ESRI Oct 9th: public/private sector pay difference of 26% based on job characteristic

Diarmuid

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1009/economy.html

The ESRI has published a study which finds the pay gap between workers in the public and private sector is 26%.
...
This time, it has based its analysis on job characteristics
...
The so-called 'public sector premium' is lowest in the Civil Service and Local Authorities where workers earn an average 9%-12% more than counterparts in the private sector.
...
The study did not take account of pensions or benefits-in-kind.

Long Onion

Cue Jimmmy ...

Ms Happy

Here we go again........ :rolleyes:

Diarmuid

I don't think we need to retred over the same ground again. It's just an answer to the union talking point that they didn't compare like with like. Well now they did.

gerry28

The so-called 'public sector premium' is lowest in the Civil Service and Local Authorities where workers earn an average 9-12% more than counterparts in the private sector.

I agree, this does not take the pension levy into consideration. So its pretty even then with the private sector.

Naz_st

gerry28 wrote: »

I agree, this does not take the pension levy into consideration. So its pretty even then with the private sector.

But it doesn't take into account the value of the guaranteed defined benefit public service pension either, so it's pretty reasonable that it doesn't take into account the levy.

Hydrosylator

It's an interesting publication

ESRI found that between March 2003 and October 2006 the overall public sector pay premium increased from 14 to 26 per cent, "with both the OLS and PSM estimation methods generating almost identical results".

Just like to point out when these figures are from. Not that it's relevant or anything.

The premium is greatest in the education sector where pay in the Institutes of Technology and the Universities give rise to a premium of 52.6%.

I think that's fair enough. Which colleges are better, public or private? In this situation, the public sector offers the best service, and has the best staff. It makes sense that they get paid more. In my experience at least.

In the private sector the pay penalty in 2006,
relative to the public sector, was most severe in Hotels & Restaurants and in Wholesale &
Retail, and least severe in Financial Intermediation and Construction.

Stuff like this does a great job of dragging these averages down. Remember working in hotels? I do. It was ****ing ****. The public sector has no job as ****ty, so it will always seem cushier when these are being used for comparison.

Another things from the report. Of the 73.2% of the work force which is in the private sector, 18.7% is in manafacturing, 11.8% is in wholesale and retail and 4.8% is in hotels and restaurants. This means that almost half the private sector are working in sectors dominated by unskilled labour.

Of the 26.6% of our population working in health and education both take up over 7%. These sectors are dominated by college graduates. Doctors, nurses, teachers. This is 7.3% and 7.5%, which makes 14.8%/26.6% . So over half of the public sector is dominated by college graduates, who do work which nobody can deny is essential to the state.

I would imagine that a nurse gets paid more than a hotel receptionist. I'm okay with it.

The real waste in the public sector is Bertie's election-time quangos, but nobody's going on about them in the media. I'd love to know why.

Diarmuid

gerry28 wrote: »

I agree, this does not take the pension levy into consideration. So its pretty even then with the private sector.

eh? Care to present your analysis?

Amhran Nua

Hydrosylator wrote: »

So over half of the public sector is dominated by college graduates, who do work which nobody can deny is essential to the state.

By the same metric just under half of the public service don't have third level qualifications at university level. In any case didn't this study compare like for like.

jimmmy

Diarmuid wrote: »

I don't think we need to retred over the same ground again. It's just an answer to the union talking point that they didn't compare like with like. Well now they did.

+1

Still hard to compare like for like when one has a still subsidised pension ( eg Eddie Hobbs confirmed a Garda would need to be paying 48% of his pension if he was to be paying the full economic cost : this was on RTE TV on Monday week last ), shorter working week on average, greater job security etc.

Methinks the pay difference should be the other way around if anything. In a western, free market economy its dangerous to have such a premium enticing people away from the wealth creating sector.

gerry28

eh? Care to present your analysis?

Well if the ESRI are to be believed then the net difference would be in the region of 5% after pension levy.

Hydrosylator

Amhran Nua wrote: »

By the same metric just under half of the public service don't have third level qualifications at university level. In any case didn't this study compare like for like.

Wrong. Any serious job in the public sector requires a qualification, usually a degree.

The security forces which makes up about an eighth of the public sector on top of that includes gardaí and soldiers, both of whom have years of training.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

In any case didn't this study compare like for like.

They certainly gave it their best shot.
However if you look at how the public and private jobs breakdown, there isn't a lot of common ground for comparison in any case:

Sector Employment Share (%)
Private Sector Organisations: 73.2
Manufacturing 18.7
Construction 12.8
Wholesale & Retail 11.7
Hotels & Restaurants 4.8
Private Electricity 0.1
Transport & Communication 4.0
Financial Intermediation 6.0
Business Services 8.9
Private Education 0.5
Private Health 2.0
Other Services 3.7

Public Service Organisations: 26.6
Civil Service 2.5
Education 7.3
Health 7.5
Security Services 3.0
Non-commercial Semi-states 0.5
Commercial Semi-states 4.3
Local Authority 1.4
Marine 0.1
Total 100.0

I do believe that there are over-paid people in the public sector, but that this is almost exclusively at the top. Think Fás. Would you rather start cutting at the bottom or the top?

Amhran Nua

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Wrong. Any serious job in the public sector requires a qualification, usually a degree.

So just under half of the jobs in the public sector aren't serious jobs?

Hydrosylator wrote: »

The security forces which makes up about an eighth of the public sector on top of that includes gardaí and soldiers, both of whom have years of training.

It takes years of training to do a lot of the jobs in the private sector as well. Also I'm not at all sure about that eighth there, is it not more like one fourteenth?

Hydrosylator wrote: »

They certainly gave it their best shot.
However if you look at how the public and private jobs breakdown, there isn't a lot of common ground for comparison in any case:

But eh, what was that whole benchmarking thing about so, if not comparing like for like.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I do believe that there are over-paid people in the public sector, but that this is almost exclusively at the top. Think Fás. Would you rather start cutting at the bottom or the top?

I'd rather not cut at all, but we're sunk if we don't.

jimmmy

gerry28 wrote: »

Well if the ESRI are to be believed then the net difference would be in the region of 5% after pension levy.

I hope you do not work in any post in the p.s. where logic or economics are concerned. The public service pension - inc the levy - is a perk, not a cost. If the govt tomorrow said to you they are going to scrap the p.s. pension and the levy , would that be ok with you ? That 7% is the best value you ever paid. Anyone from the private sector would love to be paying it.;)

Diarmuid

gerry28 wrote: »

Well if the ESRI are to be believed then the net difference would be in the region of 5% after pension levy.

Did you factor in the benefit of the pension in your analysis?

If every worker in one sector got free accommodation and a free car, wouldn't you regard that as a benefit when comparing salaries?

joolsveer

Diarmuid wrote: »

Did you factor in the benefit of the pension in your analysis?

If every worker in one sector got free accommodation and a free car, wouldn't you regard that as a benefit when comparing salaries?

I heard a guy from the ESRI on the radio say that benefits in kind were not taken into account. He also said that guards were compared to security men. He was unable to give a comparator for soldiers. Seems like a dodgy exercise to me.

Diarmuid

joolsveer wrote: »

I heard a guy from the ESRI on the radio say that benefits in kind were not taken into account. He also said that guards were compared to security men. He was unable to give a comparator for soldiers. Seems like a dodgy exercise to me.

I quoted in the very first post that "pensions and BIK" were not included.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... That 7% is the best value you ever paid...

What 7%? I have recently had sight of a public servant's payslip which shows three pension-related deductions (superannuation, spouses & children, and "pension related deduction") which add up to just shy of 15% of gross pay. There is also a deduction for PRSI, and when that is taken into account, deductions amount to over 19%.

The public service pension schemes are very attractive for their members, but let's be fair about what is involved.

gerry28

That 7% is the best value you ever paid.

I don't think true logic was applied here now jimmmy.

Before the pension levy I was paying money towards my pension so when i retire i would recieve a particular sum of money (sum x). Now, i have been asked to pay an extra percentage of my wage (pension levy) towards my pension.
However i will not recieve any more money when i retire than i would have got before the pension levy - I will still recieve sum x.

So it certainly was not the best value 7% i ever paid.

Diarmuid

gerry28 wrote: »

Before the pension levy I was paying money towards my pension so when i retire i would recieve a particular sum of money (sum x).

The issue is that: sum(your payments + 7%) < x (by a long shot)

Hydrosylator

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So just under half of the jobs in the public sector aren't serious jobs?

Very funny. I'm referring to the rest of the public sector from health and education, as I'm sure you could intuit.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It takes years of training to do a lot of the jobs in the private sector as well. Also I'm not at all sure about that eighth there, is it not more like one fourteenth?

3% of workers are public sector security forces.
26.6% of workers are public.
(3/26.6)*(100/1) = 11.278%
Just over 1/9th.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

But eh, what was that whole benchmarking thing about so, if not comparing like for like.

I'm not defending the rationale behind benchmarking.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'd rather not cut at all, but we're sunk if we don't.

I know what you mena, but I'd rather cut out bull**** quango's than cut the wages of people we actually need to keep us healthy and safe, and educate our kids. All three of those are people doing jobs I wouldn't have the mettle for.

jimmmy

gerry28 wrote: »

So it certainly was not the best value 7% i ever paid.

ok, scrap the 7% so, and make provision for your own pension, like every private sector has to ( apart from the old age pension which most people inc the p.s. are entitled to ) .
I do not think you would like that either.

Anyone from the private sector would love to be paying it.
Not to mention having the other perks, like shorter working week, greater job security etc.

Pharaoh1

Had this pension levy discussion with a relative (HSE employee on circa 55k) at the weekend as she was trying to decide which way to vote on the IMPACT strike ballot.
I explained it like this:
- Prior to the pension levy when you paid superannuation towards your 50% pension and 150% gratuity this was a mega fantastic deal. (Pre '95 so no full PRSI)
- Now that you pay superannuation and the pension levy you now have a fantastic deal.
- If you paid the full cost of your pension maybe 25 to 30% this would be a very good deal if you had an absolute guarantee of receiving the pension (which she has in as much as anything can be guaranteed).
In any case she would only have to pay this for half of the contribution period from now until retirement.

She said she would give up the pension and the levy if given the choice so I advised her to communicate this to IMPACT.
Interesting to hear a lot of resentment from HSE and other govt employees towards the likes of ESB employees who have exactly the same pension entitlements but only pay superannuation. Admittedly they have their own pension fund which has a big deficit but what chance the govt underwriting it just like they did recently with FAS and Universities.

Amhran Nua

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I know what you mena, but I'd rather cut out bull**** quango's than cut the wages of people we actually need to keep us healthy and safe, and educate our kids. All three of those are people doing jobs I wouldn't have the mettle for.

€13 billion on quangos. Are they included in the general public sector pay bill on most reports is the question? The cost of public pay to the exchequer is considerably less than normally thought as well, since they are paid from the same pot as they pay taxes into. With that said we are still running a €24 billion deficit.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

ok, scrap the 7% so...

What 7%?

ardmacha

When looking at where expenditure went during the boom/benchmarking period, table 2 is interesting. Education had the lowest overall increase in the period and health was highest.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What 7%?

Ah, the infamous p.s. pension levy introduced by the govt during the last year. Surprised you had not heard of it.
Its not coming out of retired p.s. peoples pensions, eg a Guard taking early retirement now still has his pension pot worth over a million, he is as comfortably off as before. Little did this fellow, far from the top of his school class in 1979, think he would now effectively be a retired millionaire.

dearg lady

What would public sector workers here think about a change to their pension scheme?
I think the best idea would be to increase state pension, and have everyone pay into that. It would be enough to live on, but for people who want to set further amounts aside for the future, they could pay into a private pension scheme available to public and private sector employees. Limited tax breaks on this, up to a certain amount per week/month NOT % of pay.

Maybe if this happened we could finally have a meaningful debate on public v private sector salaries :rolleyes:

Hydrosylator

Amhran Nua wrote: »

€13 billion on quangos. Are they included in the general public sector pay bill on most reports is the question? The cost of public pay to the exchequer is considerably less than normally thought as well, since they are paid from the same pot as they pay taxes into. With that said we are still running a €24 billion deficit.

I'd never say cut them all, that'd be bad. I can think of quite a few ones that add no value and help nobody in any meaningful way though. They should at the very least be shelved until things improve.

I get really pissed off because lately everyone seems to be complaining about public workers on one hand, and the same people then say we have to help the banks. It's like they've forgotten who ****ed everything up in the first place.

It's made me defensive of the public sector because I feel they're being scape-goated. I'm a freelancer, with no safety net of any description, who is happy on a week where I bring in more than I would if I just quit and went on the dole. Two out of three would-be clients can't afford to pay me, unless I work for sweatshop wages. Nobody has money for anything while the people who made all the money are still hanging on to it, and they're ****ing laughing at us.

Hydrosylator

ardmacha wrote: »

When looking at where expenditure went during the boom/benchmarking period, table 2 is interesting. Education had the lowest overall increase in the period and health was highest.

On the bright side, at least health has improved in results.
Education is criminally under-funded, and always has been. I went to a school that was 25% prefabs, finished in pre-tiger years. That school is now about 60% prefabs.

If we let education slip, we lose one of our greatest advantages in the international job market.

MG

The findings could be misinterpreted.
We need to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed report
It leaves important questions unanswered.
Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
The figures are open to other interpretations.
Certain findings are contradictory.
Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have)
Not really a basis for long term decisions
Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment
No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy
Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice
They is harbouring a grudge against the public service.

(With apologies to Sir H)

jimmmy

Hydrosylator wrote: »

It's like they've forgotten who ****ed everything up in the first place.

Government, Financial regulator, Irish Central bank ?

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I'm a freelancer, with no safety net of any description, who is happy on a week where I bring in more than I would if I just quit and went on the dole.

Sorry to enlighten you but if you are really a freelancer, you will find it difficult or impossible to get the dole, if you have any means ( eg a property you may a bought / got a mortgage on, even though it may be in negative equity ). I know many self employed earning / getting less that the dole is worth.

jimmmy

MG wrote: »

The findings could be misinterpreted.
We need to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed report
It leaves important questions unanswered.
Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
The figures are open to other interpretations.
Certain findings are contradictory.
Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have)
Not really a basis for long term decisions
Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment
No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy
Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice
They is harbouring a grudge against the public service.

(With apologies to Sir H)

Nicely put.
Every excuse in the world to keep the p.s. and their retirees in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed for as long as possible.

Amhran Nua

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I get really pissed off because lately everyone seems to be complaining about public workers on one hand, and the same people then say we have to help the banks. It's like they've forgotten who ****ed everything up in the first place.

Agreed, something has gone very badly wrong with the elected leaders of the country. Some might argue that it went wrong back in 2000 and 2001. The costs to the exchequer must be addressed, but pumping cash into the banks has failed everywhere it has been tried, and it will fail here too. Still, if they get nationalised afterwards at least their profits will be repatriated.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I'm a freelancer, with no safety net of any description, who is happy on a week where I bring in more than I would if I just quit and went on the dole. Two out of three would-be clients can't afford to pay me, unless I work for sweatshop wages.

Same as myself so.

ardmacha

Education is criminally under-funded, and always has been. I went to a school that was 25% prefabs, finished in pre-tiger years. That school is now about 60% prefabs.

Which raises the general point, why do we have a public finance crisis? Education is an important part of any government's expenditure, but the money was not spent here even in proportion to other countries. We must be spending more somewhere than other nations do or taxing less if we have a public finance crisis.

jimmmy

ardmacha wrote: »

Which raises the general point, why do we have a public finance crisis? Education is an important part of any government's expenditure, but the money was not spent here even in proportion to other countries. We must be spending more somewhere than other nations do or taxing less if we have a public finance crisis.

True enough. I remember showing statistics on another thread about how the Nordic countries spend more on education, but they have better facilities, and pay their staff less, which is the important thing. There is a comparison table actually on the 3rd last page of this months Business Plus magazine, comparing international pay of teachers.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Ah, the infamous p.s. pension levy introduced by the govt during the last year. Surprised you had not heard of it.

Anybody who participates here hears about it repeatedly, usually from you. It is dishonest to represent it as the only contribution public servants make towards their pensions.

Its not coming out of retired p.s. peoples pensions ...

That looks like you are getting personal -- again.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Anybody who participates here hears about it repeatedly, usually from you.

Then why ask ?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is dishonest to represent it as the only contribution public servants make towards their pensions.

Nobody said it was "only contribution public servants make towards their pensions."

dearg lady

jimmmy wrote: »

Nobody said it was "only contribution public servants make towards their pensions."

jimmmy wrote: »

That 7% is the best value you ever paid.

You implied it Jimmmy, and you know it, you're smart enough to realise how that woudl be read.
Did you ever let people know what you do yourself Jimmmy? What sort of hit has your personal pay taken? I sincerely hope you're not one of those people who wants everyone else but themselves to suffer.

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Then why ask ?

In an effort to get you to be fair. Is that a vain hope?

Nobody said it was "only contribution public servants make towards their pensions."

What dearg lady said.

jimmmy

OK, deary lady, if the govt tomorrow said to you they are going to scrap the p.s. pension and the levy ( or levies as the case may be ) , would that be ok with you ? If you think the pension levy is more of an expense than its worth, would you be prepared to pay the same contributions and tax as the private sector and take care of your own pension arrangements / get the same deal as them ? I think not. If you think so, why not ask your colleagues / get your union to press the govt to drop the whole public service pension arrangement + levy from not on, and in the future only pay pensions on the basis of money / contributions received up until now ?
As others have said before, anyone from the private sector would love to be paying it.

As regards what "sort of hit has my personal pay has taken", dearg lady, I do not ask others personal questions like that. However I can say I earn a lot less than years ago, and the provision I made for my pension has also has suffered in a very big way. Nobody pays me to post , during these office hours, unlike some others on this board.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In an effort to get you to be fair. Is that a vain hope?

You ask what was the 7% and I explain to you about the p.s. levy. Is it fair ? No. As Eddie Hobbs said on RTE TV last Monday night week, p.s. pensions are still massively subsidised eg a Garda he said, should be paying 48% of his salary if he was to be paying the full economic cost of his pension.
Do not forget - as you very well know - there are many public sector people retired today with pensions worth seven figures ( over a million ), who only contributed in to a very small part of that. Its one of the reasons our govt is borrowing approx 26 billion this year, at the last count, to be repaid with interest by our children + grandchildren.

dearg lady

jimmmy wrote: »

OK, deary lady, if the govt tomorrow said to you they are going to scrap the p.s. pension and the levy ( or levies as the case may be ) , would that be ok with you ?

Please see what I posted already on this thread

dearg lady wrote: »

I think the best idea would be to increase state pension, and have everyone pay into that. It would be enough to live on, but for people who want to set further amounts aside for the future, they could pay into a private pension scheme available to public and private sector employees. Limited tax breaks on this, up to a certain amount per week/month NOT % of pay.

jimmmy wrote: »

If you think the pension levy is more of an expense than its worth, would you be prepared to pay the same contributions and tax as the private sector and take care of your own pension arrangements / get the same deal as them ? I think not. If you think so, why not ask your colleagues / get your union to press the govt to drop the whole public service pension arrangement + levy from not on, and in the future only pay pensions on the basis of money / contributions received up until now ?
As others have said before, anyone from the private sector would love to be paying it.

Again, refer to above. I'm well aware the public sector pension is excellent, my point was, in the interest of reasonable debate, you can surely see that it's not all positives.

jimmmy wrote: »

As regards what "sort of hit has my personal pay has taken", dearg lady, I do not ask others personal questions like that. However I can say I earn a lot less than years ago, and the provision I made for my pension has also has suffered in a very big way. Nobody pays me to post , during these office hours, unlike some others on this board.

That's fair enough Jimmmy, but I don't think you should bring personal details about others into this thread and others if you are not willing to be honest about yourself. I know you didn't ask for this info from others, but it still shouldn't be brought up in a snide way which you often resort to.

Hydrosylator

jimmmy wrote: »

Government, Financial regulator, Irish Central bank ?

Banks. Public Enemy No 1. The government didn't catch them at the time. If I go out and stab someone, is it the fault of the gardaí?

jimmmy wrote: »

Sorry to enlighten you but if you are really a freelancer, you will find it difficult or impossible to get the dole, if you have any means ( eg a property you may a bought / got a mortgage on, even though it may be in negative equity ). I know many self employed earning / getting less that the dole is worth.

Jobseekers Allowance. It's means tested, and I was in the process of being approved last year when I had the good fortune of a one month contract.

On a week where you have work, no dole.
On a week where you don't, better than regular dole.
On a week where you have some work, you get dole for the applicable days you don't have work.

I know a few freelancer's who use it. Like me, they have no means to speak of. Works best for sole traders I think. I've put it off so far, it's my last resort, and I might not get it.
I recommend any freelancer in dire financial straits to at least try for it though.

Idbatterim

this whole arguing backwards and forwards about the pay is ridiculous! what price do they put on...

1. job security
2. more holidays
3. less hours
4. the majoirty of jobs in the PS being way less stressful & pressurised than the private sector.

there are probably even more points, but they would be the main ones, when you factor in all of that, their pay as has been suggested by economists and posters on boards, should be atleast, atleast 10% less than private, probably more like 20%. If we really want to talk about fair!

jimmmy

dearg lady wrote: »

I'm well aware the public sector pension is excellent, my point was, in the interest of reasonable debate, you can surely see that it's not all positives.

My point is that while its "excellent" for those lucky enough to receive it, its not "excellent" for the exchequer, or for the nations children + grandchildren who will have an enormous pile of money + interest to repay to foreign banks...the govt is borrowing something like 26,000,000,000.00 this year alone just to pay everyone they pay as much as they pay.

dearg lady wrote: »

That's fair enough Jimmmy, but I don't think you should bring personal details about others into this thread .

Excuse me, I do not bring personal details from others in to this thread - and I have never asked anyone what they work at, or how much they have taken as a paycut, or anything like that.

dearg lady wrote: »

and others if you are not willing to be honest about yourself.

I am honest about everything I say, I can assure you. Anyway, no hard feelings, back to the thread.

deise blue

jimmmy wrote: »

ok, scrap the 7% so, and make provision for your own pension, like every private sector has to ( apart from the old age pension which most people inc the p.s. are entitled to ) .
I do not think you would like that either.

Anyone from the private sector would love to be paying it.
Not to mention having the other perks, like shorter working week, greater job security etc.

Sorry Jimmy - you totally wrong , if you receive a public services pension you are not entitled to the old age pension ( sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good rant !)

Do you know what Bank employees pay towards their 2/3rd of final salary pension -2.5% , yes I know AIB closed off their DB pension scheme to new entrants in 1996 and BOI in 2007 but both introduced hybrid DB/DC schemes into to which the mandatory contribution is a mere 2% with voluntary further contributions capped at 3.5% - a maximum contribution of 5.5% which is actuarially calculated to produce a 2/4 rds of final salry pension - oh and they have a 35 hour week.
Similar pension schemes operate in the insurance sector , the semi state bodies and in the multi-nationals !

jimmmy

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Banks. Public Enemy No 1. The government didn't catch them at the time.

Did they do anything illegial at the time ? I am against "Fingers" at the Irish Nationwide + "Fitzie" at Anglo-Irish bank as much as you, but most bankers did nothing illegial and acted properly at the time. They were reacting to the marketplace. The banks were competing to offer returns to their shareholders. It was the govt who created the bubble, through continually extending section 23 + section 27 tax incentives, cutting taxes , raising minimum wage + p.s. wages, allowing the banks to offer 100% loans etc. The govt, central bank were the ones who acted improperly - if they + the regulator had done their jobs properly our property bubble would not have grown so much.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Jobseekers Allowance. It's means tested, and I was in the process of being approved last year when I had the good fortune of a one month contract.

I know a few freelancer's who use it. Like me, they have no means to speak of.

Thanks for that. That was my point. Its means tested. Many people, especially those "not young", would have some means eg a small bit of savings, a car, a house in negative equity. Thats why many self-employed - especially those who worked hard and saved as best they could - cannot now claim any unemployment assistance even if they have made next to nothing this year .

dearg lady

jimmmy wrote: »

OK, deary lady, if the govt tomorrow said to you they are going to scrap the p.s. pension and the levy ( or levies as the case may be ) , would that be ok with you ? If you think the pension levy is more of an expense than its worth, would you be prepared to pay the same contributions and tax as the private sector and take care of your own pension arrangements / get the same deal as them ? I think not. If you think so, why not ask your colleagues / get your union to press the govt to drop the whole public service pension arrangement + levy from not on, and in the future only pay pensions on the basis of money / contributions received up until now ?
As others have said before, anyone from the private sector would love to be paying it.

As regards what "sort of hit has my personal pay has taken", dearg lady, I do not ask others personal questions like that. However I can say I earn a lot less than years ago, and the provision I made for my pension has also has suffered in a very big way. Nobody pays me to post , during these office hours, unlike some others on this board.

jimmmy wrote: »

My point is that while its "excellent" for those lucky enough to receive it, its not "excellent" for the exchequer, or for the nations children + grandchildren who will have an enormous pile of money + interest to repay to foreign banks...the govt is borrowing something like 26,000,000,000.00 this year alone just to pay everyone they pay as much as they pay.

So you were utterly wrong in your assumptions about my feelings on the public sector pension, yet you choose to gloss over this in your following post. You also choose to completely ignore what I said on pension reform. Nowhere have I suggested that public sector pensions are feasible, quite the opposite in fact.

jimmmy wrote: »

Excuse me, I do not bring personal details from others in to this thread - and I have never asked anyone what they work at, or how much they have taken as a paycut, or anything like that.

I didn't suggested you asked these things of people, but I most certainly have seen incidents of you dragging in other peoples info, snide remarks about certain posters posting during the day, a few comments about Breathnachs pension, and the thread you started today http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055705627

Amhran Nua

jimmmy wrote: »

It was the govt who created the bubble, through continually extending section 23 + section 27 tax incentives, cutting taxes , raising minimum wage + p.s. wages, allowing the banks to offer 100% loans etc. The govt, central bank were the ones who acted improperly - if they + the regulator had done their jobs properly our property bubble would not have grown so much.

I'd say thats a fairly accurate assessment of the situation as it stood. The banks did work hand in glove with the government however, and it wouldn't be too much to say that they acted in expectation of a taxpayer bailout, given that the government had done it before, never mind the implicit guarantee in pfandbrief style securitisation of loans, long before there was an actual guarantee.

Again what we see here are the fingerprints of private for profit companies all over the legislature of a country, with the full knowledge of elected representatives.

jimmmy

deise blue wrote: »

Sorry Jimmy - you totally wrong , if you receive a public services pension you are not entitled to the old age pension ( sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good rant !)!

I am totally right, as I have consistently understood the above...you cannot get both the p.s. pension in full + the old age pension. eg if your p.s. pension is 30,000 ( wwhich is probably not very far off the average, given average p.s. wage of 966 p.w., and considering age, promotion etc ) and old age pension is say 10,000 a year in round figures, you still only get 30,000 in total.

deise blue wrote: »

Similar pension schemes operate in the insurance sector , the semi state bodies and in the multi-nationals !

Sometimes they exist in multinationals, but not always , and they are not paid 50% of finishing salary and big lump sum payment, govt guaranteed.
Such pensions are not paid by the taxpayer, thats the difference. Ask the bulk of the 1,800,000 people in the private sector if they are entitled to a guaranteed pension as good as a ps pension, which another poster admitted as "excellent".