I raised with you a few days ago.

Eddie Hobbs led the "lets all become property millionaires" charge.

http://www.brendaninvestments.ie/press/

The real truth is that Eddie Hobbs doesn't have a clue about public sector pensions and the real bill is nothing like €116 billion.

If you are so sure of your stance, provide a link rather than a rant.

Godge wrote: »

Yawn, this has been done to death.

http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

Here is the C&AG Report done in 2009.

Interesting that none has been done since. Why?

"After taking account of the assets held in the funded schemes and €5.4 billion of assets held in the NPRF, it is estimated that the net present value of the accrued pension liabilities at the end of 2008 amounted to €101 billion."

That figure will now be less because of

(1) The paycuts in 2010 and 2013 to existing public servants
(2) The cuts to pensions in excess of €32,000.


The report explicitly said that the early retirement schemes will increase pensions in the short term but decrease them in the longer terms and it had not taken this into consideration:

"The impact of the scheme will be to increase pension outflows in the short term and to reduce them in the longer term due to the lower number of years’ service achieved by those taking early retirement."

It also assumed salary and pension increases:

"the expected pension at retirement was calculated allowing for future general salary inflation"

"The value of the accrued pension liability is calculated assuming that future pension increases are awarded at the same rate as general salary inflation i.e. 1.75% p.a. above price inflation (pay parity)."

Well, salary increases ain't happening. Inflation is slightly above zero since 2008 with a sharp fall in 2009 being offset by small increases since. So the 1.75% accumulator didn't happen. By 2013, this should have resulted in over a 9% increase in salary rates. Didn't happen.

So the figure of €101 billion in accrued pension liabilities is an overestimate, probably by as much as 20%. It also takes no account of the level of income likely to be received from pension contributions and PRD.

The report does go on to consider these issues:

"While the foregoing paragraphs have considered the present value of entitlements which have accrued to date, it is also useful to examine the future trend in payments. Unlike the accrued pensions liability which reflects benefits earned to date, these cash flows reflect the monetary impact of future recruitment and retirement patterns."

"It is estimated, based on the examination assumptions used, that the cumulative gross outflows in the period 2009 to 2058 will amount to €367 billion and net outflows will amount to €157 billion".

Now this figure takes account of money received as well as money going out. It also includes the current accrued liability of €101bn. Certain assumptions are made:

"Annual gross cash outflows are projected to increase by over 500% from €2.4 billion in 2009 to €14.7 billion in 2058 in constant 2008 price terms. Contribution income, including PRD, is also projected to increase by over 300% from €1.7 billion to €7.4 billion".

So outflows will grow faster than income. We will return to that.

"The projected growth in the number of pensioners results from an increase in size of the public service which is forecast to increase by 23% between 2008 and 2018."

Well that is another thing that ain't going to happen.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/The%20National%20Recovery%20Plan%202011-2014.pdf

"Cut public service staff numbers by 24,750 over 2008 levels, back to levels last seen in 2005"

That is a cut of about 10% rather than growth of 23%. Now remember that expenditure was rising faster than income. That means for every extra public servant projected the net bill gets higher but for every less public servant the net bill gets lower. Our €157 bn is getting smaller again. Probably by as much as one-third? Then you need to have an idea about what is going to happen salary inflation from 2008 onwards. Well we know the first five years have not gone according to plan and if I was a public servant, I wouldn't be betting on my salary returning to 2008 levels before 2020, by which stage it could be 20-30% behind the C&AG predictions.


Appendix C looks at some sensitivity options. It considers what higher salary increases would mean but doesn't look at what salary cuts (which we have had to date) or lower salary increases (which are likely over the course of the study because of the front-loaded salary cuts) would mean. However, in examining salary increases the following statement is made:

"The impact of increasing the assumed real rates of wage growth (the real rate is the amount in excess of price inflation) and State Social Insurance pension increases by 0.5% per annum was examined. Increasing the real rates by 0.5% per annum would lead to a revised assumption for real general salary inflation and State pension increases of 2.25% per annum. The impact on the value of the accrued pension liability is shown in Figure C.3.

"The total liability increases from €106.6 billion to €117.1 billion (net of assets held within funded pension schemes but before allowance for NPRF assets) which is an increase of 10%."

When you consider that in actual fact we have seen more than the opposite - i.e. salaries being cut rather than inflation plus 2.25%, you can only conclude that the long-term liability has been cut significantly.

Now you see why there has been no official study since 2008. The costs of future public service pensions have been significantly reduced both by the cuts in pay and pensions but also by the cuts in numbers. All of these measures are significantly below where the 2008 study assumed they would be. The government doesn't want anyone studying this. Imagine if an independent study found that the 2008 pension liability had been cut by say one-third, in the order of €50 bn?

But, hay, you and others can continue on your ill-informed rant about public servants and the pension liability.

Now do some research yourself.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

My experience of the private sector is this over the last 8 is that we took a pay cut 20% and no pay increase and people also got let go..This was to protect the company from going under as they were in debt back in 2009 ..For 3 months we did not get paid and the place was close to going to the wall...Fortunately things picked up the CEO remortgaged the house to pump 50k in to pay wages for a few months and a few deals were done..They are now making a small profit but still no pay rises and with a less people working we all have to chip in and do more...

Maybe I am mixing you up with another poster, but didn't you head off to Australia for a year or so?

fliball123 wrote: »

Also why cant people who are duplicating work not be fired from the public service..The amalgamation of the health boards into the HSE come to mind

There are 30,000 less people working in the public sector than five years ago, a drop of around 9%.

As unemployment went from 5% to 14% overall in the economy (equivalent to 9% losing their jobs) the amount of job losses in the public sector is broadly similar to the private sector.

yoloc

Who honestly gives a ****! I know famlies who havent worked yet get benefits, so what. I also know famlies who work and doesnt care about this welfare state. Do you thickos honestly think thst taxes will get cut if all these where thrown ogf the dole. Not a chance of it. The men in the suites will jusy come up with more ways og taking your money. Its what this system is designed to do. Its now a jealously issue for yous, yoi see people having an ok living without going to work. If you think society is bad now, wait and see if yous get your fcuking wish to cull the benefits. Yous woll be demanding it get re introduced when it starts coming to your door with the high crime rates.

Fs how much do you actully think gets spent on the cheats, not much in the grand scheme of things. Its better these people getting it rather than the men in the shirt and tie getting it and hiding it away on off shote accounts. At least the small guy keeps the money in the country.

Do yourselves a favour and stop looking into other peoples lives and concentrate on your own pathetic lives. Your a long time dead remember an no one is going to give 2 hoots about this in 100yrs so why should you now.

Idbatterim

Fs how much do you actully think gets spent on the cheats, not much in the grand scheme of things. Its better these people getting it rather than the men in the shirt and tie getting it and hiding it away on off shote accounts. At least the small guy keeps the money in the country.

Id prefer the working men in the shirt and tie to be getting it...

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

yoloc wrote: »

Who honestly gives a ****! I know famlies who havent worked yet get benefits, so what. I also know famlies who work and doesnt care about this welfare state. Do you thickos honestly think thst taxes will get cut if all these where thrown ogf the dole. Not a chance of it. The men in the suites will jusy come up with more ways og taking your money. Its what this system is designed to do. Its now a jealously issue for yous, yoi see people having an ok living without going to work. If you think society is bad now, wait and see if yous get your fcuking wish to cull the benefits. Yous woll be demanding it get re introduced when it starts coming to your door with the high crime rates.

Fs how much do you actully think gets spent on the cheats, not much in the grand scheme of things. Its better these people getting it rather than the men in the shirt and tie getting it and hiding it away on off shote accounts. At least the small guy keeps the money in the country.

Do yourselves a favour and stop looking into other peoples lives and concentrate on your own pathetic lives. Your a long time dead remember an no one is going to give 2 hoots about this in 100yrs so why should you now.

You're hardly on Social Welfare, are you?? :pac:

srsly78

yoloc wrote: »

Who honestly gives a ****! I know famlies who havent worked yet get benefits, so what. I also know famlies who work and doesnt care about this welfare state. Do you thickos honestly think thst taxes will get cut if all these where thrown ogf the dole. Not a chance of it. The men in the suites will jusy come up with more ways og taking your money. Its what this system is designed to do. Its now a jealously issue for yous, yoi see people having an ok living without going to work. If you think society is bad now, wait and see if yous get your fcuking wish to cull the benefits. Yous woll be demanding it get re introduced when it starts coming to your door with the high crime rates.

Fs how much do you actully think gets spent on the cheats, not much in the grand scheme of things. Its better these people getting it rather than the men in the shirt and tie getting it and hiding it away on off shote accounts. At least the small guy keeps the money in the country.

Do yourselves a favour and stop looking into other peoples lives and concentrate on your own pathetic lives. Your a long time dead remember an no one is going to give 2 hoots about this in 100yrs so why should you now.

This post is a clear example why welfare should be cut and more money diverted to adult literacy programs.

yoloc

srsly78 wrote: »

This post is a clear example why welfare should be cut and more money diverted to adult literacy programs.

Who gives 2 F**** about literacy programes. I know i dont. You people are so much up your own arses its comical. Yous all think that life should be lived one way, go to school from an early age, go through the education system, get a job, work 9-5 or more, get a wife, buy a house have a few kids but not to much. Make sure you go to chruch to pray to the biggest myth mankind has ever created. Put money away for retirement then die. **** me even thinking about that makes me feel depressed. Just you people keep doing over time because im thinking of banging another kid out of another bird ill prob meet at the weekend, fs, im going to neef someone to pay for it so ask your boses for some overtime lol. Remember, its all legal too what i want, thats the funny part of it all lol. Good bye, signing out of this thread while in mcds using their free wifi servive after picking up my free dole lol. Adios! lol

srsly78

There are free courses in family planning too btw, and the CWO might even give you free rubbers. In these times of austerity we can't just give out free prams anymore ya know.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

No I am advocating pay cuts in 1 sector because compared to other Public sectors in other countries with in the OCED they are overpayed. Also their pay went up in the years between 1999 and today by nearly 60% over all (that takes both benchmarking and pay cuts and increments into account) and it had a knock on effect of increasing the pension burden 5 fold in that time..We have a looming public sector pension problem of about 116billion. (according to Eddie Hobbs on Pat Kenny this morning)

Is that the same fella selling us holiday homes in Bulgaria in 2006?
What a prat, and anybody that fell for it too, how anybody in this country can take him serious is beyond me.

creedp

fliball123 wrote: »

Why are you trying to compare to the private sector? If someone in the public sector seen private sector wage as being higher than what they earn they have the choice to leave the public sector and get a job in the private sector?

Because there is a constant flow of comment comparing the private sector to the public sector. Is it only possible to have a one comparison?

Also if a private sector person earns more, the government gets more in cash in tax meaning a nett profit for this worker..If a public sevant earns more it means we have to pay more out of tax meaning a nett loss

Sorry for being facetious but just may have solved the deficit problem .. increase taxation and make even bigger profits off private sector workers and at the same time achieve savings in the public pay bill.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

My experience of the private sector is this over the last 8 is that we took a pay cut 20% and no pay increase and people also got let go..This was to protect the company from going under as they were in debt back in 2009 ..For 3 months we did not get paid and the place was close to going to the wall...Fortunately things picked up the CEO remortgaged the house to pump 50k in to pay wages for a few months and a few deals were done..They are now making a small profit but still no pay rises and with a less people working we all have to chip in and do more...

So, because you are in a sector that took some cuts......, i have many friends that enjoyed pay rises, bonus's, work trips away, and many many nights out at their employers expense over the last 8 years as you put it.

Some of these guys are in construction, yes construction, and are already talking about this years work xmas part in the Gresham Hotel! Others are in insurance, Pension Advice and Tax advice.

Your experience is not true representation of the private sector as a whole, and nowhere near it i'm afraid.

skafish

fliball123 wrote: »

Also their pay went up in the years between 1999 and today by nearly 60% over all (that takes both benchmarking and pay cuts and increments into account) and it had a knock on effect of increasing the pension burden 5 fold in that time..We have a looming public sector pension problem of about 116billion. (according to Eddie Hobbs on Pat Kenny this morning)

Also have one guess which section of the public sector within the whole of the OCED are on average the oldest? Anser our Health sector meaning they are going to push our pensions crisis in sooner rather than later.. (once again discussed on PK)

Good to see your time in Oz improved your impartiality.
Now, taking economic advice from Eddie Hobbs, being interviewed by Plank Kenny..... Well, it must have been a great circus if it was led by those two clowns.

And, as an aside, isn't this the same Pat Kenny who recently left state employment because they wouldn't accede to his outrageous pay demands?

johnr1

srsly78 wrote: »

There are free courses in family planning too btw, and the CWO might even give you free rubbers. In these times of austerity we can't just give out free prams anymore ya know.

Clearly a few years to late for that,- like, about 20.

golfwallah

A few pertinent quotes on the "Entitlement Culture":

“You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.” – Abraham Lincoln.

“When we replace a sense of service and gratitude with a sense of entitlement and expectation, we quickly see the demise of our relationships, society, and economy.” – Steve Maraboli.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” – Margaret Thatcher.

mariaalice

This thread is a mixture of rambling silliness with the odd interesting point.

What I want to know how come its everyone else who has a sense of entitlement except for the OP and most of the posters.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Now that you have educated yourself by listening to a tabloid news programme on the radio, perhaps you could answer some of the points below I raised with you a few days ago.

Eddie Hobbs led the "lets all become property millionaires" charge.

http://www.brendaninvestments.ie/press/

The real truth is that Eddie Hobbs doesn't have a clue about public sector pensions and the real bill is nothing like €116 billion.

If you are so sure of your stance, provide a link rather than a rant.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023262.shtml

Have a read of the 7th paragraph there I will just copy and paste it in as well

IBEC director Brendan McGinty said: “Ireland is simply not in a position to fund existing public service pension liabilities. Plans to reform rules for new entrants are welcome, but need to go much further. Existing public sector workers should no longer qualify for pensions based exclusively on their final retirement salary, instead pensions should be based on an average salary of future service. Also, pensioners should not automatically qualify for pension increases if serving staff are awarded pay rises.

"Despite the pension-related deductions in 2009 and pay reductions in 2010, the cost of public sector pensions will still amount to €2.9bn gross in 2011.The current overall cost of outstanding and unfunded public sector pensions could be at least €130bn, equal to 83% of total GDP. Pensions now account for 14% of the government's total pay and pensions bill, up 44% since 2008. This is no longer affordable, the taxpayer is simply not in a position to pick up the tab.

I believe it is now based on average salary for new entrants but there is still a very large public sector pension hole that needs to be covered.

http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pension-and-crises/

Lucey reckons its over 100billino back in 2012..

Max Powers

fliball123 wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023262.shtml

Have a read of the 7th paragraph there I will just copy and paste it in as well

IBEC director Brendan McGinty said: “Ireland is simply not in a position to fund existing public service pension liabilities. Plans to reform rules for new entrants are welcome, but need to go much further. Existing public sector workers should no longer qualify for pensions based exclusively on their final retirement salary, instead pensions should be based on an average salary of future service. Also, pensioners should not automatically qualify for pension increases if serving staff are awarded pay rises.

"Despite the pension-related deductions in 2009 and pay reductions in 2010, the cost of public sector pensions will still amount to €2.9bn gross in 2011.The current overall cost of outstanding and unfunded public sector pensions could be at least €130bn, equal to 83% of total GDP. Pensions now account for 14% of the government's total pay and pensions bill, up 44% since 2008. This is no longer affordable, the taxpayer is simply not in a position to pick up the tab.

I believe it is now based on average salary but there is still a very large public sector pension hole that needs to be covered

out of the billions that we borrowed, a few billion of that went into PS pensions. still not enough. DB pensions should be banned.

Valetta

fliball123 wrote: »

http://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/pension-and-crises/

Lucey reckons its over 100billino back in 2012..

Is this the genius that came up with the brainwave where the banks would sell their deposit books, not realising that deposits held by banks are in fact liabilities.