Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

barneystinson

kippy wrote: »

Totally agree tbh.
Knock the USC down a notch or five. Would have a far greater impact on the entire working population, and might provide a bit more of an encentive for people to work hard.

Same here.

if they reduced the 2% back down to zero on the first 10k, and extended the 4% band up to the mid-20k's it'd mean a tenner a week to everyone earning 25k or above.

antoobrien

chopper6 wrote: »

Can you explain where you're getting this figure from?

GGD (the figure that is used when economists talk about debt) was 215.54bn as of the end of last year.

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

Same here.

if they reduced the 2% back down to zero on the first 10k, and extended the 4% band up to the mid-20k's it'd mean a tenner a week to everyone earning 25k or above.

Wow..a whole tenner a week!

I'm down over 500 a month since 2008.

Tigger

chopper6 wrote: »

Wow..a whole tenner a week!

I'm down over 500 a month since 2008.

i'm down 2,000 a month take home

AlekSmart

kippy wrote: »

Totally agree tbh.

Knock the USC down a notch or five. Would have a far greater impact on the entire working population, and might provide a bit more of an encentive for people to work hard.
Although I would suggest the state don't see this as a good option, mainly because the net cost of employing public servants increase with any tax cut they apply to the working population as a whole.

Excellent suggestion,which,if combined with removing VAT from the PSO/Standing Charge elements of Utility Bills would give Workers/Contributors a bit of incentive.

One other element of legislation,often overlooked,is the effect of Working Time Act which effectively acts as a direct Income Cap on employees.

Ireland Teo, appears to place great importance on preventing those who DO have a will to work,from maximizing their income ?

Icepick

People who want to cut USC don't realize that Prsi is very low, taking the amount paid by the employer into account, compared to the benefits you are entitled to.
In fact USC should be merged with Prsi and the whole welfare system should be reformed so that benefits depend on your social insurance payments.

VAT should be cut to really benefit everyone, including retailers.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Wow..a whole tenner a week!

I'm down over 500 a month since 2008.

So?

It was an illustration.

If you're not bothered by a tenner a week then you must be one of those who could bear more austerity ...

kippy

Icepick wrote: »

People who want to cut USC don't realize that Prsi is very low, taking the amount paid by the employer into account, compared to the benefits you are entitled to.
In fact USC should be merged with Prsi and the whole welfare system should be reformed so that benefits depend on your social insurance payments.

VAT should be cut to really benefit everyone, including retailers.

I don't disagree so long as the end result is an increase in take home pay for all workers.

Tigger

Icepick wrote: »

People who want to cut USC don't realize that Prsi is very low, taking the amount paid by the employer into account, compared to the benefits you are entitled to.
In fact USC should be merged with Prsi and the whole welfare system should be reformed so that benefits depend on your social insurance payments.

VAT should be cut to really benefit everyone, including retailers.

lower income tax and higher vat benefit the working people and target the pensioners and the unemployed / idle rich. the govt pander to these people so that won't be on the cards

the system is closed so if something goes up then something can go down

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

But the wage bill has, as you've admitted, so why not focus your tremendous amount of bile on area(s) that haven't come down?



Yep, you're still not understanding the basic arithmetic. 4.4% is an AVERAGE. It is the amount of wages divided by the number of workers. The 4.4% relates specifically to the wages of the people still there, the fact that the number of workers has fallen means nothing, other than the mathematical certainty that if you multiply a lower average by a lower number of workers you have to have a lower cost.


Once again, where are you getting this figure from?!?!?!?!

I put the link to the debt already. Also the bile is coming out as PS unions are looking for payrises

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Just because you call it a contribution doesn't make it so. It's a pay cut.

Edit: just to be clear, it's a pay cut imposed only on serving PS employees - the reason it was implemented the way it has been, was a sop to PS pensioners, a political decision.

Welcome to the taxation system that is the PS...a contribution to a defined benefit is a paycut and a annual increment is not a pay rise

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

and there is no costings for any of the 45k who went onto the dole..

This, and this alone proves to me you have no idea what you are talking about..


Hint:

PS workers do not pay the correct stamp to get the dole.

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

This, and this alone proves to me you have no idea what you are talking about..


Hint:

PS workers do not pay the correct stamp to get the dole.

They still would of been entitled to dole money if they left their job. So are you telling me that if a ps worker leaves there job they are not entitled to it?

Uriel.

not yet wrote: »

This, and this alone proves to me you have no idea what you are talking about..


Hint:

PS workers do not pay the correct stamp to get the dole.

Anyone joining the PS after 1995 does and this has been stated several times on this thread and others already.

luckyboy

fliball123 wrote: »

Welcome to the taxation system that is the PS...a contribution to a defined benefit is a paycut and a annual increment is not a pay rise

By your logic, the Government could come along at regular intervals and forcibly increase the amount of "contribution" PS workers need to make to their pensions, and none of these would be paycuts either, right?

At what point will you accept that when a deal struck on Day 1 that you pay in X to get Y is changed unilaterally to pay in 2X to get the same Y, that this is a material worsening of the bargain, akin to a paycut?

Tigger

not yet wrote: »

This, and this alone proves to me you have no idea what you are talking about..


Hint:

PS workers do not pay the correct stamp to get the dole.

public sector workers first recruited since 1995 do
thats a lot of them

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

They still would of been entitled to dole money if they left their job. So are you telling me that if a ps worker leaves there job they are not entitled to it?

I'm telling you if I left my job tomorrow I would not get the dole.

And I joined before 95..

Tigger

not yet wrote: »

I'm telling you if I left my job tomorrow I would not get the dole.

And I joined before 95..

you be entitled to a means tested payment i assume

not yet

Tigger wrote: »

you be entitled to a means tested payment i assume

Maybe, but if I got even a small pension when leaving I'd get nothing.

The point being the 45k who left,left on early retirement or the like, The recieved a lump and a pension, thus they would not get the dole..

Uriel.

not yet wrote: »

I'm telling you if I left my job tomorrow I would not get the dole.

And I joined before 95..

Jobseekers allowance? Depending on your means?

fliball123

luckyboy wrote: »

By your logic, the Government could come along at regular intervals and forcibly increase the amount of "contribution" PS workers need to make to their pensions, and none of these would be paycuts either, right?

At what point will you accept that when a deal struck on Day 1 that you pay in X to get Y is changed unilaterally to pay in 2X to get the same Y, that this is a material worsening of the bargain, akin to a paycut?

They should be forced to pay for the full cost of their pension, the pension levy comes no where near to covering the short fall which falls upon the tax payer to cover ..a lot of whom cannot afford their own pension.

What part of we are broke and borrowing still and the unions are looking for payrises do people in the ps think is acceptable

At what point does it kick in that we are overtaxed when both direct and indirect taxes are taken into account...yet unions want payrises above increments.

You show me where I signed up for the contract you talk about? Why should I suffer more in taxes to cover increases in your wage or to cover your pension?

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

I'm telling you if I left my job tomorrow I would not get the dole.

And I joined before 95..

So if you were getting no money and had nothing in the bank you would not get any assistance..I very much doubt that..have you any evidence of this?

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

Maybe, but if I got even a small pension when leaving I'd get nothing.

The point being the 45k who left,left on early retirement or the like, The recieved a lump and a pension, thus they would not get the dole..

They are getting their pension, a pension by the way that they did not pay near enough to cover..so you will forgive me if I dont shed a tear on that one

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

They are getting their pension, a pension by the way that they did not pay near enough to cover..so you will forgive me if I dont shed a tear on that one

Yes, but did you not say they were now on the dole..

It must really catch in you throat to see a PS worker get a pension,

Fcuking shame on you to begrudge a man a decent pension after 40 years service.

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

They should be forced to pay for the full cost of their pension, the pension levy comes no where near to covering the short fall which falls upon the tax payer to cover ..a lot of whom cannot afford their own pension.

What part of we are broke and borrowing still and the unions are looking for payrises

At what point does it kick in that we are overtaxed when both direct and indirect taxes are taken into account...yet unions want payrises above increments.

You show me where I signed up for the contract you talk about? Why should I suffer more in taxes to cover increases in your wage or to cover your pension?

Pensions are a disgrace in this country in general.
Private pensions are a mess. A combination of people not actually starting paying into them until it's too ate and more worryingly, exceptionally high maintenance charges on management of them and an absolute lack of proper investing of said funds. Indeed companies going bust appears to be a big issue as well.
State pensions then are another issue - no matter how much you "paid into" it, you'll pretty much get the same as the next guy out of it whether he has worked and been taxed the same as you or not.
Public sector pensions vary wildly however an untaxed lumpsum is just wrong in my opinion and some of this higher level pensions cost a fortune to fund and in no way link to what the person has "Put in". (Not so much at the lower levels mind)

As such I believe the whole area of pensions needs to be reformed in the state and a proper look needs to be taken at where the pensions of all citizens are "invested".

I don't believe that paycuts or whatever else you want to call them should be reinstated, or even start to be reinstated.
At this point the country is still in very poor shape.
If there is some spare money it needs to go to cutting tax in general in my opinion.

luckyboy

fliball123 wrote: »

They should be forced to pay for the full cost of their pension, the pension levy comes no where near to covering the short fall which falls upon the tax payer to cover ..a lot of whom cannot afford their own pension.

What part of we are broke and borrowing still and the unions are looking for payrises

At what point does it kick in that we are overtaxed when both direct and indirect taxes are taken into account...yet unions want payrises above increments.

You show me where I signed up for the contract you talk about? Why should I suffer more in taxes to cover increases in your wage or to cover your pension?

Two points:

1) The full cost of a pension cannot be predicted in advance. It can only be estimated. That means you can't force PS workers to pay the full cost of something that hasn't been worked out yet. For example, a childless and unmarried PS worker who retires at 65 and dies at 68 won't end up costing the State very much. In fact, such a person would have contributed far more into their pot than they ever get back out of it. Conversely, a married PS worker who lives to 100 and has a young spouse could cost a fortune. There is no one-size-fits-all rule. As life expectancy increases and as final salaries increase, DB schemes become more expensive to fund. Of that there is no question.

2) Your point about PS pensions being great value anyway regardless of the additional contributions required is not fair. A deal is a deal, and it is no less a deal for the fact that it is advantageous to one side or the other. If I agree to buy a house for €300k tomorrow, and then - before contracts are signed - you come back and say "Sorry, now I want €320k", am I supposed to smile and say "well, even at €320k, it's great value"? We'd call that a form of gazumping, which is basically bad form.

PS - The contract a post-95 (but pre-10) PS worker signed, on entering their job stated that a 6.5% pension contribution was required for a DB pension. The pension levy unilaterally ripped up this provision, which was certainly a breach of contract (from a legal perspective)

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

Yes, but did you not say they were now on the dole..

It must really catch in you throat to see a PS worker get a pension,

Fcuking shame on you to begrudge a man a decent pension after 40 years service.

Not really it catches my pocket having to pay more in taxation to cover the cost of it..

Shame on me? how dare you? you have no problem fleecing me in taxes to cover your pension when I cannot afford my own..Shame on you

chopper6

fliball123 wrote: »

Not really it catches my pocket having to pay more in taxation to cover the cost of it..

Shame on me? how dare you? you have no problem fleecing me in taxes to cover your pension when I cannot afford my own..Shame on you

But when you retire you'll be getting the old age pension despite having made no provision for your pension.

Part of the 62% or so I'm paying in contributions is to fund your old age when you havnt bothered your arse looking after it yourself.

fliball123

luckyboy wrote: »

Two points:

1) The full cost of a pension cannot be predicted in advance. It can only be estimated. That means you can't force PS workers to pay the full cost of something that hasn't been worked out yet. For example, a childless and unmarried PS worker who retires at 65 and dies at 68 won't end up costing the State very much. In fact, such a person would have contributed far more into their pot than they ever get back out of it. Conversely, a married PS worker who lives to 100 and has a young spouse could cost a fortune. There is no one-size-fits-all rule. As life expectancy increases and as final salaries increase, DB schemes become more expensive to fund. Of that there is no question.

2) Your point about PS pensions being great value anyway regardless of the additional contributions required is not fair. A deal is a deal, and it is no less a deal for the fact that it is advantageous to one side or the other. If I agree to buy a house for €300k tomorrow, and then - before contracts are signed - you come back and say "Sorry, now I want €320k", am I supposed to smile and say "well, even at €320k, it's great value"? We'd call that a form of gazumping, which is basically bad form.

PS - The contract a post-95 (but pre-10) PS worker signed, on entering their job stated that a 6.5% pension contribution was required for a DB pension. The pension levy unilaterally ripped up this provision, which was certainly a breach of contract (from a legal perspective)

yet there is no problem forcing the tax payer to cover it?

What can be done is the pension should be defined contribution with no input from the tax payer..and if the ps employee want to have no pension so be it they should at least have the OAP (which they currently do not get) Bring them back down on par with the private sector

Your point about the age is a bit redundant sure all stats show we are living longer hense the reason why the age for OAP has gone up and by the time I am due to get it, it could well surpass the age of 70.

Flippyfloppy

barneystinson wrote: »

Maybe you should have read the thread before commenting then?!

You haven't explained how you avoided the 2010 pay cuts by the way.

Really? And you really think I would impart with that personal information to you, and another bitter poster who have done nothing but twist my words and call 'bollix' since I made a fairly innocent comment here earlier.

You make me lolz.

fliball123

chopper6 wrote: »

But when you retire you'll be getting the old age pension despite having made no provision for your pension.

Part of the 62% or so I'm paying in contributions is to fund your old age when you havnt bothered your arse looking after it yourself.

Sorry I pay PRSI and if I keep working and paying that and I live to the age of 100 and get it at 68 I will have more than paid my PRSI for my OAP so no I dont take any of your 62% there now pal and what age will I be, the government has already increased the age and it will increase again in my lifetime.

not yet

fliball123 wrote: »

Not really it catches my pocket having to pay more in taxation to cover the cost of it..

Shame on me? how dare you? you have no problem fleecing me in taxes to cover your pension when I cannot afford my own..Shame on you

After 40 years service, and paying a combined 35% tax I will receive a pension. If I scratch My arse for 40 years I will still receive a pension.

The only difference is when I get my pension that I have contributed to I will not get a full state pension (means tested) Thus saving the state 10s of thousands over the years, which they can offset against my under contributing to my pension in the first place.

Quick question....

A man in the PS earns 35k a year, he retires after 40 years and gets 336 pension a week, do you begrudge him that.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

They are getting their pension, a pension by the way that they did not pay near enough to cover..so you will forgive me if I dont shed a tear on that one

Ok your biggest bugbear (this afternoon) seems to be with the pension. Lets talk about that.

Have you ever worked for a large organisation? If you have, public or private, you'll find that they tend to operate occupational pension schemes.

In most such schemes, the employer contribution matches or exceeds the employee's, that's how these schemes work.

So for you to say the workers haven't paid near enough for their pensions, may be factually correct, but is fairly irrelevant, since almost anyone anywhere in receipt of a pension from an occupational scheme, private or public, DC or DB won't be receiving an amount based solely on their own contributions.

I think at a minimum you need to refine that argument.

fliball123

not yet wrote: »

After 40 years service, and paying a combined 35% tax I will receive a pension. If I scratch My arse for 40 years I will still receive a pension.

The only difference is when I get my pension that I have contributed to I will not get a full state pension (means tested) Thus saving the state 10s of thousands over the years, which they can offset against my under contributing to my pension in the first place.

Quick question....

A man in the PS earns 35k a year, he retires after 40 years and gets 336 pension a week, do you begrudge him that.

What is the cost of your pension..I pay roughly the same around the 30% mark and I will recieve the OAP and I will have to work 50 years.

If your not getting anything extra off the state it means your getting a very good pension.

I may begrudge them it if I knew the answer to the following questions you need to ask yourself
How much would that pension cost in the private sector in real terms?
How much has the tax payer subsidised it?
How much of a lump sum do you get on top?
What age do you get to retire at?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry I pay PRSI and if I keep working and paying that and I live to the age of 100 and get it at 68 I will have more than paid my PRSI for my OAP so no I dont take any of your 62% there now pal and what age will I be, the government has already increased the age and it will increase again in my lifetime.

How can you say you'll have more than paid PRSI to cover your OAP? You don't know what the rate will be, you don't know what inflation there'll be between now and then, and you don't know what other benefits derived from your PRSI contributions you'll have drawn between now and then.

But even taking a very simplified example:

If you start work at 20, and work until 70, that's 50 years. Say you earned 45k throughout, and paid PRSI at 4%, that'd be 90k in PRSI.

If the OAP is 12k then that's 7.5 years' worth you've paid in.

Now, as I said that's very simplified but it's an illustration, you probably won't have paid enough PRSI to meet 32years' worth of pension for yourself.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Ok your biggest bugbear (this afternoon) seems to be with the pension. Lets talk about that.

Have you ever worked for a large organisation? If you have, public or private, you'll find that they tend to operate occupational pension schemes.

In most such schemes, the employer contribution matches or exceeds the employee's, that's how these schemes work.

So for you to say the workers haven't paid near enough for their pensions, may be factually correct, but is fairly irrelevant, since almost anyone anywhere in receipt of a pension from an occupational scheme, private or public, DC or DB won't be receiving an amount based solely on their own contributions.

I think at a minimum you need to refine that argument.

PS pensions are subsidised by tax payers there is no maybe, factually, ifs, buts or doubts about that. The point you miss is your employer is the state..guess where they get their money from?

Look at the amount of people in the private sector who cannot afford a pension?

nice_guy80

fliball123 wrote: »

PS pensions are subsidised by tax payers there is no maybe, factually, ifs, buts or doubts about that. The point you miss is your employer is the state..guess where they get their money from?

Look at the amount of people in the private sector who cannot afford a pension?

Mainly because their employers are too mean to help them with their pensions

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

PS pensions are subsidised by tax payers there is no maybe, factually, ifs, buts or doubts about that. The point you miss is your employer is the state..guess where they get their money from?

Look at the amount of people in the private sector who cannot afford a pension?

You seem to assume that a person in the public sector pays NOTHING for their pension and that the state pays for ALL of it - thats not in any way correct.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

How can you say you'll have more than paid PRSI to cover your OAP? You don't know what the rate will be, you don't know what inflation there'll be between now and then, and you don't know what other benefits derived from your PRSI contributions you'll have drawn between now and then.

But even taking a very simplified example:

If you start work at 20, and work until 70, that's 50 years. Say you earned 45k throughout, and paid PRSI at 4%, that'd be 90k in PRSI.

If the OAP is 12k then that's 7.5 years' worth you've paid in.

Now, as I said that's very simplified but it's an illustration, you probably won't have paid enough PRSI to meet 32years' worth of pension for yourself.

You also forget that your employer also pays PRSI on your behave? so how many more years is that?

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

PS pensions are subsidised by tax payers there is no maybe, factually, ifs, buts or doubts about that. The point you miss is your employer is the state..guess where they get their money from?

Look at the amount of people in the private sector who cannot afford a pension?

This has got nothing to do with those in the private sector who can't afford a pension, I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

The pension scheme is there, it's a legal entity, and it ain't going away.

What's actually relevant is the extent to which the employer (in this case the state) is funding the pension, and to what extent the employees are funding their own future pension benefits.

Borrowing from your insistence that the PRD is a contribution, I'd much rather if i could opt out and have an extra 15% or so in gross pay, and worry about my own pension provision. But unfortunately that's not an option.

fliball123

kippy wrote: »

You seem to assume that a person in the public sector pays NOTHING for their pension and that the state pays for ALL of it - thats not in any way correct.

i never said they pay nothing for it.. I said the full costs of public sector pensions is not meet by the payments being made by the ps workers even with the pensions levy to cover the cost of those pensions..The tax payer funds the rest

fliball123

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Mainly because their employers are too mean to help them with their pensions

maybe but if my employer was broke and borrowing i would be lucky to be getting a wage..let alone a pension

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

You also forget that your employer also pays PRSI on your behave? so how many more years is that?

Well now you can't have it both ways, I'm a class A PRSI contributor, same as you, and my employer is contributing towards
1) my OAP, which will form part of my PS pension,
2) the remainder of my PS pension.

Kinda defeating your own argument there.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

This has got nothing to do with those in the private sector who can't afford a pension, I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

The pension scheme is there, it's a legal entity, and it ain't going away.

What's actually relevant is the extent to which the employer (in this case the state) is funding the pension, and to what extent the employees are funding their own future pension benefits.

Borrowing from your insistence that the PRD is a contribution, I'd much rather if i could opt out and have an extra 15% or so in gross pay, and worry about my own pension provision. But unfortunately that's not an option.

I keep bringing it up because these people who cant afford their own pensions are being squeezed to cover 300k currently working and all of the ex workers pensions. Do you not see the moral hazard in that.

I would agree with you they should unilaterally change to a defined contribution scheme and let you guys pay as much or as little as you want.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

Well now you can't have it both ways, I'm a class A PRSI contributor, same as you, and my employer is contributing towards
1) my OAP, which will form part of my PS pension,
2) the remainder of my PS pension.

Kinda defeating your own argument there.

Yes but the difference here is if my employer was broke and borrowing I would be getting nothing no wage no prsi and even with your prsi payments, pension levy and what ever you put to it it still will not cover the cost of the pension.

The PS lads on here are gas you compare private with public when suits and then back away when it doesnt suit

If you want to compare..If my employer was broke and borrowing a 800 million this month to keep the lights on I would be told where to go for my pension and wage.

antoobrien

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course they are entitled to the full OAP, isn't everyone else with 40 years contributions?

Simple answer - no

Rightwing

fliball123 wrote: »

Yes but the difference here is if my employer was broke and borrowing I would be getting nothing no wage no prsi and even with your prsi payments, pension levy and what ever you put to it it still will not cover the cost of the pension.

The PS lads on here are gas you compare private with public when suits and then back away when it doesnt suit

If you want to compare..If my employer was broke and borrowing a 800 million this month to keep the lights on I would be told where to go for my pension and wage.

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

I keep bringing it up because these people who cant afford their own pensions are being squeezed to cover 300k currently working and all of the ex workers pensions. Do you not see the moral hazard in that.

I would agree with you they should unilaterally change to a defined contribution scheme and let you guys pay as much or as little as you want.

Moral hazard? I think you're just throwing jargon around now - you'll have to explain that one to me...

I'd have no problem with that proposal, as long as the employer's contribution is sufficient.

One scheme I'm familiar with is the CWPS operated by the construction industry, there the employer pays 60% of the contribution and the employee pays 40%.

Again, using your definition of a contribution, I'm contributing 15% so if my employer contributes 1.5times that, that'd be 22.5%, giving a total contribution of 37.5% of my gross.

Happy days.

fliball123

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

i dont know I think it will be a combo effect of screwing the new recruits and the tax payer.....

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, the public sector pensions are a disgrace. The state will ultimately not be able to pay them. I also believe the younger PS workers will lose out.

They already have been, with the move to a career average pension rather than final salary.