Public service pay cut?

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

I can show you my public sector payslip right now if you like... Tell me where I can dodge tax on it?

Don’t waste your time, you won’t change his position. He has stuck rigidly to that position since the last crash.

The amazing thing about these discussions is nobody moves an inch no matter what evidence is put forward.

mikemac2

fliball123 wrote: »

Sinn Fein toner cartrigges have a google there and you will see what it was all about.

That happened 12 years ago and hit the media 9 years ago

Are we still discussing this

Pogue eile

mikemac2 wrote: »

That happened 12 years ago and hit the media 9 years ago

Are we still discussing this

Well that and the fact that he seems to think that politicians are part of the public service

tayto lover

Pogue eile wrote: »

Well that and the fact that he seems to think that politicians are part of the public service

He’s hilarious 😂😂
I always get a great laugh from his posts,

GarIT

Pogue eile wrote: »

Well that and the fact that he seems to think that politicians are part of the public service

Funny that it's the opposite in fact. I'd love to be involved in politics. I was in SF 10 years ago but civil servants aren't allowed be involved with politics.

salonfire

Geuze wrote: »

Since the PRD was introduced, most PS now pay substantial pension contributions.

Normal PRSI = 4%
Superannuation = 6.5%
PRD / ASC = 10% on wages over 34k

Two public sector workers thanked your post and not one of them has the ability to do simple arithmetic and correct you.

Says a lot of their and yours attention to detail and mathematical ability.

There are thresholds and credits for the superannuation and prsi so your percentages as contributions are wrong.

Not the first time I pulled you up on this.

SouthWesterly

fliball123 wrote: »

What about the knock on effect of on your pension the private sector will have to pay for your cup of coffee while they cant afford their own. A bit of perspective pleaase

If I was going to be getting one of those golden pensions I'd agree with you but since I won't be.......

SouthWesterly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you offered us the option of 1% or prioritising making the scales fairer to the lower paid i like to think that we would en masse vote the right way

Not so sure that would happen. After all the golden pension brigade voted to save themselves in 2009 and shaft the newbies.

Geuze

salonfire wrote: »

Two public sector workers thanked your post and not one of them has the ability to do simple arithmetic and correct you.

Says a lot of their and yours attention to detail and mathematical ability.

There are thresholds and credits for the superannuation and prsi so your percentages as contributions are wrong.

Not the first time I pulled you up on this.

PRSI is 4% on all wages. The PRSI ceiling has been abolished.

There is a PRSI exemption, up to 18k approx I think?

Anybody earning over that pays 4% on all wages.


Regarding the superannuation, the headline rate is 6.5%.

Yes, you are correct, it is not a straight 6.5% on all wages. The PS pension is integrated with the SPC for PS hired after April 1995, so those workers pay:

3.5% of nett wages, where nett = gross less 2*SPC
3% of gross

I don't have time to describe all this detail, so I simply referred to 6.5%

NovemberWren

GarIT wrote: »

It's a salary, they don't get extra fees for doing their job. You move up to the next pay grade each year.



State solicitor and prosecution solicitor (PPC)
33,370 – 35,885 – 36,606 – 39,755 – 43,785 – 46,862 – 49,927 – 53,010 – 56,086 – 59,145 – 69,012 – 71,507 – 73,988 – 76,477 – 78,959 – 80,392 – LSI 1 82,899 – LS1 2 85,415
Law clerk (PPC)
520.97 – 543.29 – 576.54 – 601.35 – 630.70 – 664.12 – 683.77 – 703.43 – 723.07 – 742.79 – LSI 1 763.09 – LSI 2 783.34
Higher legal executive (PPC)
49,845 – 51,303 – 52,756 – 54,210 – 55,669 – 57,123 – 58,578 – LSI 1 60,679 – LSI 2 62,776
Legal executive (PPC)
34,190 – 36,242 – 37,872 – 39,440 – 40,861 – 42,133 – 43,418 – 44,702 – 45,990 – 47,235 – LSI 1 48,409 – LSI 2 49,940

But I thought that all of these small law firms worked on a paying-customer basis.

And that only if someone is poor that then the solicitor could apply for their legal aid [to pay the solicitor's fees].

GarIT

NovemberWren wrote: »

But I thought that all of these small law firms worked on a paying-customer basis.

And that only if someone is poor that then the solicitor could apply for their legal aid [to pay the solicitor's fees].

I think you're mistaken on something, this thread is about the civil service.

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don’t waste your time, you won’t change his position. He has stuck rigidly to that position since the last crash.

The amazing thing about these discussions is nobody moves an inch no matter what evidence is put forward.

Maybe if some people here declared their:
Job
Pascale
Contract
Company benefits
Payslip
Pension details
Tax allocations
All education qualifications

Then We could have a fair comparison.

Any time I read these PS Vs Private threads it's like someone staring at your dinner plate while you eat.

salonfire

Geuze wrote: »

I don't have time to describe all this detail, so I simply referred to 6.5%

You still had the time to refer to it as "substantial pension contributions".

There is a PRSI credit and also the deductions are before tax. I calculated before someone on 60K (post 95 pre 2013) actually pays about 7.8% of their salary, including superannuation and ASC. This is a very reasonable amount and a common contribution in the private sector. Before ASC, they must have been contributing buttons.

To be fair, coupled with the Employer contribution, as would happen in the private sector, probably goes a long way to cover the expenditure costs of an individual's person. Still a very generous perk since it is 100% certain.

Because there is not an actual pot is not the fault of PS workers.

Geuze

salonfire wrote: »

You still had the time to refer to it as "substantial pension contributions".

There is a PRSI credit and also the deductions are before tax. I calculated before someone on 60K (post 95 pre 2013) actually pays about 7.8% of their salary, including superannuation and ASC. This is a very reasonable amount and a common contribution in the private sector. Before ASC, they must have been contributing buttons.

To be fair, coupled with the Employer contribution, as would happen in the private sector, probably goes a long way to cover the expenditure costs of an individual's person. Still a very generous perk since it is 100% certain.

Because there is not an actual pot is not the fault of PS workers.

PRSI-free allowance of 127 pw was abolished a few years ago.

There is a PRSI-free exemption, 352 per week.


I will have a look at 60k and calculate the PS pension deductions.

3.5% of nett is (0.035)(60,000 - 2*52.18*248.30) = 0.035(60,000-25,912.59) = 1193 pa

3% of gross is 1800
Superannuation is 2993 or 4.988%, yes this is very good value for the benefits.

PRD / ASC in 2021 is 25,500 @10% = 2,550

Total is 5,543 or 9.24%.



Yes, before the PRD/ASC, the contribution was low, yes.

Even with the PRD, I suppose 9.24% isn't very high.

Geuze

For comparison, this is what UK teachers pay in conts to their PS pension scheme:


Annual Salary Rate for the Eligible Employment from 1 April 2021 Member Contribution rate


Up to 28309.99 7.4%
£28,310 to £38,108.99 8.6%
£38,109 to £45,185.99 9.6%
£45,186 to £59,885.99 10.2%
£59,886 to £81,661.99 11.3%
£81,662 and above 11.7%

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

You still had the time to refer to it as "substantial pension contributions".

There is a PRSI credit and also the deductions are before tax. I calculated before someone on 60K (post 95 pre 2013) actually pays about 7.8% of their salary, including superannuation and ASC. This is a very reasonable amount and a common contribution in the private sector. Before ASC, they must have been contributing buttons.

To be fair, coupled with the Employer contribution, as would happen in the private sector, probably goes a long way to cover the expenditure costs of an individual's person. Still a very generous perk since it is 100% certain.

Because there is not an actual pot is not the fault of PS workers.

I answered you comprehensively before on this and you were out by a few percent there, actually

And, again, at that time we raised employer matching contributions up to 10% and more in many private schemes, yadda yadda yadda

Its not even relevant to get into the penny-ante crap tbh.

Youll be back again in another thread telling all PS workers they get a great pension cheap.

It will be countered.

Seeing as the pension (post 2013 a significantly poorer one) is a known quantity why it keeps coming up as a surprise for so many is puzzling.

GarIT

Geuze wrote: »

PRSI-free allowance of 127 pw was abolished a few years ago.

There is a PRSI-free exemption, 352 per week.


I will have a look at 60k and calculate the PS pension deductions.

3.5% of nett is (0.035)(60,000 - 2*52.18*248.30) = 0.035(60,000-25,912.59) = 1193 pa

3% of gross is 1800
Superannuation is 2993 or 4.988%, yes this is very good value for the benefits.

PRD / ASC in 2021 is 25,500 @10% = 2,550

Total is 5,543 or 9.24%.



Yes, before the PRD/ASC, the contribution was low, yes.

Even with the PRD, I suppose 9.24% isn't very high.

Based on those numbers the civil service pension calculator and the pensions authority pension calculator. You'd get €20,400 on a private sector pension (with matching) and €18,100 on a civil service pension. If you are 25 and started working and contributing today on 60,000k both retiring at 68. The civil service does get a 96k lump sum on retirement.

salonfire

Deleted User wrote: »

Youll be back again in another thread telling all PS workers they get a great pension cheap.

I said no such thing. That that back and stop putting words in my mouth. Open you eyes and read what I said.

salonfire wrote: »

To be fair, coupled with the Employer contribution, as would happen in the private sector, probably goes a long way to cover the expenditure costs of an individual's pension.

The % of salary contribution to pension between ASC and superannuation is very reasonable and very common. I am countering the myth peddled by public sector workers who give the impression they pay 15%+ in contribution and list out the headlines rates, just like Gueze had done. When he saw the calculation, he agreed it was not too high.

We had the teacher saying that even at that reasonable rate, they should not be paying it. ASC is very necessary to bring the % contribution to a normal figure - despite what public sector workers tell you that they are especially hard done by it. Its lies.

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeing as the pension (post 2013 a significantly poorer one) is a known quantity why it keeps coming up as a surprise for so many is puzzling.

It is indeed puzzling why the public sector workers are unable to do the maths to figure out the % they are paying and why they believe they are hit particular hard by how much they contribute when it is perfectly normal. Even the schoolteacher is puzzled by it all.

salonfire

Interesting to see the public sector posters thank Gueze's "substantial contribution" post but not his follow up post laying out the calculation and deducing the rate of contribution as not too high.

Blinkered charletons.

I will in me arse take anything back, you're all over threads calling people liars and using inflammatory language on this issue and scuttling away whenever your detail is challenged.

I pulled my percentages off my last payslip when you kept insisting to actual ps workers they were lying in a thread only a week or so ago, so between you resetting your calcs again and flinging around the type of invective you do, you may expect plenty back.

Your little knowledge here is more than most who take the tone you do towards the working conditions of a couple of hundred thousand workers, but youd want some neck to keep telling them you know something they dont about their own pay packets.

RobbieTheRobber

salonfire wrote: »

Interesting to see the public sector posters thank Gueze's "substantial contribution" post but not his follow up post laying out the calculation and deducing the rate of contribution as not too high.

Blinkered charletons.

Charlatans.

And I don't think it means what you think it means.
Here.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan

1: QUACK entry 4 sense 2
charlatans harming their patients with dubious procedures
2: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : FRAUD, FAKER
a charlatan willing to do and say virtually anything to remain in the spotlight
— Alan Brinkley

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Interesting to see the public sector posters thank Gueze's "substantial contribution" post but not his follow up post laying out the calculation and deducing the rate of contribution as not too high.

Blinkered charletons.

Yourself and fliball turn up to every public service pay thread? Why such an interest?

And this isn’t just a recent obsession it’s going on a decade or more.

Everybody should be interested in public sector pay, its a huge topic with big implications for the economy and it directly affects hundreds of thousands of workers and indirectly millions of taxpayers and the income base of every town in the country to a significant degree.

Its the starting from default biased, blinkered and frankly distorted positions every time with the same three or four posters that makes it a valueless discussion, except of course that you have to challenge the spite and rubbish once its out there

I was through all of this back around 2010 on here. Went to great effort presenting facts and evidence as did many others. It was real heavy at times as this was during the worst of the recession. Sadly nothing anyone said changed the other sides opinion.

I don’t bother getting involved anymore as it was such a waste of time.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was through all of this back around 2010 on here. Went to great effort presenting facts and evidence as did many others. It was real heavy at times as this was during the worst of the recession. Sadly nothing anyone said changed the other sides opinion.

I don’t bother getting involved anymore as it was such a waste of time.

Heh

Ive read this twice and im still not sure what "side" you are on!

AndrewJRenko

Geuze wrote: »

For comparison, this is what UK teachers pay in conts to their PS pension scheme:


Annual Salary Rate for the Eligible Employment from 1 April 2021 Member Contribution rate


Up to 28309.99 7.4%
£28,310 to £38,108.99 8.6%
£38,109 to £45,185.99 9.6%
£45,186 to £59,885.99 10.2%
£59,886 to £81,661.99 11.3%
£81,662 and above 11.7%

Fairly meaningless unless you compare the benefits they get.

salonfire wrote: »

ASC is very necessary to bring the % contribution to a normal figure - despite what public sector workers tell you that they are especially hard done by it. Its lies.

The PRD/ASC was and is a unilateral cut to salary of 6%-8% for the vast majority of public staff - a unilateral change to terms and conditions that would be illegal for any other employer to impose without at least consultation and offering redundancy as an alternative.

The question of how to pay for public sector pensions is not the responsibility of public sector staff. It is the responsibility of government and society at large, just like any other public sector expenditure.

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yourself and fliball turn up to every public service pay thread? Why such an interest?

And this isn’t just a recent obsession it’s going on a decade or more.

They even argued that they should be allowed into a closed teachers forum.... How sad is that.

Not to mention continuously lurking on the teaching and lecturing open forum waiting to advise any prospective teacher that the terms and conditions are excellent.

They can pick apart public sector wages because it's all open and transparent, but when it comes to revealing their own circumstances it's a no.

But ya, there's definitely no grudges or bitterness going on :pac:

You would need to be fairly motivated to obsess over public sector pay for this long.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

You would need to be fairly motivated to obsess over public sector pay for this long.

Imagine all they can achieve if they put their mind to it, they might even make it through a CO campaign.

salonfire

Deleted User wrote: »

Yourself and fliball turn up to every public service pay thread? Why such an interest?

And this isn’t just a recent obsession it’s going on a decade or more.

You're welcome!

I'm quite happy to challenge and correct the myths and lies propagated by PS posters; this time in relation to the ASC.

Looks like bringing home the realization that their % contribution to their pensions is quite normal and not disproportionately hitting them no more than anyone else has hit quite the nerve!

Each subsequent post since I pointed out this fact has not even attempted to refute that fact.