Public Sector Workers are preparing for 8% paycut - where did this info come from?

gazzer · 25-11-2009 12:57pm

Personally as a CS I know that cuts have to be made. So far this year in my department a good few staff have taken early retirement and also availed of the Career Break incentive. Id say the amount of staff in my area has fallen by 20% in the last 11 months. It has meant that the remaining staff have taken on a fair bit of extra work. Thats fair enough though. I dont mind being busy.

I think what should happen is that all staff are told they have to take 10 extra days unpaid leave each year. At least that way the pay cut we are goign to get wont have as much of assting if we get the advantage of having a day off.

Mcloke · 25-11-2009 6:08pm

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Thats something that really annoys me aswell. A pension levy is not a paycut. And it's only a 7% LEVY if your earning over €45k!

Can someone please tell me if paying into a pension in the public service is mandatory? In other words if they feel so hard done by with the levy can they opt out and simply not pay into one in the same way that most private sector workers who can't afford to?

As a non public sector worker I can tell you that yes the pension is mandatory and I know several public sector workers who would opt out if given the option (for several different reasons) but that is not offered. The pension levy was nothing more than the governments words for an indirect paycut...it can also be known as the save the banks levy as the government said they would use the pension reserve for this purpose and hey presto the pension levy was introduced :rolleyes:
If as a private sector worker you paid into a pension and suddenly the company you paid said that's grand but now you have to pay more and we will only give you back what we set out originally you would be pretty annoyed or at least you should be

LordDorington · 25-11-2009 6:15pm

Mcloke wrote: »

As a non public sector worker I can tell you that yes the pension is mandatory and I know several public sector workers who would opt out if given the option (for several different reasons) but that is not offered. The pension levy was nothing more than the governments words for an indirect paycut...it can also be known as the save the banks levy as the government said they would use the pension reserve for this purpose and hey presto the pension levy was introduced :rolleyes:
If as a private sector worker you paid into a pension and suddenly the company you paid said that's grand but now you have to pay more and we will only give you back what we set out originally you would be pretty annoyed or at least you should be

OK so now its a case of you being asked to contribute MORE to a pension that you will benefit from? Thats still NOT a paycut, its a bigger pension contribution. Of course if the same thing happened in the private sector people would be peeved, but the fact is nowhere in the private sector will you find a pension deal as good as that set out for public servants, and are they all forgetting about the thousands who DID pay into pension funds which have now been completely depleted?

Wishbone Ash · 25-11-2009 6:26pm

kmick wrote: »

People keep mentioning the 7% pay cut. Was that not a pension contribution?

I'm paying 10% on income which is not pensionable. How then is that a 'pension levy/contribution'?

Darragh29 wrote: »

A company car is a tool of your job as opposed to a perk of your job in the vast majority of cases

If it is a tool of the job, why are employees allowed to use it for social, domestic and pleasure reasons. I don't know anyone with a company car who uses it solely for work. Even those with commercial company vehicles can be seen using them as a form of transport when not at work.

Darragh29 wrote:

If you get a bonus in the private sector, you had to work for it and damn hard in the current climate. If you get a bonus, it's usually on the basis of a provable and verifiable improvement in productivity or performance.

Those of us in the Public Sector who show a provable and verifiable improvement in productivity or performance cannot get a bonus.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

can they opt out and simply not pay into one in the same way that most private sector workers who can't afford to?

You can't opt out. It mandatory and part of one's contract.

irish_bob · 25-11-2009 9:59pm

Mcloke wrote: »

As a non public sector worker I can tell you that yes the pension is mandatory and I know several public sector workers who would opt out if given the option (for several different reasons) but that is not offered. The pension levy was nothing more than the governments words for an indirect paycut...it can also be known as the save the banks levy as the government said they would use the pension reserve for this purpose and hey presto the pension levy was introduced :rolleyes:
If as a private sector worker you paid into a pension and suddenly the company you paid said that's grand but now you have to pay more and we will only give you back what we set out originally you would be pretty annoyed or at least you should be

ive never heard of a pay cut which is tax deductable like the pension levy is , perhaps it happens , ive just never heard of it

P. Breathnach · 25-11-2009 10:41pm

irish_bob wrote: »

ive never heard of a pay cut which is tax deductable like the pension levy is , perhaps it happens , ive just never heard of it

You mean all those private sector workers who have suffered pay cuts are still paying tax on what their pay used to be?

ardmacha · 25-11-2009 10:41pm

ive never heard of a pay cut which is tax deductable like the pension levy is , perhaps it happens , ive just never heard of it

You've obviously lived a sheltered life. Every paycut is tax deductable. If I was earning €70000 year and now I earn €60,000 year then the government is down as much as I am, why do you think that tax revenues are down?

Boskowski · 27-11-2009 10:04pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's no answer.

The simple fact is that the government is not giving $54bn of taxpayers' money to the banks.

The banks have 'bad business' worth more than 54 billions in their books. The government allows the banks to shift said 'bad business' over into a state backed scheme for which ultimately the taxpayer will be liable. NAMA.
If NAMA was likely to retrieve 54 billions or more the banks wouldn't shift said business. The banks consider this a good deal for themselves, the conclusion can only be it is a bad one for the taxpayer.

So we're buying a bad bet and the worst possible outcome is 54 billions worth of red figures. While it won't be a total write-off I imagine we should not be surprised if between the actual losses and the costs of the scheme its going to be billions in the double figures.

Nevertheless within a year we're making 54 billions available to the banks. 54 billions for which the taxpayer will be liable. Therefore I consider it a simplified but still reasonable statement to make saying 'the government is giving the banks 54 billions from the taxpayer'.

P. Breathnach · 27-11-2009 11:04pm

realcam wrote: »

The banks have 'bad business' worth more than 54 billions in their books. The government allows the banks to shift said 'bad business' over into a state backed scheme for which ultimately the taxpayer will be liable. NAMA.
If NAMA was likely to retrieve 54 billions or more the banks wouldn't shift said business. The banks consider this a good deal for themselves, the conclusion can only be it is a bad one for the taxpayer.

So we're buying a bad bet and the worst possible outcome is 54 billions worth of red figures. While it won't be a total write-off I imagine we should not be surprised if between the actual losses and the costs of the scheme its going to be billions in the double figures.

Nevertheless within a year we're making 54 billions available to the banks. 54 billions for which the taxpayer will be liable. Therefore I consider it a simplified but still reasonable statement to make saying 'the government is giving the banks 54 billions from the taxpayer'.

NAMA will purchase assets with a current value of far less than the price being paid. How much less is unknown. Some will be worth as close to nothing as makes no appreciable difference, while a few may be worth more than the price being paid for them; it's a mixed lot.

Yes, I believe that at the shakeout NAMA will probably cost us a large amount, but nothing like the scale of €54bn. And I don't accept that your simplified statement is accurate and, if it is not accurate, it cannot be reasonable either.

turly · 27-11-2009 11:27pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, I believe that at the shakeout NAMA will probably cost us a large amount, but nothing like the scale of €54bn. And I don't accept that your simplified statement is accurate and, if it is not accurate, it cannot be reasonable either.

So what is "nothing like the scale of €54bn?" What's that, an order of magnitude less?
Go on, tell us how much you think it will cost us. Perhaps your enlightened guess will be more "reasonable" and "accurate"?

P. Breathnach · 28-11-2009 12:38am

turly wrote: »

So what is "nothing like the scale of €54bn?" What's that, an order of magnitude less?
Go on, tell us how much you think it will cost us. Perhaps your enlightened guess will be more "reasonable" and "accurate"?

I have already indicated that I don't know the realisable value of the assets to be acquired by NAMA, so your question is no more than an invitation to get drawn into a game of silly buggers.

Their total value will be considerably greater than nothing. The government estimates that in the medium-to-long term it might be as much as NAMA is advancing to pay for them, or even a bit more -- but I believe that is wildly optimistic.

Boskowski · 28-11-2009 9:41am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have already indicated that I don't know the realisable value of the assets to be acquired by NAMA, so your question is no more than an invitation to get drawn into a game of silly buggers.

Their total value will be considerably greater than nothing. The government estimates that in the medium-to-long term it might be as much as NAMA is advancing to pay for them, or even a bit more -- but I believe that is wildly optimistic.

However, as we're taking it off their books with immediate effect (more or less) and we do not know how much we're ever going to get back, we're giving them 54 billion. I'm not saying its a gift and its entirely free money or anything, but we're giving them 54 billion. Period.

vinylbomb · 28-11-2009 10:35am

realcam wrote: »

we're giving them 54 billion. I'm not saying its a gift and its entirely free money or anything, but we're giving them 54 billion.

Nah mate, you've got it wrong here.

NAMA is buying loans from the banks, and paying them with government securities (bonds).
Hence, they/we are not giving away anything, there is an exchange taking place.

This means that the banks clean their balance sheet, because they have a solid guaranteed bond that has a definite value. They are not given a big whack of cash. The bonds will be payable over a fixed term, but I'd say it would be a minimum of ten years.

Then the government can sell the asset (loan) at a later date - hopefully at an increase on what they paid. Also, the banks have taken a significant loss on these loans (30%), they don't view it as good business but its necessary to stabilize cash flow, liquidity and share price.

Johnboymac · 28-11-2009 11:29am

kmick wrote: »

People keep mentioning the 7% pay cut. Was that not a pension contribution?

Not a pension contribution....it is a levy...there is a difference as this levy wether it is 1% or 7% is exactly that..a levy!!

if it were a contribution then it would be in a kitty for further pensions etc...which it IS NOT.
if it were a contribution, then I would see some extra benefit in my pension, which I will not.
I pay full PRSI along with my contributions. what I am paying into my pension fund is only to top up the state pension to which every PRSI payer is entitled to. (Yes! including the private sector!¬).
I will get no extra benefits because of this levy...
so call it what you will...to me it is a pay cut!!

Public Sector Workers are preparing for 8% paycut - where did this info come from?

Comments