Public service pay cut?

JimmyVik

Geuze wrote: »

Note that those on top of scale at 64k still get qual allowances, as well.

How many years would they have to be working to be at the top of the scale?

Geuze

JimmyVik wrote: »

How many years would they have to be working to be at the top of the scale?

Teaching scale is very long.

25?

Have a look yourself:

www.asti.ie

www.tui.ie

mikhail

Why the hell are generous pension agreements from 25 years ago a matter of discussion? Would you like to try stripping it from those people? Or is this something that was fixed 25 years ago, but continues to be used as a stick to beat a sector where the new entries are not paid - and will never be paid -remotely as well?

SouthWesterly

mikhail wrote: »

Why the hell are generous pension agreements from 25 years ago a matter of discussion? Would you like to try stripping it from those people? Or is this something that was fixed 25 years ago, but continues to be used as a stick to beat a sector where the new entries are not paid - and will never be paid -remotely as well?

This is boards. Never let fact get in the way of drama.

EndaHonesty

GooglePlus wrote: »

Most aren't paid enough.

Many are paid too much.

Treppen

salonfire wrote: »

Is that an answer to my question?

Last time we 'controlled our spending' consisted of cuts to public sector (which are still in play BTW). So how did it work out last time, seeing as you are promoting it again.

Were the cuts not enough, enough, too much?

JimmyVik

Geuze wrote: »

Teaching scale is very long.

25?

Have a look yourself:

www.asti.ie

www.tui.ie

Fcuk. Thats a long time to be waiting for your salary to rise to that level.
Glad I never did that.

Hotblack Desiato

The pay cuts, casualisation / part-time posts often for several years, and career average pensions are all going to add up to hit younger teachers very hard indeed when they come to retire (and more than any other cohort of public servants)

It's not a job I'd do, and it's certainly a job I'd recommend my kids steer well clear of. They used to say the pension was the reward, well now even that's not there anymore.

daithi7

daithi7 wrote: »

Everything is an exception in the Irish Public Service.

The pay is exceptional. The pensions are truly exceptional. Conditions are exceptional. Their unions are exceptional. And any politician or minister looking to control public sector pay is very exceptional.

And finally, their performance is , well, exceptionally average.... probably below average tbh.

the inability of people who wish to criticise it to engage in anything but simplistic and incorrect sloganeering is extraordinary

daithi7

mikhail wrote: »

Why the hell are generous pension agreements from 25 years ago a matter of discussion? Would you like to try stripping it from those people? Or is this something that was fixed 25 years ago, but continues to be used as a stick to beat a sector where the new entries are not paid - and will never be paid -remotely as well?

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

EndaHonesty

daithi7 wrote: »

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

The generous pension is one thing, the tax free lump sum is the one that really annoys me. They should get rid of that element.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-in-five-retiring-civil-servants-paid-lump-sums-of-over-100-000-1.2814075

barneystinson

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The generous pension is one thing, the tax free lump sum is the one that really annoys me. They should get rid of that element.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-in-five-retiring-civil-servants-paid-lump-sums-of-over-100-000-1.2814075

You do realise that's not a civil service thing, that's a pensions thing generally? So whatever you do to the public sector on that front will apply equally to private sector people who pay into a private or occupational scheme.

https://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/lifecycle/tax/tax_on_lump_sums_at_retirement/

daithi7

daithi7 wrote: »

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

you couldnt cost the inputs, outputs or calculations for post 2014 pension if i stood over you correcting you

suffice to say that any figure you even attempt to fling out to back your statements has either been repudiated easily or could be repudiated easily by any one of ten posters here

keep reading dan o brien. im sure you get what you want out of that

EndaHonesty

barneystinson wrote: »

You do realise that's not a civil service thing, that's a pensions thing generally? So whatever you do to the public sector on that front will apply equally to private sector people who pay into a private or occupational scheme.

https://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/lifecycle/tax/tax_on_lump_sums_at_retirement/

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so really it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is really a lottery payout for each recipient and totally unwarranted.

JimmyVik

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The generous pension is one thing, the tax free lump sum is the one that really annoys me. They should get rid of that element.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/one-in-five-retiring-civil-servants-paid-lump-sums-of-over-100-000-1.2814075

Jesus, dont get rid of tax free lump sums.
Without mine I wont be able to retire.
Ive been counting on that since about 20 years ago now.

EndaHonesty

JimmyVik wrote: »

Jesus, dont get rid of tax free lump sums.
Without mine I wont be able to retire.
Ive been counting on that since about 20 years ago now.

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is an extra, bonus payment, on top of an already generous annual pension. It's completely unwarranted.

EndaHonesty

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so really it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is really a lottery payout for each recipient and totally unwarranted.

its part of the terms and conditions of the scheme, contributions taken out of salary every pay packet over forty years

maxed out at 1.5 final multiplier salary figure, like any other

lottery win talk is absolutely nonsensical

any assertion that taxpayers fund it on any extraordinary basis versus any other pension scheme/shareholders or etc is nonsensical

any assertion that doesnt even attempt to look into contribution made by employee and return vs a similar product over a similar time is nonsensical

take a serious run at it or why bother for gods sake.

EndaHonesty

Deleted User wrote: »

its part of the terms and conditions of the scheme, contributions taken out of salary every pay packet over forty years

maxed out at 1.5 final multiplier salary figure, like any other

lottery win talk is absolutely nonsensical

any assertion that taxpayers fund it on any extraordinary basis versus any other pension scheme/shareholders or etc is nonsensical

any assertion that doesnt even attempt to look into contribution made by employee and return vs a similar product over a similar time is nonsensical

take a serious run at it or why bother for gods sake.

The public sector lump sum is an extra bonus payment.

The annual pension is already overly generous, without the lottery payment addition...

JimmyVik

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

Private pensions are funded so the lump sum makes sense, and the lump sum amount taken lowers the annual payment, so it's just an advanced payment.

The public sector lump sum is an extra, bonus payment, on top of an already generous annual pension. It's completely unwarranted.

I wouldnt say my entitlement to a lump sum is different to anyone elses.
We all get a state pension when we retire.
We pay into extra pension schemes to add to that and our employers pay into it as well. Also we get tax relief on the contributions which is like a bonus from the state.

How is that different to public sector pensions?

mikhail

daithi7 wrote: »

because we all have to pay for the massively over generous, individual lottery win for every retiring pubic service employee in the land last year, this year and for the next 50 fuppin years. That's why!!

The next 50 years? Which 17 year old civil servants are on the pre-1995 pension scheme?

EndaHonesty

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The public sector lump sum is an extra bonus payment.

The annual pension is already overly generous, without the lottery payment addition...

you are incorrect

blanch152

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The public sector lump sum is an extra bonus payment.

The annual pension is already overly generous, without the lottery payment addition...

It is not a lottery payment addition, it is a part of revenue rules.

Maximum revenue rules allow for either

(1) Pension of 66.66% of salary or
(2) Pension of 50% of salary, plus lump sum of 1.5 times salary

Public sector pension is (2).

Geuze

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I'm not saying the lumps sum should be taxed. I'm saying they should be discontinued for public sector pensions.

With no lump sum, the annual pension would increase from 50% to 66.67% of salary.

The lump-sum is deemed to commute 16.67% of annual salary.

I think teachers pensions in the UK don't have a lump-sum, and instead have a higher pension.

I will check:

https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/


Final Salary pension benefits are calculated based on your final average salary, multiplied by your service, multiplied by the appropriate accrual rate. The accrual rate is dependent on the section of the Final Salary arrangement:

Normal Pension Age = 60: Accrual rate is 1/80th

Normal Pension Age = 65: Accrual rate is 1/60th

Ok, so UK teachers with 40 years service at age 65 get 40/60 or 2/3 of final salary.


The taxpayer might save, as lump-sums are typically tax-free, whereas monthly pensions are taxable.

noodler

Vizzy wrote: »

Nope - AO scales for 1st Jan 2010 is here

https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/finance/2009/28.pdf

Rates for 2020 are here https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/per/2019/17.pdf

So assuming the the person entered the scale at the minimum in 2010 €31,619 and received all increments and increases since they would now be on €54,652.
This is a 72% increase (and takes account of all increases under wage agreements etc)not 100%

Also, acording to the scales, the minimum of the scale is less now than it was in 2010, despite all the "huge increases" over a 10 year period.

No.

That starting position is now around 32,405 and tops out at 57,429 after 9 years (we'll ignore LSIs for the moment which could get you to nearly 62k because they take a long time to kick in.. This is a 77% increase on the gross.

In addition, considering we are talking about a ten year period, if you started as an AO in 2011, you'd have been on just under 30k, but that starting salary (as with most of the points on the scale ) is now nearly 10% higher as mentioned above. So that 57,429 is 91% higher than the 2011 starting AO salary point.

Then, on the net side, there have been substantial reductions in PRD and even moreso if you are on the Single Scheme.

So nearly double quite easily tbh.

noodler

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

AO starts around the bottom of the EO scale and finishes at the top of the HEO scale. AP is above both HEO and AO.

What point are you trying to make?

AP is the next grade above AO

The AO scale never reaches the bottom of AP. It's quite a number of thousands short even with LSIs included.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

No.

That starting position is now around 32,405 and tops out at 57,429 after 9 years (we'll ignore LSIs for the moment which could get you to nearly 62k because they take a long time to kick in.. This is a 77% increase on the gross.

In addition, considering we are talking about a ten year period, if you started as an AO in 2011, you'd have been on just under 30k, but that starting salary (as with most of the points on the scale ) is now nearly 10% higher as mentioned above. So that 57,429 is 91% higher than the 2011 starting AO salary point.

Then, on the net side, there have been substantial reductions in PRD and even moreso if you are on the Single Scheme.

So nearly double quite easily tbh.

again

it is incorrect to compare incremental progression as overall pay increases

the correct comparator for an AO on point seven of the scale is not an AO on point one of the scale

it is an AO on point seven of the scale.

any other approach is bunkum

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

again

it is incorrect to compare incremental progression as overall pay increases

the correct comparator for an AO on point seven of the scale is not an AO on point one of the scale

it is an AO on point seven of the scale.

any other approach is bunkum

Are you playing the role of some hard nosed union negotiator for the sake of it?

The original post was that this phantom public sector worker hadn't increased in ten years.

In this case, it doubled.

Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

A little bit of perspective not to be telling those who were unemployed or suffering other service cuts that this "didn't count".

Vizzy

in my own case (Local Authority) I was at the top of the scale, including LSI's in 2010, so my gross salary has increased by 5.8% in 10 years.

Many of my colleagues would have been in the same position , i.e. at the max or very close to the max of the scale since 2010.
Some exceptions would probably be clerical officer who have a very long scale before they reach the max.

Very little opportunity to seek or get promotion until about 2018, and before somebody jumps in to say "why would you not travel to get promoted " - been there, done that. Want to buy a T-shirt or two ?

blanch152

noodler wrote: »

Are you playing the role of some hard nosed union negotiator for the sake of it?

The original post was that this phantom public sector worker hadn't increased in ten years.

In this case, it doubled.

Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

A little bit of perspective not to be telling those who were unemployed or suffering other service cuts that this "didn't count".

What if you were top of a scale, say Assistant Principal in 2008?

There are very few promotion posts above this, so you have nowhere to go.

Your salary today is still below 2008, and you are paying significant extra deductions through the ASC replacement for the pension levy.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Are you playing the role of some hard nosed union negotiator for the sake of it?

The original post was that this phantom public sector worker hadn't increased in ten years.

In this case, it doubled.

Pretending otherwise is nonsense.

Increments cost over 250m a hear and were protected at a time when everything else in the economy was being cut.

A little bit of perspective not to be telling those who were unemployed or suffering other service cuts that this "didn't count".

my response was a bit short in fairness.

these threads and phone posting have a way of doing that, so sorry if it came across too brusque

but i will restate that a public servant who moves up the increments does so under the terms and conditions under which they were offered and accepted the job.

it is fully correct and only correct to treat this one way- over time, you account for increments when comparing whether the person's pay has risen

ao pt 1 did not rise significantly over ten years. thats the valid comparison.

what happened a given ao, who was on pt 1 in 2010, is tbh irrelevant. many are ap or higher now. many are ao pt 7. many no doubt are private sector and earning buckets of cash. maybe some moved abroad and maybe some died.

if you were discussing say mechanical engineer's pay from 2010 through 2020 you wouldnt pick one and start pinning how he moved on himself in that time.

youd pick yr position, average starting or average with five years or whatever, in 2010 and youd use that plot point again for 2020

its not me playing any kind of silly buggers to point this out.

an ao pt 7 has progressed there on merit (and if you disagree that's another thread) and will be performing at a totally different level than one starting out.

if you total their pre fempi nominal earnings for that decade, they are *significantly* cumulatively worse off. this isnt fake accounting practice, this is the reality of how the cuts work.

i suspect we'll just have to disagree fundamentally if incremental progression is taken as individuals getting "pay rises"