I am paying more for somebodys public sector pension than my own Private pension

Biffo The Bare

This situation has gone on for way too long. There is no justification for the top loaded pensions in the public sector, paid for by people in the private sector who need to pay up to 30% of their wages each week to have a pension thats close to being on par with public sector pensions. Even then private sector pensions are not guaranteed on retirement.

grahamo

:rolleyes:Yeah right!
Have you looked into your claims?
This has been explained lots of times before. Public sector workers (Post 1995 employees) receive a pension mostly made up of the state pension. If they have 40 years service they will receive a pension worth half salary.
This means that if they earn 40k a year whilst working they will receive a state pension of 12k. (This is paid for by their PRSI contributions). To bring the pension up to 50% of their salary they then receive a public sector pension of 8k.
12k plus 8k = 20k = 50% of salary. In return for this princely sum the public sector employee pays 6.5% of income plus a pension levy of around 5%
plus their PRSI contribution which from the 1st of May will be around 9%.
We'll leave the PRSI contributions out as everyone gets the state pension (If enough contributions paid).
I think 11.5 % of 40k per annum will accrue quite a bit of interest by the time it comes to retirement so should easily cover 8 grand a year until the average life expectancy which I believe is about 78 for men.
Lets work it out, retire at 65, receive pension for 13 years if you are lucky.
Pension = 8k x 13 years = 104k
Contributions = upwards of 184k (Then add interest to this)
even with a lump sum you dont even get back what you put in.!!!
Please explain how YOU are paying for this

I'm sure the top knobs in the public sector get very decent pensions but I can promise you the ordinary Joe doesn't get a good deal any more.

PS Public sector pensions aren't guaranteed anymore either. Haven't you heard? The Govt. gave the pension fund to the banks. By the time most people retire there may be nothing left for their pensions

10000maniacs

grahamo wrote: »

: To bring the pension up to 50% of their salary they then receive a public sector pension of 8k.
12k plus 8k = 20k = 50% of salary. In return for this princely sum the public sector employee pays 6.5% of income plus a pension levy of around 5%

I think this is what the PM is getting at.
Basically what you are saying is you will receive a guaranteed half of your salary index linked to inflation made up in part of a guaranteed "gift" of about €6000 (when you take out what you have paid) from the taxpayer which is index linked for inflation. This is what many of the private sector don't agree with....... Because its money that is taken out of their pockets and placed in the pockets of public sector employees.

Fergus08

Here we go again, another go at the public sector. The politics forum on boards.ie is full of surprises!!

Regarding the OP's point about private sector pensions not being guaranteed on retirement. Yeah, that's true. If you sink your investments into equities you're taking a big risk - but it's your choice. If it's goes pear-shared, as it has for hundreds of thousands, then that's the consequence of individual choice and investment advise, which you're free to ignore. Absolutely nothing to do with public sector workers. Jeez, when are people going to start to take responsibility for their own decisions!!

When you open a private pension you have the option of investing in cash (crap returns but safe); bonds (returns a little bit better but not as good as equities) or equities (great returns potentially, equally you could lose everything). That's the risk of a private pension. That's why you're advised to pull out of equities as you near retirement.

Now, the deeper question, which no-one here will ever address seriously, is why millions of private sector workers HAVE to hand over billions of their hard earned money every year to the private pensions industry for SFA in return...

And why hundreds, if not thousands, of private pension funds have huge holes (who has been dipping in to the goodies?) in them that are getting bigger and bigger.

But, no, it's much easier to lash public sector workers than attempt to think about the larger structural issues underlying the woes of the private sector pensioner.

Finally, it's worth remembering that the private pensions industry exists for one reason only; to enrich those who own and control private pension funds. Providing good, stable pensions into the future for workers is the very last thing on their list of priorities....

jimmmy

I am glad, Fergus08, that you are agreeing that the private sector gets a far worse deal on pensions, compared to the public sector, which it subsidises.

10000maniacs

Fergus08 wrote: »

But, no, it's much easier to lash public sector workers than attempt to think about the larger structural issues underlying the woes of the private sector pensioner.....

Maybe its because they need to be lashed. Public sector workers recieve an index linked 40% topup from the taxpayer that the private sector 1: Pays for and 2: Is not entitled to.:mad:

ardmacha

Change the record. Public sector pensions have had pretty much the same structure since the 19th century. If they were so good then people would be running over themselves to get into public sector jobs, which they have not been. Those at the top of the class, those with good connections, the well informed etc have not shown a particular preference for public sector jobs over this time.

dresden8

ardmacha wrote: »

Change the record. Public sector pensions have had pretty much the same structure since the 19th century. If they were so good then people would be running over themselves to get into public sector jobs, which they have not been. Those at the top of the class, those with good connections, the well informed etc have not shown a particular preference for public sector jobs over this time.

Oddly enough those at the top walk away with their pensions surprisingly intact while the average private sector worker gets nailed to the wall. Fingleton anybody?

Bloody public service, must be their fault somehow.

tedstriker

I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes for both the inflated salary and pensions if the service that we got as tax payers was much better. We get a poor return for our investment.

grahamo

10000maniacs wrote: »

I think this is what the PM is getting at.
Basically what you are saying is you will receive a guaranteed half of your salary index linked to inflation made up in part of a guaranteed "gift" of about €6000 (when you take out what you have paid) from the taxpayer which is index linked for inflation. This is what many of the private sector don't agree with....... Because its money that is taken out of their pockets and placed in the pockets of public sector employees.

What gift??? What are you talking about? Did you read my post. I explained exactly how a public sector employee pays for his pension and shown that it is MORE than paid for!
Maybe some people with private pensions should be having a go at their brokers for investing their money badly!

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

I am glad, Fergus08, that you are agreeing that the private sector gets a far worse deal on pensions, compared to the public sector, which it subsidises.

Did you bother reading my post Jimmmy?
I've just shown that its NOT subsidised!!!! If the private sector gets a worse deal on pensions its because of investing unwisely. Nobody's fault but the investor.

grahamo

some of the answers on here are ridiculous, you would expect more sense from 7 year olds. Ranting with nothing to back it up

Victor

Um, given that pension is based on last salary, those calculations are out of whack.

jimmycrackcorm

grahamo wrote: »

What gift??? What are you talking about? Did you read my post. I explained exactly how a public sector employee pays for his pension and shown that it is MORE than paid for!

If that's the case then why can't I simply give 6.5% of my private sector income to the government and be entitled to a cushy pension also? After all you claim that it's sufficient to provide a non-subsidized pension, so surely the answer is for everyone to pay 6.5% and we'll all not have to worry about our pension.

Of course in real life for me to achieve the same pension with a private pension, I'd actually have to pay over 50% of my salary each month.

grahamo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If that's the case then why can't I simply give 6.5% of my private sector income to the government and be entitled to a cushy pension also? After all you claim that it's sufficient to provide a non-subsidized pension, so surely the answer is for everyone to pay 6.5% and we'll all not have to worry about our pension.

Of course in real life for me to achieve the same pension with a private pension, I'd actually have to pay over 50% of my salary each month.

You already do give 6.5% of your income (PRSI) to the govt. (If your a PAYE worker)and you will get a pension of around
12k a year.
Public sector pay this 6.5% PRSI also, then another 6.5%, then another amount between 3 and 9% (Pension levy), so a public sector worker is now paying between 16 and 22% of income towards a pension.
Have a look at post number 2 in this thread and tell me which bit you think is wrong!

I've just shown that a public sector employees (earning 40k /year) pension is made up of 12k state pension( paid for by his PRSI contributions) and 8k from his public sector pension. Are you seriously expecting people to believe you would have to pay 50% salary into a pension fund to get a pension of 8k a year. What RUBBISH!

ardmacha

so surely the answer is for everyone to pay 6.5% and we'll all not have to worry about our pension.

Pensions have had employee contributions and employer contributions, it is not claimed that 6.5% funds the pension.

But given the lame and irresponsible performance of private pension funds the concept of a national pension fund is worth looking at.

dresden8

It should also be pointed out that if a public sector worker on 40k at retirement had an adult dependant their PRSI pension circumstances as follows

Personal Rate 230.30 + Adult Dependant (under 66) 153.50 = 353.80 by 52 weeks = 18,397.60

Max pension - €20,000

Value of "Gilt Edged" "Gold Plated" Public sector pension = €1,602.40 per annum.

Personal Rate 230.30 + Adult Dependant (over 66) 206.30 = 436.60 by 52 weeks = 22,703 per annum.

Max pension - €20,000

Value of "Gilt Edged" "Gold Plated" public sector pension = fnck all.

Remember, public sector has PRSI pension deducted from final overall pension figure, private sector gets to keep both.

Along with tax relief on contributions.

Has anybody worked those out yet?

dresden8

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

This situation has gone on for way too long. There is no justification for the top loaded pensions in the public sector, paid for by people in the private sector who need to pay up to 30% of their wages each week to have a pension thats close to being on par with public sector pensions. Even then private sector pensions are not guaranteed on retirement.

Actually now that I think of it, I'm sick of my PAYE going to fund your pension.

Private sector leach.

grahamo

dresden8 wrote: »

It should also be pointed out that if a public sector worker on 40k at retirement had an adult dependant their PRSI pension circumstances as follows

Personal Rate 230.30 + Adult Dependant (under 66) 153.50 = 353.80 by 52 weeks = 18,397.60

Max pension - €20,000

Value of "Gilt Edged" "Gold Plated" Public sector pension = €1,602.40 per annum.

Personal Rate 230.30 + Adult Dependant (over 66) 206.30 = 436.60 by 52 weeks = 22,703 per annum.

Max pension - €20,000

Value of "Gilt Edged" "Gold Plated" public sector pension = fnck all.

Remember, public sector has PRSI pension deducted from final overall pension figure, private sector gets to keep both.

Along with tax relief on contributions.

Has anybody worked those out yet?

Another good point. You could explain these points all day long and it simply won't sink in with the people who begrudge people who have worked all their lives a pension.
I bet the post above won't be answered or acknowledged either as the begrudgers like to cherry pick their arguments:D

dresden8

grahamo wrote: »

Another good point. You could explain these points all day long and it simply won't sink in with the people who begrudge people who have worked all their lives a pension.
I bet the post above won't be answered or acknowledged either as the begrudgers like to cherry pick their arguments:D

Don't worry I've made that point many times before. I got hit with those old leaches on State Pensions are paid too much.

Wrinkly b@st@rds! (That's my spin on their comments by the way.)

ixoy

In all these calculations above, it doesn't take into account the fact the pension is index linked. So we see someone say that, if they retired now on 40k, they'd receive 20k for the next 13 years - when in fact the final wage would be going up, so by year 10 they could be on 28k a year.

It's also important for the pension contribution itself - you'll be contributing far less in year 1 than year 40, yet you'll be receiving half the current wage when you retire.

Then there's the fact that the 40x figure above works only on the assumption that you've just joined and will pay the levy for the next 40 years, rather than the many who may have say 10 odd years in without paying any levy.

It's this index linking to the current wage that has people annoyed but the figures above don't seem to take this into account.

dresden8

They also don't take into account public servants who won't get their full 40 years done and won't qualify for a full pension.

I work with a guy who is paying c. 60 a week pension contributions for a c. 36 increase in his pension over the state pension rate.

Now his levies and taxes are going to pay private sector pension tax relief for fingers Fingleton and his 27 million pension pot.

Private sector leaching off the public sector yet again. Disgraceful.

grahamo

ixoy wrote: »

In all these calculations above, it doesn't take into account the fact the pension is index linked. So we see someone say that, if they retired now on 40k, they'd receive 20k for the next 13 years - when in fact the final wage would be going up, so by year 10 they could be on 28k a year.

It's also important for the pension contribution itself - you'll be contributing far less in year 1 than year 40, yet you'll be receiving half the current wage when you retire.
Then there's the fact that the 40x figure above works only on the assumption that you've just joined and will pay the levy for the next 40 years, rather than the many who may have say 10 odd years in without paying any levy.

It's this index linking to the current wage that has people annoyed but the figures above don't seem to take this into account.

You still don't seem to be getting it. You DO NOT receive half your salary from your public sector pension. You receive half your salary MINUS the state pension.
( If you are married or have dependents the state pension will more than likely add up to more than half your salary on its own so you will then receive NO public sector pension).
As for contributing less in year 1 in than in year 40, surely if you put some money in the post office for 40 years it would accrue interest. The money contributed in year 1 would be worth at least the amount from year 40 if you add 40 years compound interest!
And even if wages went up, I'm sure the state pension would increase on a par with this so a lot
of people would still be receiving very little back after years of contributing.
I've got to admit there are some nice public sector pensions out there. TD's,Gardai etc where you can retire early and get more than what you pay in but these are few and far between.

jimmmy

grahamo wrote: »

I've got to admit there are some nice public sector pensions out there.

Thats the understatement of the century. As the RTE programme devoted to the public sector gravy train recently showed, there are hundreds of thousands of these. Not only that, but public service people retiring get a very sizeable " gratuity " as well as a pension. Thats not often mentioned by the public sector people

gazzer

ixoy wrote: »

It's also important for the pension contribution itself - you'll be contributing far less in year 1 than year 40, yet you'll be receiving half the current wage when you retire.

.

Thats not true. Say somebody is earning 700 a week. When they retire they will get 350 - State Pension. If they area single person they will get a PS pension of 350 - 230 = 120. Thats 20% of your salary not half.

Take this scenario further. If you have a spouse you will get a further 206.30 a week for them. State pension of 230 + 206.30 = 406.30. That is more than half the salary you retire on so in that scenario you dont get ANY PS pension. Fair enough you will get the lump sum but you will have more than paid for that over 40 years.

Use this example of a person with a spouse and this is assuming this person retired this year and so didnt even pay the pension levy but has paid the 6.5% of their salary towards their pension. Say an average wage of 30,000. Thats 1950 a year over 40 years = 78000. Say your wage on retirement is 700 a week. Thats approx 36000 a year. One and half times that salary is 54000. That means that you lost 24000. Remember with this calculation I havnt even added the new pension levy.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats the understatement of the century. As the RTE programme devoted to the public sector gravy train recently showed, there are hundreds of thousands of these. Not only that, but public service people retiring get a very sizeable " gratuity " as well as a pension. Thats not often mentioned by the public sector people

Well done Jimmmy. Don't dispute the calculations as you can't, just repeat mantra of RTE programme.

Just to make it clear, yet again, not all public servants earn 300 grand a year.

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats the understatement of the century. As the RTE programme devoted to the public sector gravy train recently showed, there are hundreds of thousands of these. Not only that, but public service people retiring get a very sizeable " gratuity " as well as a pension. Thats not often mentioned by the public sector people

I agree some pensions are good but to say 'Hundreds of thousands' is a bit of a joke. It has been shown on this thread how the public sector pensions work these days and in a lot of cases people who will have been paying over 20% of income will receive NO public sector pension. They will receive a lump sum if they have enough service but by the time most people retire that will be heavily taxed and as someone posted above this will be easily covered by what people paid in. This will again show that POST 1995 EMPLOYEES WILL NOT EVEN GET BACK WHAT THEY PAY IN.
How people say they are subsidising this is beyond me.
PS I notice you conveniently ignored the rest of my post Jimmmy:)

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats the understatement of the century. As the RTE programme devoted to the public sector gravy train recently showed, there are hundreds of thousands of these. Not only that, but public service people retiring get a very sizeable " gratuity " as well as a pension. Thats not often mentioned by the public sector people

i dont think this guy even reads posts anymore....:rolleyes:
just copies and pastes what he reads on the online newspapers, thats all.

loobylou

gazzer wrote: »

Say an average wage of 30,000. Thats 1950 a year over 40 years = 78000. Say your wage on retirement is 700 a week.

Let me see now. He's been AVERAGING €600 a week for the last 40 years. His wage now is €700. Makes you wonder what his starting wage (in 1969) was?

ixoy

gazzer wrote: »

Use this example of a person with a spouse and this is assuming this person retired this year and so didnt even pay the pension levy but has paid the 6.5% of their salary towards their pension. Say an average wage of 30,000. Thats 1950 a year over 40 years = 78000. Say your wage on retirement is 700 a week. Thats approx 36000 a year. One and half times that salary is 54000. That means that you lost 24000. Remember with this calculation I havnt even added the new pension levy.

Are you averaging the wage over 40 years there? Seems excessively high if your retirement wage is only 35k. It also still excludes the fact the wage would rise after retirement. Now admittedly so too could the SW pension.

It's also true in this example only if you have a spouse.

I must try and knock up some figures on this as most of the examples so far have excluded interest and wage rises over the years in them. They're a bit simplistic (from both sides) so it's hard to get a clear picture on how well it's be for say an average executive officer. We keep hearing from numerous sources how good it is, but I'd like to see for myself (using a rather crude data set but I'm not actuary).

stevoman

another public sector bashing thread. thats original. :rolleyes: why not just dig up the other 50?

ixoy

gazzer wrote: »

Use this example of a person with a spouse and this is assuming this person retired this year and so didnt even pay the pension levy but has paid the 6.5% of their salary towards their pension. Say an average wage of 30,000. Thats 1950 a year over 40 years = 78000. Say your wage on retirement is 700 a week. Thats approx 36000 a year. One and half times that salary is 54000. That means that you lost 24000. Remember with this calculation I havnt even added the new pension levy.

Are you averaging the wage over 40 years there? Seems excessively high if your retirement wage is only 35k. It also still excludes the fact the wage would rise after retirement. Now admittedly so too could the SW pension.

It's also true in this example only if you have a spouse.

I must try and knock up some figures on this as most of the examples so far have excluded interest and wage rises over the years in them. They're a bit simplistic (from both sides) so it's hard to get a clear picture on how well it's be for say an average executive officer. We keep hearing from numerous sources how good it is, but I'd like to see for myself (using a rather crude data set but I'm not actuary).

steof1984

Also if your a single person with a public sector pension and you die at 66 your pension is gone.

If you have a private pension it goes to your estate.

For people at the top earning €150k plus Yes Public sector pensions are amazing they will get their lump sum and 50% of their final wage

for the majoirty of Public Servents its not all that great

If you leave the CS at the top scale of a CO €38000 you will get
Lump Sum: €57,000 (1.5 X €38,000)
Pension: € 19,000 (.5 X € 38,000) this also includes your state pension €12.5k

So you get €6.5k a year for your 40 years of pension contributions.

A CO will pay approx €125 000 over 40 years in Pension, PRSI

so at the most they will be lucky if they break even

BTW Jimmy that primetime show was totally leveraged against the Public Sector workers . I did an interview for that show and i broke the pay down just like above and it didnt even make it to Air . So please read the facts and dont expect the media to do it for you . They might smudge the facts for their own agenda.

gazzer

ixoy wrote: »

Are you averaging the wage over 40 years there? Seems excessively high if your retirement wage is only 35k. It also still excludes the fact the wage would rise after retirement. Now admittedly so too could the SW pension.

It's also true in this example only if you have a spouse.

I must try and knock up some figures on this as most of the examples so far have excluded interest and wage rises over the years in them. They're a bit simplistic (from both sides) so it's hard to get a clear picture on how well it's be for say an average executive officer. We keep hearing from numerous sources how good it is, but I'd like to see for myself (using a rather crude data set but I'm not actuary).

I used the figure of 30,000 as it is the current mid points (approx) of the starting salary and top pay scale of a CO.

gazzer

Lets look at this pension issue another way.

If a private sector worker who has a spouse and who never had a private pension (and who paid PRSI while working) retired today he would get 406.30 per week. This equates to 21127.60 a year.

A Clerical Officer (CO) in the Civil Service retires today. His salary after 40 years service is 37,584 which equates to 720.27 a week.

The CO is entitled to half his salary as a weekly pension so he is entitled to 18792 a year. Now look at the private sector worker again. His yearly pension is worth 21127.60 a year. Almost 2,500 grand a year in the difference. Now as far as I know the CO would be entitled to the full state pension so his pension should be the same as the Private Sector guy, however my point is that for all the pension contributions the CO has made he doesnt get any weekly benefit for it.

He of course gets a lump sum of 56,376 (37,584 x 1.5) but he/she has made weekly contributions for this for 40 years.

grahamo

I see the public sector bashers are now conspicuous by their absence. They can't dispute the figures in this thread so I think the public sector bashers have lost this debate.:)
Could it be time for them to go and pick on someone else now;)

Gumbo

grahamo wrote: »

I see the public sector bashers are now conspicuous by their absence. They can't dispute the figures in this thread so I think the public sector bashers have lost this debate.:)
Could it be time for them to go and pick on someone else now;)

dont worry, they'll be back. there currently over bashing the Dublin Bus drivers at the moment, tomorrow its the taxi's and i think the PS is scheduled in for a friday bashing

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

Just to make it clear, yet again, not all public servants earn 300 grand a year.

Nobody - but nobody - suggested they do. Average public sector pay is 966 per week, plus perks. This is way more than the private sector. As the tv programme said, what the public sector does get is a big proportion of the salary plus the gratuity. This " gratuity " ( as well as the pension ) is not often mentioned by the public sector people

10000maniacs

grahamo wrote: »

I see the public sector bashers are now conspicuous by their absence. They can't dispute the figures in this thread so I think the public sector bashers have lost this debate.:)
Could it be time for them to go and pick on someone else now;)

Get real and smell the coffee.
This is whats known in private worker circles as pension apartheid.
The vast majority of the 357,000 people employed in the public sector are members of a defined-benefit pension scheme which provides a guaranteed 50pc of final salary on retirement.
Oh yes I forgot......the lump sum of 1.5 times final-year salary.
This is for a contribution of 6.5% of income per annum plus a levy of 4% after tax relief.
Pretty good deal if you ask me.
Now both private and public sector workers pay equitable PRSI, so PRSI is not an issue here.
If I was to arrange a pension like that for myself in the private sector, I would have to put aside 25+% of my salary until I retire, and depending on how the portfolio does on retirement date, maybe I could pick up a comparable income. NOT a guaranteed income.

gazzer

10000maniacs wrote: »

Get real and smell the coffee.
This is whats known in private worker circles as pension apartheid.
The vast majority of the 357,000 people employed in the public sector are members of a defined-benefit pension scheme which provides a guaranteed 50pc of final salary on retirement.

The pension deductions that PS pay is NOT (repeat NOT) for 50 pc of final salary. It is for 50pc of final salary MINUS (repeat MINUS) the State Pension that ALL PRSI payers get.

Just in case you didnt get that I will repeat it.

The pension deductions that PS pay is NOT (repeat NOT) for 50 pc of final salary. It is for 50pc of final salary MINUS (repeat MINUS) the State Pension that ALL PRSI payers get.

Fergus08

10000maniacs wrote: »

Get real and smell the coffee.
This is whats known in private worker circles as pension apartheid.

What's the cause of that apartheid?? Would it be the tens of thousands of private companies who refuse to extent the company pension scheme to workers?? Where only middle and upper management were given the benefit of, in many cases, a DEFINED BENEFIT PRIVATE SECTOR pension.

Public sector workers didn't cause pensions apartheid. The private sector business classes did as they knew the state would take up the slack for their disgraceful conduct in not allowing workers access to company schemes. This has been a feature of capitalism for decades.

10000maniacs should try to explain what she/he means by 'pension apartheid' and offer an explanation of how it arose. If she/he did so it would reveal a far greater problem than the decent-ish pensions the majority of public sector workers enjoy.

Anyone who begrudges any worker, public or private sector, is acting irresponsibly. Attacking public sector workers for their pensions is not going to provide better pension coverage for those in the private sector.

Biffo The Bare

gazzer wrote: »

MINUS (repeat MINUS) the State Pension that ALL PRSI payers get.

Including all public sector workers. :rolleyes:
You get the state pension too.

10000maniacs

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Including all public sector workers. :rolleyes:
You get the state pension too.

Hmmmm.... Now theres an idea. If only I were in power. Rats.:D

gazzer

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

Including all public sector workers. :rolleyes:
You get the state pension too.

Eh Yeah :rolleyes: That was the point I was making. All PRSI workers get the state pension. THe pension contributions that PS make ARE NOT for the state pension. The pension contributions that PS's pay on top of their PRSI contributions is for the pension amount that makes up the difference (if any) between the state pension and half the PS's salary on retirement.

In a lot of cases there is no difference so the only benefit that the PS get from paying the pension contribution is the lump sum payment. 40 years of paying this more than makes up for the lump sum payment

steof1984

[QUOTE/] Nobody - but nobody - suggested they do. Average public sector pay is 966 per week, plus perks. This is way more than the private sector. As the tv programme said, what the public sector does get is a big proportion of the salary plus the gratuity. This " gratuity " ( as well as the pension ) is not often mentioned by the public sector people [QUOTE/]

Average PS pay includes the pay of all politicians , Sec Generals etc who All earn over 100k so they do up the average . Plus its hard compare Private average VS Public Average . As private includes minimum wage jobs which lowers the Private Sector Average

They don’t get a big proportion of their salary plus gratuity. Look at my last post and come up with a argument against the figures don’t just quote poorly investigated speech bubbles.


I mentioned the Gratuity as well as the pension. I also mentioned how much it would all be worth and i also mentioned how much they individual pays for it.

Look over my last post and come up with figures to put holes in what i have said.

Your either ill informed or plain ignorant and don’t want to open your eyes to the facts because you know then your argument holds no water.

gazzer

jimmmy wrote: »

Nobody - but nobody - suggested they do. Average public sector pay is 966 per week, plus perks. This is way more than the private sector. As the tv programme said, what the public sector does get is a big proportion of the salary plus the gratuity. This " gratuity " ( as well as the pension ) is not often mentioned by the public sector people

In the Civil Service Clerical Officers, Staff Officers and Executive Officers make up the vast vast bulk of staff. None of these grades earn 966 per week. They all earn below this amount. I know you said it is an average figure but for instance in the deparment I work in there are 250 staff (210 CS staff and 40 consultants). 136 of the CS staff are EO grade or below.

loobylou

grahamo wrote: »

I see the public sector bashers are now conspicuous by their absence. They can't dispute the figures in this thread so I think the public sector bashers have lost this debate.:)
Could it be time for them to go and pick on someone else now;)

No,they're probably all at work at 16.08 on a Wednesday.

Naz_st

grahamo wrote: »

:rolleyes:Yeah right!
Have you looked into your claims?
This has been explained lots of times before. Public sector workers (Post 1995 employees) receive a pension mostly made up of the state pension. If they have 40 years service they will receive a pension worth half salary.
This means that if they earn 40k a year whilst working they will receive a state pension of 12k. (This is paid for by their PRSI contributions). To bring the pension up to 50% of their salary they then receive a public sector pension of 8k.
12k plus 8k = 20k = 50% of salary. In return for this princely sum the public sector employee pays 6.5% of income plus a pension levy of around 5%
plus their PRSI contribution which from the 1st of May will be around 9%.
We'll leave the PRSI contributions out as everyone gets the state pension (If enough contributions paid).
I think 11.5 % of 40k per annum will accrue quite a bit of interest by the time it comes to retirement so should easily cover 8 grand a year until the average life expectancy which I believe is about 78 for men.
Lets work it out, retire at 65, receive pension for 13 years if you are lucky.
Pension = 8k x 13 years = 104k
Contributions = upwards of 184k (Then add interest to this)
even with a lump sum you dont even get back what you put in.!!!
Please explain how YOU are paying for this

grahamo wrote: »

What gift??? What are you talking about? Did you read my post. I explained exactly how a public sector employee pays for his pension and shown that it is MORE than paid for!
Maybe some people with private pensions should be having a go at their brokers for investing their money badly!

grahamo wrote: »

I see the public sector bashers are now conspicuous by their absence. They can't dispute the figures in this thread so I think the public sector bashers have lost this debate.:)
Could it be time for them to go and pick on someone else now;)

Your calculations are at best misrepresentative of the facts, but being blunt, they're just plain wrong.

First of all, using the CO salary scale as representative of the majority of the public sector is completely disingenuous and it simply biases your numbers towards proving your own point. It's also an inaccurate representation, especially since the average public sector wage is currently 50k.

However, because the average salary and the median salary can vary widely due to a skewing from very high earners, let's look at a more concrete example:

The STARTING SALARY of a teacher with a good degree is almost 40k (€39,075). However, even if you discount all bonuses for qualifications and just use the basic pay scale, every single teacher in the country, who spent their career teaching fulltime, will be on significantly more than 40k when they retire (€63,360 to be exact).

So to redo your "calculations" taking into account that workers don't start on the same high salary that they finish on, and using the BASIC teachers pay scale, along with reasonably accurate* calculations of pension contributions, let's see what we come up with:

Years Employed | Salary | 6.5% Contrib | Pension Levy Contrib % | Total Contrib % | Annual Pension Contribution (€)
1 €32,599 0.065 0.04875 0.11375 €3,708.14
2 €33,754 0.065 0.04970 0.11470 €3,871.48
3 €34,907 0.065 0.05059 0.11559 €4,034.84
4 €36,068 0.065 0.05143 0.11643 €4,199.35
5 €37,865 0.065 0.05222 0.11722 €4,438.62
6 €39,028 0.065 0.05297 0.11797 €4,604.25
7 €40,194 0.065 0.05368 0.11868 €4,770.39
8 €43,123 0.065 0.05436 0.11936 €5,147.12
9 €44,586 0.065 0.04056 0.10556 €4,706.61
10 €46,336 0.065 0.04101 0.10601 €4,912.18
11 €48,077 0.065 0.04144 0.10644 €5,117.34
12 €49,830 0.065 0.04185 0.10685 €5,324.28
13 €51,297 0.065 0.04224 0.10724 €5,501.02
14 €53,238 0.065 0.04261 0.10761 €5,729.00
15 €53,238 0.065 0.04297 0.10797 €5,747.97
16 €53,238 0.065 0.04331 0.10831 €5,766.13
17 €55,916 0.065 0.04364 0.10864 €6,074.46
18 €55,916 0.065 0.04395 0.10895 €6,091.99
19 €54,916 0.065 0.04425 0.10925 €5,999.57
20 €55,916 0.065 0.04454 0.10954 €6,124.99
21 €59,454 0.065 0.04482 0.10982 €6,529.08
22 €59,454 0.065 0.04508 0.11008 €6,544.99
23 €59,454 0.065 0.04534 0.11034 €6,560.31
24 €59,454 0.065 0.04559 0.11059 €6,575.07
25 €63,360 0.065 0.04583 0.11083 €7,022.21
26 €63,360 0.065 0.04606 0.11106 €7,036.85
27 €63,360 0.065 0.04628 0.11128 €7,050.98
28 €63,360 0.065 0.04650 0.11150 €7,064.64
29 €63,360 0.065 0.04671 0.11171 €7,077.84
30 €63,360 0.065 0.04691 0.11191 €7,090.61
31 €63,360 0.065 0.04710 0.11210 €7,102.96
32 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
33 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
34 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
35 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
36 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
37 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
38 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
39 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93
40 €63,360 0.065 0.04729 0.11229 €7,114.93

Total Contributions: €237,851.46
Retirement Lump Sum: €95,040.00
Contributions - Lump Sum: €142,811.46
50% Final Salary: €31,680.00
State Pension: €11,975.60
Contributory Pension: €19,704.40
15yrs** of Pension: €295,566.00
Total Deficit: -€152,754.54

So to answer the OPs question, the above calculations would suggest that the taxpayer is subsidising on average €152k for the pension of every fulltime teacher in the country upon retirement. (and that's not even counting the fact that all the currently employed teachers haven't been paying the extra pension levy for all the time they've currently been employed thus far!)

grahamo wrote: »

I agree some pensions are good but to say 'Hundreds of thousands' is a bit of a joke.

Hmmm... well just using the above example, there are over 55k fulltime teachers in Ireland that will gain significantly from these pensions. Couple that with the fact that every Garda in the country along with every prison officer, every lecturer, every doctor, every nurse, the majority of semi-state employees, a significant number of the civil service, the judiciary, and of course the politicians will also finish on significantly more than 40k, and you do have "hundreds of thousands".

Feel free to do the same exercise on the HSE pay scales (remember, the HSE is the largest employer in the state, with 111k employees). If you don't ignore the facts, you will find a very similar result for all medical staff and the vast majority of the admin staff.

In summary, the defined benefit public sector pension is A GOOD DEAL for the vast majority of those that contribute to it. For some it's not, but stop trying to pretend that it's only the very high earners that are gaining out of it.

Lastly, I just threw the above together in excel based on a few google searches and as a rebuttal to what I perceived as a misrepresentation of the public service pension benefits based on a spurious calculation. As such, this is not supposed to be a definitive set of calculations, and I'm happy to be corrected on any of the specifics (esp the calc of pension levy - bloody minefield of gross/net, multiple levels of tax relief etc). I think the central point should remain clear however.

*based on post-95 employees, calculation of pension levy contribution is: 15k @ 3% + 5k @ 6%, balance @ 10% with tax relief at both 20% and 41% levels calculated

**this number is taken the average life expectancy in 2002 for Males age 65. Women have a life expectancy of higher than this (18.7 years), so in fact the state deficit is quite a bit worse since the majority of teachers are women, but the central point remains.

ixoy

Thanks for the above there - and it doesn't even begin to take into account inflation either.

The other examples are for the civil service which are actually a pretty small representation of government employees. Be interesting to see if there's a rebuttal of those figures.

kindajaded

jimmmy wrote: »

Nobody - but nobody - suggested they do. Average public sector pay is 966 per week, plus perks. This is way more than the private sector. As the tv programme said, what the public sector does get is a big proportion of the salary plus the gratuity. This " gratuity " ( as well as the pension ) is not often mentioned by the public sector people

now i do not understand this: you keep saying that only private sector workers get lump sums but both of my parents retired in the last few years - mother public service and father private and BOTH got lump sums. he always made more than she did and got a lump sum twice as big (despite apparently being in a fairly high risk pension). so can you please explain this or is my dad the only private sector worker who paid into a pension that entitled him to a lump sum? also - he gets the prsi pension added she does not.

kindajaded

loobylou wrote: »

No,they're probably all at work at 16.08 on a Wednesday.

ya, if they are lucky enough to be working 9-5 jobs like most private sector workers..