Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Did you get a Christmas bonus from your employer this year?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Higher rate of tax, PRSI & USC all combined would be about 51%, 49% of €7k isn't less than €3k
bla bla
add whatever you want, €7k will not be reduced to under €3k by income tax, PRSI and "what else is there"
Wow, that's a bit ballsy for someone who was so definite that max tax was 40%.
51% tax on €7k leaves you with €3,360. Granted, not less than €3k, but that's still closer to the right answer than what you gave.0 -
-
Higher rate of tax is 40%, what makes up the other 17% you claim to be paying on the €7k?Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »Wow, that's a bit ballsy for someone who was so definite that max tax was 40%.
51% tax on €7k leaves you with €3,360. Granted, not less than €3k, but that's still closer to the right answer than what you gave.
I think you are struggling with comprehension here
I never said the max tax was 40%, I said the higher rate of tax is 40%, which it is. I enquired what, in addition to that makes up the other 17% that someone alleged was the total tax they paid on a €7k bonus.
As I detailed, higher rate of tax, PRSI & USC doesn not come to 57%
I do hope this is clear for you, if not perhaps re read until it is 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The private sector got hit with a 7% tax called the pension levy?.......................
So, after about 7 years of public sector bashing and demanding that we share the pain, I expect the same people to be demanding we share the gain
Pension levy is a levy on the pension that public sector folk receive, private sector did not get hit with that levy as we sort our own pensions, now public sector folk are contributing to some of the cost of theirs
The people demanding that the public sector get any gain will be those who wanted benchmarking, supply and demand will rule as it should.0 -
Pension levy is a levy on the pension that public sector folk receive, private sector did not get hit with that levy as we sort our own pensions, now public sector folk are contributing to some of the cost of theirs
Ignoring the facts I posted?
You realise we pay for our pensions as well right? and that we do not, despite paying full prsi benefit from the old age pension? and that when you consider the 13% we pay each week and the loss of the age old pension its actually fully possible for anyone in the private sector to have the same if not better defined pension? How about the fact that payment into our pensions is compulsory even if we would be perfectly happy to just get out prsi covered old age pension?
and all pensions are based on the life expectancy of the person. If you lived to 100 your pension payments would not cover the cost of your pension.
Really? I am delighted to hear that, absolutely delighted. As a member of An Garda Siochana I am in more demand than ever so I fully expect my reductions to be paid back and a big fat raise.The people demanding that the public sector get any gain will be those who wanted benchmarking, supply and demand will rule as it should.
cheers mate, great Christmas present
0 -
I saw some waffle, not much fact. Some rubbish about the vast majority of private sector employees not having lost their jobs while ignoring the significant numbers who did.Ignoring the facts I posted?
I'm very well versed on taxation and benefits.You realise we pay for our pensions as well right?.....and that we do not, despite paying full prsi benefit from the old age pension? and that when you consider the 13% we pay each week and the loss of the age old pension its actually fully possible for anyone in the private sector to have the same if not better defined pension?
Very difficult for private sector workers to get a defined pension, shop around and you'll see that
Ye might be happy but the state needs to get their ducks semi in a row for when most of ye (AGS) retire well before the normal retirement ageHow about the fact that payment into our pensions is compulsory even if we would be perfectly happy to just get out prsi covered old age pension?
.... for everyone who lives to 100 there are tens who don't so that's not an overly significant point.....and all pensions are based on the life expectancy of the person. If you lived to 100 your pension payments would not cover the cost of your pension.I am delighted to hear that, absolutely delighted. As a member of An Garda Siochana I am in more demand than ever so I fully expect my reductions to be paid back and a big fat raise.
.........
As you become more in demand they'll take in more recruits rather than a payrise I expect and hope. If they struggle to attract suitable recruits they'll have to increase the remuneration
Unless lots of your colleagues feck off to Oz after being inspired by the latest TV programme there won't be much of a shortage I reckon. Ye are sort of caught by the balls as your employer knows your options are a tad limited, that's one of the cons of a job for life.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Not much fact? The CSO isnt considered fact now? That over 90% of the private sector instead of losing their jobs actually got raises while I got a 20% cut despite still being in hugh demand. You said it yourself, supply and demand. If you were in demand the pay would reflect it but when its the public sector you backtrackI saw some waffle, not much fact. Some rubbish about the vast majority of private sector employees not having lost their jobs while ignoring the significant numbers who did.
So you accept my point? that I cover my pension costs?I'm very well versed on taxation and benefits.
Its exactly what I had before I changed jobs, its still sitting at the exact same amount it was 15 years ago, cause its defined however whats difficult to get it irelevent, the fact is they can be obtained but most choose to take the riskier but better % option, again not my fault or problem. You make your choices, I make mineVery difficult for private sector workers to get a defined pension, shop around and you'll see that
So again you accept that the system in place is suited to the bean counters? that AGS pensions are set in a manner to ensure we are able to retire at 55 and not cost the state additional money? You also realise that you could retire at 55 as well if you made sufficient pension payments right? If you chose to pay enough, you could retire at 45.Ye might be happy but the state needs to get their ducks semi in a row for when most of ye (AGS) retire well before the normal retirement age
Exactly, for every Garda that goes beyond the expected age theres dozens that dont and never recoup even a portion of what they paid into the pension scheme if anything at all in some cases..... for everyone who lives to 100 there are tens who don't so that's not an overly significant pointAs you become more in demand they'll take in more recruits rather than a payrise I expect and hope. If they struggle to attract suitable recruits they'll have to increase the remuneration
Unless lots of your colleagues feck off to Oz after being inspired by the latest TV programme there won't be much of a shortage I reckon. Ye are sort of caught by the balls as your employer knows your options are a tad limited, that's one of the cons of a job for life.
Not much of a shortage? To match international standards AGS would need to increase the numbers by an additional 8000 people and thats just to match international best practice in numbers. For the level of crime they would need even more. It also flies in the fact of your earlier aguement concerning supply and demand.Ye are sort of caught by the balls as your employer knows your options are a tad limited, that's one of the cons of a job for life.
Tis indeed and fully accepted on joining up just like the job security and pay was agreed when I joined up but people still complain about it as if they too werent aware of the pro and cons.
When all is said and done, we all looked around and made career choices. I chose AGS, my brother as an example became a sparks. During the tiger he was laughing his ass off at how much I was making compared to him despite working Christmas day when he had a week off.
Then things changed and he started bitching about my job security as if it was a new thing when he got let go. All while claiming the welfare that I pay into despite never needing. Now hes working again and guess what? hes making more than me again.
Its the same with teachers, like none of us knew they got the summer off? We did and we chose not to go into that career. Many didnt because thete was more money in the private sector, I was too thick
Even in this thread its evident, plenty of people getting bonuses, some very tasty bonuses. Do you see the public sector demanding that bonuses be abolished? Aspire to join those above you, not drag them down I say.0 -
Not much fact? The CSO isnt considered fact now? That over 90% of the private sector instead of losing their jobs actually got raises while I got a 20% cut despite still being in hugh demand. You said it yourself, supply and demand. If you were in demand the pay would reflect it but when its the public sector you backtrack
You seem to make little of the 10% of the private sector who lost their jobs, got reduced hours etc. Easy to look at CSO figures during a recovery and proclaim 90% have gotten raises.
You covering your pension costs is part of the 20% "cut" you are bladdering on about.So you accept my point? that I cover my pension costs?
Not many companies offer a defined benefit pension, very rare. People chose a job not the pension for the most part. Just because you had one does not mean they are available to all.Its exactly what I had before I changed jobs, its still sitting at the exact same amount it was 15 years ago, cause its defined however whats difficult to get it irelevent, the fact is they can be obtained but most choose to take the riskier but better % option, again not my fault or problem. You make your choices, I make mine
Regarding the piece not in bold, as I said "but the state needs to get their ducks semi in a row for when most of ye (AGS) retire well before the normal retirement age", you can paraphrase as you like and than ask do I agree, should you misinterpret I will point that out.So again you accept that the system in place is suited to the bean counters? that AGS pensions are set in a manner to ensure we are able to retire at 55 and not cost the state additional money? You also realise that you could retire at 55 as well if you made sufficient pension payments right? If you chose to pay enough, you could retire at 45.
The the piece in bold, one must be mindful that relief for pension contributions is subject to two main controls, there is an age-related percentage of the individual’s remuneration that it's not prudent to exceed. Very few people earn enough to allow them to sufficiently fund their pension to retire at 45. Mortgages, kids etc along with day to day expenditure make this impossible for most. As I'm sure you know
Not much of a shortage? To match international standards AGS would need to increase the numbers by an additional 8000 people and thats just to match international best practice in numbers. For the level of crime they would need even more. It also flies in the fact of your earlier aguement concerning supply and demand.
You seem to think because there is a shortage of AGS that you should be paid more. As I alluded to earlier they'll recruit more when they can as a priority over reversing the 20% "cut". If they can't attract suitable people due to the wages not being competitive they will increase them a tad.
If I was you I wouldn't be expecting to see the 20% reversed for decades.
They know with relative certainty you won't be going anywhere jobwise, so from a supply point of view you are pencilled in so to speak, no need to throw a better package at you, you aren't going anyway. So in your specific case there is no supply problem. Demand and supply match
8000 additional AGS being required isn't an argument for you getting more cash, mainly as there is minimal risk of you leaving your job.
Nurses will get a raise quicker than AGS I expect as they are more inclined to leave.0 -
You seem to make little of the 10% of the private sector who lost their jobs, got reduced hours etc. Easy to look at CSO figures during a recovery and proclaim 90% have gotten raises.
You know the old saying? if you have to lie to win an arguement, you have already lost. the CSo figures are for 2007 - 2010, plenty of raises in those times. 10% lost their jobs, thats sad of course and I hope they bounce back but you seem to think I should care about them when you dont give a **** about the public sector. Sharing the pain is a two way street. Share the pain, share the gain.You covering your pension costs is part of the 20% "cut" you are bladdering on about.
Of course, do you have even one iota of how a defined pension works? 20% pay cut means a 20% pension cut.Not many companies offer a defined benefit pension, very rare. People chose a job not the pension for the most part. Just because you had one does not mean they are available to all.
I have to laugh at that one, I really do. You can only get a pension if your company offers one? Plenty, plenty of pension companies out there that will offer you a defined pension if you bothered you arse to pick up the phone and shop around.You seem to believe that I am to blame for you or others short sightedness. If you didnt weigh up your options properly why should I be punished? Like I said, aspire up, dont drag down. Oh but its only when the public sector is up that we should be equal isnt that right?
Indeed I do but again, its entirely possible. We all make choices be it career, family, home to buy. You live by your choices, I live by mine (are you paying 13% a week towards a pension by the way? If you are its because you left it late)The the piece in bold, one must be mindful that relief for pension contributions is subject to two main controls, there is an age-related percentage of the individual’s remuneration that it's not prudent to exceed. Very few people earn enough to allow them to sufficiently fund their pension to retire at 45. Mortgages, kids etc along with day to day expenditure make this impossible for most. As I'm sure you knowYou seem to think because there is a shortage of AGS that you should be paid more. As I alluded to earlier they'll recruit more when they can as a priority over reversing the 20% "cut". If they can't attract suitable people due to the wages not being competitive they will increase them a tad.
If I was you I wouldn't be expecting to see the 20% reversed for decades.
They know with relative certainty you won't be going anywhere jobwise, so from a supply point of view you are pencilled in so to speak, no need to throw a better package at you, you aren't going anyway. So in your specific case there is no supply problem. Demand and supply match
8000 additional AGS being required isn't an argument for you getting more cash, mainly as there is minimal risk of you leaving your job.
Nurses will get a raise quicker than AGS I expect as they are more inclined to leave.
and again I repeat, we all make our choices. I could of course leave AGS, be it abroad or to my former career, etc which all got bonuses and were actually busier as a result of the financial downturn. But we all have choices and I made mine, I dont begrudge my ex-colleagues.
You like so many others are selfish, you begrudge what others have and want it removed but are loath to share or lose your own advantages.
That will eat you up, I suggest you join AGS for the great pension and starting salary of 26,000 per annum but accept the terrible shifts and physical and mental hardship such a career brings.
Or become a teacher for the summer off but suffer the grief of teenagers and their parents
Or become a fireman so you can sleep during a night shift but suffer the dangers of their jobs and working Christmas.
Or stay in the private sector where the Christmas bonuses are good, the holidays set and the raises steady but the job security not guaranteed.
Choices0 -
You know the old saying? if you have to lie to win an arguement, you have already lost. the CSo figures are for 2007 - 2010, plenty of raises in those times. 10% lost their jobs, thats sad of course and I hope they bounce back but you seem to think I should care about them when you dont give a **** about the public sector. Sharing the pain is a two way street. Share the pain, share the gain.
90% got payrises in that period, I think not which makes you the liar.
Sticking to the point the piece in bold is key, I tip my hat to you.Of course, do you have even one iota of how a defined pension works? 20% pay cut means a 20% pension cut.I have to laugh at that one, I really do. You can only get a pension if your company offers one? Plenty, plenty of pension companies out there that will offer you a defined pension if you bothered you arse to pick up the phone and shop around.You seem to believe that I am to blame for you or others short sightedness. If you didnt weigh up your options properly why should I be punished? Like I said, aspire up, dont drag down. Oh but its only when the public sector is up that we should be equal isnt that right?
You aspire to be a tad patronising but your dissatisfaction with your package in general is holding you back. I'm delighted with my executive pension plan, it's fantastic. You won't get a decent deal from anyone on a defined pension plan that is self funded. They are a rip off, the only defined benefit plans worth having are from companies like J&J and they are now not giving them to new employees.Indeed I do but again, its entirely possible. We all make choices be it career, family, home to buy. You live by your choices, I live by mine (are you paying 13% a week towards a pension by the way? If you are its because you left it late)
I'm paying quite a bit more, but the reason is to get a nice lump sum asap when I "retire".
You cannot assume anyone paying over 13% a week into their pension is doing so as they left it late. That's being small minded, petty & jealous, you should aspire to be in a position where you can afford to do the same. It makes huge sense from a tax point of view when the cash isn't required as take home.
You're a tad hypocritical actually, don't begrudge me because I can afford to put more than 13% into my executive pension plan that isn't defined benefit by the way.
You like so many others are selfish, you begrudge what others have and want it removed but are loath to share or lose your own advantages.................
I'm not at all selfish old boy. If you go back and look at the initial comment that drew your attention it was quite factual You are bladdering on about how you should be sharing in payrises etc like the private sector now, I guarantee you were against all of the measures forced on you during the recession, like I said
Regarding your last speel of "advice" I was self employed during the recession and will continue on being so during better times I thrive on the "uncertainty" you speak of. Choices indeed. BTW none of your "Christmas bonuses are good, the holidays set and the raises steady" rubbish applies to me being self employed but cheers for the presumption fueled bile
From your posts there's only one of us being eaten up kid 0 -
Advertisement
-
........... You also realise that you could retire at 55 as well if you made sufficient pension payments right? If you chose to pay enough, you could retire at 45.
.....................................
........... I live by mine (are you paying 13% a week towards a pension by the way? If you are its because you left it late)
............
I must say these posts are a tad puzzling. Anyone who retires early on the back of their pension would have paid more than 13% of their salaries into it for the mostpart, but in your book if you do so it is because "you left it late"
You really are waffling, great to see 0 -
-
-
90% got payrises in that period, I think not which makes you the liar..............When did I say that? Quote me or accept you have lied...........
lol, get off the high horse, your claiming to be a member of AGS and this is an internet forum, you're not the Judge in the High Court :pac:
Who the feck do you think you are
Just to clarify, you demand me to answer your tripe but claim you won't answer my posts.
We aren't on the side of the road with you demanding my driver's license here kid, don't forget that
The posts are below for all to see.............Not much fact? The CSO isnt considered fact now? That over 90% of the private sector instead of losing their jobs actually got raises while I got a 20% cut despite still being in hugh demand. ................
You claimed 90% got raises.......... Easy to look at CSO figures during a recovery and proclaim 90% have gotten raises............
I replied saying it's easy to say that now as we are in recovery, obviously disputing the fact that 90% got raises during the recessionYou know the old saying? if you have to lie to win an arguement, you have already lost. the CSo figures are for 2007 - 2010, plenty of raises in those times. .................
You than said that speel above.
If you want to redeem yourself please so correct any of your posts that are incorrect.
By doing so you will be than agreeing with me when I stated that "Easy to look at CSO figures during a recovery and proclaim 90% have gotten raises." which you disagreed with when I said it.
Your in a bit of a spot now, babbled too much. A bit like the 13% pension contribution where you seemed to have opposing views.0 -
Lollipops23 wrote: ȣ500 voucher for Amazon - hello new iPad.
Always liked getting vouchers, i was more inclined to buy some i actually wanted with them!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »..........
Last year I got a bonus in the form of vouchers (to avoid half of the cash value being pissed away on tax) and if I remember correctly it may have been a New Year's bonus rather than Christmas one, so hopefully they are still to come! ....
You might well be right as if the last one was in 2015 and they gave you another in the same year than income tax would have to be applied 0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement