Slashing Public Sector Pay

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 01:24PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Reduced pensions "when" in the future? 30 or 40 years maybe, that'll do a lot for our current deficit

the other points all currently apply

are you saying you are unhappy that some long-term, bigger picture changes were also made?

DoesNotCompute · 11-05-2011 01:34PM

rodento wrote: »

Just wondering what would happen to the false and actual ecomany if you slashed the public sector pay/pension including semi's and the social welfare by another 30%.

Thinking in terms of loan defaults, huge drop in tax take, collapse of feeder industries like creche's and resturants etc

Would it mean that people could no longer afford to work, how would they get rid of their cars if they could no longer afford to run them:eek:

Would utility companies survive with people no longer been able to afford to pay for heat/electricity...

Not forgeting the effects on rents and mortgages

Another anti-PS thread :rolleyes:

The country is still pretty expensive to live in. The cost of living still hasn't come down from 2007 levels. Deal with that first, and THEN and ONLY THEN should the govt consider slashing public sector pay.

Lumbo · 11-05-2011 01:42PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Another anti-PS thread :rolleyes:

The country is still pretty expensive to live in. The cost of living still hasn't come down from 2007 levels. Deal with that first, and THEN and ONLY THEN should the govt consider slashing public sector pay.

Reducing the lower rate of VAT should help with that. If the saving is pased on :mad:

Some people on here won't be happy until Public Sector get less money then those on the dole. The public pay bill has to come down significantly but I won't be one to sit by and let it be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Reduce the numbers in the Public Sector by over 30,000. That should be the first step.

beeno67 · 11-05-2011 02:01PM

sollar wrote: »

At this stage i think we'll just have to accept we see it differently.

Imagine halfway through that charlie mccreevy savings scheme where you put in 4 euros and get back €5 at the end of scheme etc. If Charlie has said half way through that he thought it was too generous that now he wanted you to put in €4.50 but at the end you would still only get the €5 back. .

No it is more like McCreevy saying if you put in 4 euros after 5 years you will get back 5 but instead of that, only gave you back €4.97 That is the level we are talking about. The hysteria is ridiculous.

By the way, I have been asking people today who were complaining about this, what is their annual management charge? Most people don't know. Yet this can vary by much more than 0.6% and yet people don't care enough to move their pension.

beeno67 · 11-05-2011 02:03PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Another anti-PS thread :rolleyes:

The country is still pretty expensive to live in. The cost of living still hasn't come down from 2007 levels. Deal with that first, and THEN and ONLY THEN should the govt consider slashing public sector pay.

Christ, this always comes up. The cost of living has fallen. We are no longer this massively expensive country. We are now mid range yet our salaries are still high and public sector wages still way too high.

P. Breathnach · 11-05-2011 02:07PM

Drumpot wrote: »

Oh, so you refer soley to the new pension arrangement for new employees ? When there have been few, if any new entrants to the public service ?

Riskymove was describing the new pension arrangements, and your post suggested that those arrangements did not fund the scheme. Now, if you want to say that an arrangement that is made in 2010 is insufficient to fund the pensions, then it must relate to pensions funded by that arrangement -- in other words, it's a long-term future question, not one of recent history. You gave a citation to a messily-constructed piece. There was an implication that your citation supported your contention. I read the piece, and did not find any case for concluding that the new arrangements were insufficient to fund the scheme.

You do understand that the need for cuts is immediate ? Not something we can wait to bear fruit in 30 years ?

I suggest that you do not question my ability to understand things. I was focusing on a particular point, and you are now throwing in a much wider question in what I take to be an effort to obscure discussion of that particular point.

mlumley · 11-05-2011 02:14PM

gigino wrote: »

big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) ,QUOTE]

Can you point out where these properties are? Just looked through the 688 properties advertised on Daft at under 50.000 and surprise surprise, didnt find one. Whould love to have bought one.

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 02:16PM

mlumley wrote: »

gigino wrote: »

big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) ,QUOTE]

Can you point out where these properties are? Just looked through the 688 properties advertised on Daft and surprise surprise, didnt find one. Whould love to have bought one.

if these are the ones that were posted before, they are in recievership in Leitrim!

11-05-2011 02:16PM

mlumley wrote: »

Can you point out where these properties are? Just looked through the 688 properties advertised on Daft at under 50.000 and surprise surprise, didnt find one. Whould love to have bought one.

http://bit.ly/lQYmKh

I'm not entirely sure what his original point was though...

beeno67 · 11-05-2011 02:16PM

mlumley wrote: »

gigino wrote: »

big enough to buy the guts of a couple of new apartments in parts of the country ( you can see them on daft.ie for 40k ) ,QUOTE]

Can you point out where these properties are? Just looked through the 688 properties advertised on Daft at under 50.000 and surprise surprise, didnt find one. Whould love to have bought one.

1640 properties advertised on Daft for less than €50k

DoesNotCompute · 11-05-2011 02:17PM

gigino wrote: »

north of the border average public sector pay is between 22 and 23 k per year stg.

But what's the cost of living like north of the border? If I were a betting man, I'd say they're not paying mad prices for insurance, rail/bus prices, electricity/gas, childcare, etc, etc, etc, like we are.

Then again, they do pay water rates and council tax, but they have (pretty much) free medical care via the NHS, so it's not really that easy to compare.

Jaysoose · 11-05-2011 02:18PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Another anti-PS thread :rolleyes:

The country is still pretty expensive to live in. The cost of living still hasn't come down from 2007 levels. Deal with that first, and THEN and ONLY THEN should the govt consider slashing public sector pay.

Ok so we keep delaying the inevitable adjustments that are needed and target private businesses and their costs instead to protect the inflated wages being paid?

Why dont we take the CPA at its word and any department that is not delivering efficient reforms have their budgets slashed, why dont we reverse the ludicrous benchmarking exercise that was undertaken by Messers ahern etc? Why dont we go root and branch through the public/civil service and determine who is performing and who is not then take the appropriate measures to remove/reward as needed. All you hear is public servants whinging that they are being painted with the one brush while at the same time saying nothing about the wasters and the massive waste at all levels.

Why dont we do any of these things? because the public service actually believes they are worth the wages they are being paid for delivering a third rate service. Its beyond a joke we have been having the same debate for the last few years...nothing has changed..nothing will change.

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 02:20PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

All you hear is public servants whinging that they are being painted with the one brush while at the same time saying nothing about the wasters and the massive waste at all levels.

selective deafness I'd say

Its beyond a joke we have been having the same debate for the last few years...nothing has changed..nothing will change.

agreed, I see the same old prejudices and generalisations in your last post

P. Breathnach · 11-05-2011 02:22PM

beeno67 wrote: »

Christ, this always comes up. The cost of living has fallen. We are no longer this massively expensive country. We are now mid range yet our salaries are still high and public sector wages still way too high.

Facts would be useful.

From CSO figures we can see that there has been a recent fall in the Consumer Price Index, but the cumulative fall between 2008 and 2010 has been about 5.5%. It now seems to be going up again. Hardly earth-shaking stuff.

gigino · 11-05-2011 02:32PM

Riskymove wrote: »

The average PS pay is €47 which corresponds to a pension of €23.5k (if you have 40 years service and not for new entrants)

of which €12k will be OAP and 11.5k the pension

WRONG again Riskymove - and you admit to being from the p.s. too.

The public service pension, after completion of service ( 30 years in the case of Gardai, 40 years in most of the rest of the public service, a lot less in the case of Judiciary etc ) is 18 months tax free lump sum FINISHING salary and a annual pension equivalent of 50% of FINISHING salary. Average finishing salary in the public secrvice, because of age, increments, promotion etc is a lot higher than the averge public service salary of 47k. So average pension is worth a hell of a lot more than 23.5k a year

mlumley · 11-05-2011 02:35PM

beeno67 wrote: »

mlumley wrote: »

1640 properties advertised on Daft for less than €50k

Sorry, i was looking at new properties.

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 02:36PM

gigino wrote: »

Average finishing salary in the public secrvice, because of age, increments, promotion etc is a lot higher than the averge public service salary of 47k.

the Jimmmy school of made up figures strikes again

I simply gave an example based on the average PS pay, I never claimed it to be 'average finishing salary'

Your assertion about 'average finishing salary' is based only upon jimmmy/your rationalisations, nothing more, there is no evidence to suggest what it might be

The most obvious point is that not everyone retires with full service and therefore wont get 50% in all cases

Jaysoose · 11-05-2011 02:38PM

Riskymove wrote: »

selective deafness I'd say

agreed, I see the same old prejudices and generalisations in your last post

You can call it prejudice if you want but the whole 'victim' act doesnt wash, and you say my post is full of "generalisations" when it's obvious that the solution to this perception is to have transparency in the public service but this is resisted at every turn. Who are the public servants protecting by not exposing bad work practices and hiding under their desks?

If your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 02:41PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

If your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

I have suggested things along the lines of what you are talking about over the last few years of debate yet all some posters here see is PS and therefore spend their time jumping at every opportunity to belittle or nitpick or twist words

Jaysoose · 11-05-2011 02:47PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I have suggested things along the lines of what you are talking about over the last few years of debate yet all some posters here see is PS and therefore spend their time jumping at every opportunity to belittle or nitpick or twist words

Possibly people are frustrated at the lack of movement on any of the glaringly obvious issues, im certainly not trying to belittle but am genuinely asking why would people have any other perception of the public service if they themseleves actively go out of their way to keep the current status quo?

sollar · 11-05-2011 02:47PM

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a ridiculous comparison.
Slightly more accurate would be putting in 1.50 and getting 5 back if you are still on the salary you are on now, but you'll get 10 back if you get a promotion in the meantime - still only having paid 1.50. Then they say okay can you pay 2.

Come on now, you call my example ridiculous and then you come up with this drivel :rolleyes:

gigino · 11-05-2011 02:48PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I simply gave an example based on the average PS pay, I never claimed it to be 'average finishing salary'

Average public service pay produces a far higher average public sector pension. Your pension figure is plucked out of the air - it is much less than the average, which you implied it to be.

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 02:52PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

Possibly people are frustrated at the lack of movement on any of the glaringly obvious issues, im certainly not trying to belittle but am genuinely asking why would people have any other perception of the public service if they themseleves actively go out of their way to keep the current status quo?

I have no problem with people having a problem with particular issues but to suggest that all PS are to blame is to suggest all PS have the power to change the system

I too await action from the new Govt and remain frustarted that it hasnt happened quicker

dissed doc · 11-05-2011 02:53PM

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

But what's the cost of living like north of the border? If I were a betting man, I'd say they're not paying mad prices for insurance, rail/bus prices, electricity/gas, childcare, etc, etc, etc, like we are.

Then again, they do pay water rates and council tax, but they have (pretty much) free medical care via the NHS, so it's not really that easy to compare.

It's not free medical care - what on earth gave you that idea? It's funded with effectively a single mandatory health insurance payment in the form of National Insurance, which is around 8% of your salary deducted from your paycheck.

If 8% of salaries among all Irish workers was paid to the health service (and aroudn 12% in Germany for that matter), we would have a "free" service as well. Add up the cost of how much you spend on medical care for a year - each GP visit, etc., . I would be surprised if it was over 8-10% of your gross annual income, and most likely, it's a lot less as we spend only around 3/4 per person on healthcare compared to UK/DE/FR.

gigino · 11-05-2011 02:55PM

mlumley wrote: »

Sorry, i was looking at new properties.

Plenty of new apartments for 40 to 50 k asking price - less if you haggle :

http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=12590

http://www.daft.ie/searchnew_development.daft?id=8384

The average "gratuity" which all public sector workers get on completion of service , equivalent to 18 months finishing public sector salary, is enough to buy the guts of a couple of them.
No wonder the country is ****ed when we are paid and pensioned so much in the public sector.

What other ( bankrupt, I dare say ) country would give each + every retiring public servant a cash tax free amount equivalent to couple of nice new apartments, built to government specifications in scenic areas, as a tip....in additional to our public service pension.

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 02:56PM

gigino wrote: »

Average public service pay produces a far higher average public sector pension. .

so now its 'far' higher?

pure speculation as I said before

whatever it is would be based on how many people retire, what level they happen to be at and how much service they happen they have...none of which you know

Your pension figure is plucked out of the air - it is much less than the average, which you implied it to be

It is an example based on the only known statistic we have of €47k

I implied nothing of the sort...I cannot help it if you interpreted it as that but I have now clarified that for you

Drumpot · 11-05-2011 02:57PM

Riskymove wrote: »

no one said the majority did...tbh...there is constant moving of the goalposts on this point

sure I could say no PS will get close to Michael Fingleton's pension pot...what would that achieve?

as mentioned following the recent reforms PS now pay

c.7% contribution
another c.7% levy
PRSI
USC

and then a c.5% levy when they actually get the pension...plus the USC and any taxes that are liable

The average PS pay is €47 which corresponds to a pension of €23.5k (if you have 40 years service and not for new entrants)

of which €12k will be OAP and 11.5k the pension

The average wage in the private sector is well below that.

Secondly, private sector employees pay PRSI and USC (there used to be a loophole thats been closed off).

Thirdly, if a male at 65 (remember annuities cost more for females currently) in the private sector today wants to buy 11.5k pension (to top up their state pension as you example above), they will need a pension fund of €255657 (290k if they want it indexed linked) after they have taken any tax free lump sum (so in truth they would need over 350k in their pension pot at retirement). Unlike the public sector, what you put into a private pension is not guaranteed. You are relying on what the insurance companies will offer (in terms of rates for pension). You are also relying on how you invest your money which is very tricky no matter which way you go (safe v risky).

This is the key. If you invest your money in a safe cash deposit fund, you will lose out over time, with inflation and after charges, you will end up with little more then you put in. If you go risky, there is a good chance your fund will increase, but over the space of 30 years there is a near certain chance that your fund will go through some rough years. Its impossible to predict when you should get in and out of funds, as such it is impossible to predict how your pension will perform over this term.

Most Pension providers use 6% annualised return as growth projections, but these dont include increases or decreases in the fund value that are vital in this debate.

In truth, the only way a private sector pension can pretty much guarantee that they will have a certain pot (to buy your 11.5k pension to top up your state pension), is to leave their investment in deposit funds that usually yield between 0.5 and 3%. Given the fact that the government has pretty much rendered these pointless (with .6% charge on top of management charges that range already between .75% and 2%) it forces people to gamble with their pension. See where I am going with this ?

So, if you take a risk you could be screwed (or you might get lucky), if you dont take a risk you might get shafted by inflation or fees!

The actuarial equivilant to €255k in 30 years time is roughly 700k. I used an Insurance companies quote system that index links to calculate how much one would need at retirement to buy an equiviland pension in todays terms. If a person wants to take no risk in their investment in terms of fund performance, they will put it in deposit. If they take it that they will make little or no gains, they will have to put in €23,333 per annum to reach that goal. If the say "well I will index my pension so that I pay more near the end" then they would have to start off at roughly €10,500 per year (increasing premium 5% every year without fail).

RobbieTheRobber · 11-05-2011 02:59PM

The average price for a house nationally in Quarter 4, 2010 was €191,776, compared with €215,086 in Quarter 4 2009 and €311,078 at the peak. National prices have fallen 38% since the price peak at the end of 2006.

http://www.finfacts.ie/biz10/irelandhouseprices.htm

Jaysoose · 11-05-2011 03:01PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I have no problem with people having a problem with particular issues but to suggest that all PS are to blame is to suggest all PS have the power to change the system

I too await action from the new Govt and remain frustarted that it hasnt happened quicker

This is my point though why are we waiting for the goverment to take action i was under the impression that the CPA was implementing change etc..

If the public service will not help themselves by embracing the alledged changes and efficiencies being brough about by the CPA and thus using the last few years to change then how are people looking in expected to have any other opinion?

Riskymove · 11-05-2011 03:08PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

This is my point though why are we waiting for the goverment to take action i was under the impression that the CPA was implementing change etc..

The CPA actions, as envisaged, will bring about certain changes and savings but I believe more far-reaching reform is required

The CPA proposals in the sector I work in are very slow in coming forward from management, as oppossed to the staff

the bottom line really is that for any significant savings its the health and education sectors that need to be tackled...thats where most of the money goes

Slashing Public Sector Pay

Comments