Border Poll discussion

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, it doesn't. It has nothing to do with this point. Not a single person will lose pension rights, the issue is who pays for them.

Under the old Scheme, Harris could have transferred his service from the PSNI into the Gardai under certain circumstances (I would need to know a lot more about his personal circumstances to be able to tell). However, given his date of recruitment, he is a member of the Single Pension Scheme, and there is currently no provision for the purchase of service or transfer of service in that scheme. It is something that D/PER should fix.

Looking at this (from NI Policing Board) it would seem that the employer makes a 25.1% contribution while the employee makes a contribution between about 11 and 15% depending on year they joined (1988 or 2006 Scheme).



https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/sites/nipb/files/media-files/DOJ%20circular.pdf


What happens to the Employer's 25.1% contribution?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

With Brexit, the party that wants something (the UK) has to pay a price. Would it be any different for the party that wants something (Ireland) having to pay in the case of unity?

Of course there will be costs, who has denied that? Partition has failed as well as the state it has created has failed.
And can you say, with hand on heart that a British government that was willing to throw unionism under the bus re; Brexit, won't be willing to absorb a cost too, to finally solve the 'Irish' problem for them?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

With Brexit, the party that wants something (the UK) has to pay a price. Would it be any different for the party that wants something (Ireland) having to pay in the case of unity?

Its far more likely that the British people would be delighted to offload NI (and its 10 billion subisidy every year).

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Remember that approx one million people in this new welcoming state will still see their roots, history and culture in what you refer to as the nefarious British State

When I refer to the British state I'm referring to its blood-soaked history in Ireland. I'd like to think Unionist 'roots history and culture' has a bit more depth than celebrating British colonialism.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Looking at this (from NI Policing Board) it would seem that the employer makes a 25.1% contribution while the employee makes a contribution between about 11 and 15% depending on year they joined (1988 or 2006 Scheme).



https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/sites/nipb/files/media-files/DOJ%20circular.pdf


What happens to the Employer's 25.1% contribution?

Which scheme are you asking about?

The 1988, 2006 or 2015 one? Each will have different arrangements for contributions, benefits and funding.

https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/police-pensions

The critical document is this one:

https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-departments/finance-and-support-services/documents/pension-report-2016-17.pdf

"All Schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Funding

"In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers' contributions and taxes. This method of financing is known as pay-as-you-go."

Essentially then, on the day of unity, as other legal obligations transfer to the new State, the transfer of the liability to fund future pension payments to members of the PSNI will transfer to the new State unless something else is agreed. Given that the pensions are currently funded by way of current contributions plus subvention as in the South, why should it be any different?

Interestingly, the pension contribution paid by employees is 11%, as opposed to 6.5% in the South. How should this change with unity? Is it fair that public servants in the South should pay a charge of 5% on their pensions? Or should members of the PSNI get a benefit of a cut of 5% in pension contributions with the shortfall made up by the Irish taxpayer?

Harmonisation costs money for someone. It either costs the taxpayer or the recpient of the benefit. This is not understood widely yet, but is likely to become the big issue in any referendum.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

When I refer to the British state I'm referring to its blood-soaked history in Ireland. I'd like to think Unionist 'roots history and culture' has a bit more depth than celebrating British colonialism.

That is a very one-sided view. The British brought many good things to Ireland. Most of us have some element of British ancestry in our family for a start.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course there will be costs, who has denied that? Partition has failed as well as the state it has created has failed.
And can you say, with hand on heart that a British government that was willing to throw unionism under the bus re; Brexit, won't be willing to absorb a cost too, to finally solve the 'Irish' problem for them?

I look at the history of the discussions on Brexit and I think you have got this one completely wrong.

The EU proposed a Northern Ireland-only backstop. It was the UK who pushed for a UK-wide backstop in order to keep the integrity of the UK intact. You may well believe that this was only at the behest of the DUP, but the facts are that the UK did not throw unionism under the bus.

volchitsa

blanch152 wrote: »

I look at the history of the discussions on Brexit and I think you have got this one completely wrong.

The EU proposed a Northern Ireland-only backstop. It was the UK who pushed for a UK-wide backstop in order to keep the integrity of the UK intact. You may well believe that this was only at the behest of the DUP, but the facts are that the UK did not throw unionism under the bus.

That's only for as long as the Tory Party need the DUP in Westminster. It would be foolish to see any higher loyalty than that in it.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Which scheme are you asking about?

The 1988, 2006 or 2015 one? Each will have different arrangements for contributions, benefits and funding.

https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/police-pensions

The critical document is this one:

https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-departments/finance-and-support-services/documents/pension-report-2016-17.pdf

"All Schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Funding

"In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers' contributions and taxes. This method of financing is known as pay-as-you-go."

Essentially then, on the day of unity, as other legal obligations transfer to the new State, the transfer of the liability to fund future pension payments to members of the PSNI will transfer to the new State unless something else is agreed. Given that the pensions are currently funded by way of current contributions plus subvention as in the South, why should it be any different?

Interestingly, the pension contribution paid by employees is 11%, as opposed to 6.5% in the South. How should this change with unity? Is it fair that public servants in the South should pay a charge of 5% on their pensions? Or should members of the PSNI get a benefit of a cut of 5% in pension contributions with the shortfall made up by the Irish taxpayer?

Harmonisation costs money for someone. It either costs the taxpayer or the recpient of the benefit. This is not understood widely yet, but is likely to become the big issue in any referendum.

The same system applied in the EU/UK brexit negotiation and the UK is accepting its liability for pensions even though it was Pay-as-you-go. And in fact, they are continuing on the Pay-As-You-Go system (it will be a pittance to the British Government in the scheme of things). I think you misunderstand the Pay-As-You-Go system - one thing it doesn't mean is that you forget what you have already agreed to (which in this case is 25.1% of pension contributions for each year served).



As for the harmonisation - that can be done over time.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I look at the history of the discussions on Brexit and I think you have got this one completely wrong.

The EU proposed a Northern Ireland-only backstop. It was the UK who pushed for a UK-wide backstop in order to keep the integrity of the UK intact. You may well believe that this was only at the behest of the DUP, but the facts are that the UK did not throw unionism under the bus.

May had agreed to it without even discussing it with DUP who when they got wind of it, blocked it.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

The same system applied in the EU/UK brexit negotiation and the UK is accepting its liability for pensions even though it was Pay-as-you-go. And in fact, they are continuing on the Pay-As-You-Go system (it will be a pittance to the British Government in the scheme of things). I think you misunderstand the Pay-As-You-Go system - one thing it doesn't mean is that you forget what you have already agreed to (which in this case is 25.1% of pension contributions for each year served).



As for the harmonisation - that can be done over time.

The liabilities of the PSNI pension schemes are around €8bn, hardly a pittance.

I don't misunderstand the pay-as-you-go system, I understand it fully. There is no fund, there is only liability. The current employer and current employees pay for the pensions of past employees. Post-Unity, the current employer will be the new Irish State.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Which scheme are you asking about?

The 1988, 2006 or 2015 one? Each will have different arrangements for contributions, benefits and funding.

https://www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/police-pensions

The critical document is this one:

https://www.psni.police.uk/globalassets/inside-the-psni/our-departments/finance-and-support-services/documents/pension-report-2016-17.pdf

"All Schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Funding

"In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers' contributions and taxes. This method of financing is known as pay-as-you-go."

Essentially then, on the day of unity, as other legal obligations transfer to the new State, the transfer of the liability to fund future pension payments to members of the PSNI will transfer to the new State unless something else is agreed. Given that the pensions are currently funded by way of current contributions plus subvention as in the South, why should it be any different?

Where is this written down? Can you link to anything other than your opinion?
Seems to me you are doing a bit of 'magic money tree' thinking here yourself. These pension payments are not magicked up from nowhere. They are paid because the employee gives benefit in kind to the state by working for it. Ireland has received no benefit, why would it be responsible for the pensions?

blanch152 wrote: »

I look at the history of the discussions on Brexit and I think you have got this one completely wrong.

The EU proposed a Northern Ireland-only backstop. It was the UK who pushed for a UK-wide backstop in order to keep the integrity of the UK intact. You may well believe that this was only at the behest of the DUP, but the facts are that the UK did not throw unionism under the bus.

Have you conveniently forgotten that May was ready to sign a deal before the DUP pulled a strop?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a very one-sided view. The British brought many good things to Ireland. Most of us have some element of British ancestry in our family for a start.

Those who have British ancestry benefited at a cost to the indigenous people of Ireland.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

The liabilities of the PSNI pension schemes are around €8bn, hardly a pittance.

I don't misunderstand the pay-as-you-go system, I understand it fully. There is no fund, there is only liability. The current employer and current employees pay for the pensions of past employees. Post-Unity, the current employer will be the new Irish State.

The current employer (British Gov) has agreed to contribute 25.1% to each person's pension fund per year they are employed by them. How can they offload that legal responsibility to their employees?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is this written down? Can you link to anything other than your opinion?
Seems to me you are doing a bit of 'magic money tree' thinking here yourself. These pension payments are not magicked up from nowhere. They are paid because the employee gives benefit in kind to the state by working for it. Ireland has received no benefit, why would it be responsible for the pensions?



Have you conveniently forgotten that May was ready to sign a deal before the DUP pulled a strop?

I have provided several links to show that the current pensions schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes. That means the current employer (the Irish state post-unity) pays for the pensions. This is actually one of the simpler aspects of the unification issue.

I haven't seen a single link from any poster refuting what I have said. In fact, the only link posted - from jm08 in relation to current contributions - only bolstered my argument.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Those who have British ancestry benefited at a cost to the indigenous people of Ireland.

I don't think there is a single person on this island who doesn't have British ancestry except possibly members of the Travelling Community or those on islands.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I have provided several links to show that the current pensions schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes. That means the current employer (the Irish state post-unity) pays for the pensions. This is actually one of the simpler aspects of the unification issue.

I haven't seen a single link from any poster refuting what I have said. In fact, the only link posted - from jm08 in relation to current contributions - only bolstered my argument.

Explain why the UK agreed to accept their share of EU pensions liabilities? It is a similar situation.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think there is a single person on this island who doesn't have British ancestry except possibly members of the Travelling Community or those on islands.

Thats nonsense.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

The current employer (British Gov) has agreed to contribute 25.1% to each person's pension fund per year they are employed by them. How can they offload that legal responsibility to their employees?

Where do you get the reference to the current employer paying 25.1% to each person's pension fund? That would mean that they are operating a funded defined contribution pension scheme, which is simply untrue.

The PSNI pension scheme is an unfunded defined benefit scheme and I have provided links to firstly show that, and secondly what an unfunded defined benefit scheme means. In the context of the PSNI that means that the current employer pays 25.1% of the salary of current employees towards the cost of current pensions being paid. Similarly, the current employees make a payment towards the cost of current pensions being paid. Future pensions and future years of current pensions will be paid by future contributions from employers and employees. Therefore, when the new Irish State takes over, they will be contributing to the payment of whoever is then a pensioner. Furthermore, if the employer contribution falls short, the taxpayer makes up any difference.

All of this has been explained with links.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have provided several links to show that the current pensions schemes are unfunded defined benefit schemes. That means the current employer (the Irish state post-unity) pays for the pensions. This is actually one of the simpler aspects of the unification issue.

I haven't seen a single link from any poster refuting what I have said. In fact, the only link posted - from jm08 in relation to current contributions - only bolstered my argument.

All you have done is post what the current arrangements are, you have posted no link to support your theory that pensions commitments would pass to a new state - none whatsoever.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

The British brought many good things to Ireland.

Nothing justifies their colonial abuses. Much of the good you'd refer to was only brought to subjugate and extract resources and labour.

Most of us have some element of British ancestry in our family for a start.

So?

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Thats nonsense.

https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity

"Today, people living the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country share many DNA traits with the Irish. However, the Irish also share their DNA to a large extent with the people of Britain, especially the Scottish and Welsh."

"However, more recent studies confirm that when a complex picture is taken of Irish DNA, including both male and female lines of descent, the closest similarities are between the Irish and people living in Western Britain."

One of the biggest arguments against nationalism as an ideology is that there really is no national identity any more.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All you have done is post what the current arrangements are, you have posted no link to support your theory that pensions commitments would pass to a new state - none whatsoever.

I have explained that the current system provides that current pensions are paid by current contributions. Nobody has paid for future pensions.

There are two ways in which this could change. Firstly, they could move to a defined contribution system (which the employees would refuse so that won't happen). Secondly, the UK could agree to pay for these pensions on into the future. Given that some people expect the UK to keep paying €11bn a year, why would they add the cost of pensions onto that.

It is fantasy to suggest that the UK would actually increase the subsidy after unity.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Where do you get the reference to the current employer paying 25.1% to each person's pension fund? That would mean that they are operating a funded defined contribution pension scheme, which is simply untrue.

From the circular I linked from the NI Policing Board.



“This is to inform you there will be no increase in the contribution rate to your pension for the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019. The contribution rate will depend on which scheme you are in (1988 scheme or 2006 scheme), and on your basic annual salary. This is set out in the table below.


Your employer will pay an increased rate of 25.1% on your behalf.”

The PSNI pension scheme is an unfunded defined benefit scheme and I have provided links to firstly show that, and secondly what an unfunded defined benefit scheme means. In the context of the PSNI that means that the current employer pays 25.1% of the salary of current employees towards the cost of current pensions being paid. Similarly, the current employees make a payment towards the cost of current pensions being paid. Future pensions and future years of current pensions will be paid by future contributions from employers and employees. Therefore, when the new Irish State takes over, they will be contributing to the payment of whoever is then a pensioner. Furthermore, if the employer contribution falls short, the taxpayer makes up any difference.

All of this has been explained with links.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. The difference is that if that was a Private Company, they would have to put the 25.1% in a separate account for their employee. Since its a British Government undertaking, they don't have to hand the cash over to a separate pension trust.

Avatar MIA

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All you have done is post what the current arrangements are, you have posted no link to support your theory that pensions commitments would pass to a new state - none whatsoever.

Don't let him side track you. My father worked in London for a few years in the early 60's and to this day, despite being back in the ROI for over 50 years, still gets a UK pension every month.

volchitsa

blanch152 wrote: »

https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity

"Today, people living the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country share many DNA traits with the Irish. However, the Irish also share their DNA to a large extent with the people of Britain, especially the Scottish and Welsh."

"However, more recent studies confirm that when a complex picture is taken of Irish DNA, including both male and female lines of descent, the closest similarities are between the Irish and people living in Western Britain."

One of the biggest arguments against nationalism as an ideology is that there really is no national identity any more.

That doesn't prove that the Irish have British ancestry though. It's just as likely that there is a common Celtic ancestry between the Welsh and the Irish, or even that the Irish colonised parts of western Britain (the Scottish Highlands for instance.)

Avatar MIA

volchitsa wrote: »

That doesn't prove that the Irish have British ancestry though. It's just as likely that there is a common Celtic ancestry between the Welsh and the Irish, or even that the Irish colonised parts of western Britain (the Scottish Highlands for instance.)

What with the Irish having invaded Scotland and Scotland being named after an Irish tribe, the scotti.

With that said I think there will be a lot of mixed DNA, but that's totally irrelevant to desiring an all island nation.

FrancieBrady

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Don't let him side track you. My father worked in London for a few years in the early 60's and to this day, despite being back in the ROI for over 50 years, still gets a UK pension every month.

I am just looking for a link...not a explanation of pension schemes. He doesn't seem to have anything of substance to back up his assertion that a new state would have to pay the pensions of former employees of agencies that no longer exist.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

https://owlcation.com/stem/Irish-Blood-Genetic-Identity

"Today, people living the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country share many DNA traits with the Irish. However, the Irish also share their DNA to a large extent with the people of Britain, especially the Scottish and Welsh."

"However, more recent studies confirm that when a complex picture is taken of Irish DNA, including both male and female lines of descent, the closest similarities are between the Irish and people living in Western Britain."

One of the biggest arguments against nationalism as an ideology is that there really is no national identity any more.

Ah here now. I was thinking more in the last 600 or 700 years, not a couple of 1000 years ago! And while we may have common D&A with the Welsh and Scots (Celts), I don't think we shared much D&N with the Anglo-Saxons.

Avatar MIA

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am just looking for a link...not a explanation of pension schemes. He doesn't seem to have anything of substance to back up his assertion that a new state would have to pay the pensions of former employees of agencies that no longer exist.

The only thing he has is an agenda. That's a powerful motivator, best answered with 'Yes Dear'.