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

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".

jimmmy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

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, .

I do not think most people expected the downturn like it happened....even the directors of the banks themselves, some of whom bought shares with their own money before the sudden downturn / financial crises.....and have lost a lot of money as a result. This was their own money ...you cannot say "that they acted in expectation of a taxpayer bailout" or they would have behaved differently .

deise blue

jimmmy wrote: »

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.




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".

What are you on about ?, you said the public sector can claim the OAP which you cannot if you are in receipt of a public services pension.
To expand on your argument if a Banker received a pension of €30,000 on retirement he can also avail of the oap on attaining 66 , a public sector worker retiring on the same pension cannot claim the OAP.
And yes the public sector pensions are good but not as good as those in large swathes of the private sector and public sector workers are making greater contributions from their salaries than those in Banks for example.

Riskymove

deise blue wrote: »

What are you on about ?, you said the public sector can claim the OAP which you cannot if you are in receipt of a public services pension.
To expand on your argument if a Banker received a pension of €30,000 on retirement he can also avail of the oap on attaining 66 , a public sector worker retiring on the same pension cannot claim the OAP.
And yes the public sector pensions are good but not as good as those in large swathes of the private sector and public sector workers are making greater contributions from their salaries than those in Banks for example.

the only reason a retired public servant could not claim OAP is because they did not pay the appropriate PRSI - this is what the Red Lady is talking about

from 1995 new entrants have been on Class A PRSI and therefore will be getting both OAP and a State pension; however, the state pension is reduced by the amount of the OAP - this is what jimmmy is talking about

Amhran Nua

jimmmy wrote: »

I do not think most people expected the downturn like it happened....even the directors of the banks themselves, some of whom bought shares with their own money before the sudden downturn / financial crises.....and have lost a lot of money as a result. This was their own money ...you cannot say "that they acted in expectation of a taxpayer bailout" or they would have behaved differently .

Why would they not buy shares if they expected a taxpayer bailout?

deise blue

Riskymove wrote: »

the only reason a retired public servant could not claim OAP is because they did not pay the appropriate PRSI - this is what the Red Lady is talking about

from 1995 new entrants have been on Class A PRSI and therefore will be getting both OAP and a State pension; however, the state pension is reduced by the amount of the OAP - this is what jimmmy is talking about

With you now !
The argument remains the same though , the bulk of retirees from the public sector over the coming 25/26 years will all be pre 1995 employees on the basis that post 1995 employees will have not completed 40 years until at the earliest 2035 and if we use a pension figure of €30,000 then that is the full extent of their pension but if a private sector worker retires on the same figure then that person can claim the OAP in addition to his existing work related pension

CleverUsername

Riskymove wrote: »

the only reason a retired public servant could not claim OAP is because they did not pay the appropriate PRSI - this is what the Red Lady is talking about

from 1995 new entrants have been on Class A PRSI and therefore will be getting both OAP and a State pension; however, the state pension is reduced by the amount of the OAP - this is what jimmmy is talking about

There appears to be some confusion on this:

If you wish to say that the PRSI ps worker receives OAP €10,000, then you must also deduct that from the pension that they get.

I.E. PS Worker earning €40,000, with full (40yrs) service, would receive (depending on how you wish to state it) either:

1. A PS Pension of €20,000 with no OAP or//
2. A PS Pension of €10,000 plus OAP PRSI Pension of €10,000

NET RESULT = Pension of €20,000

I think there is some posts which could confuse a reader into believe that the PS worker would receive 20k + 10K which is INCORRECT

Idbatterim

if reform of the Ps began, would it be in any way feasible, not to pay their pension, and let them opt to sort out their own if they wished?

jimmmy

CleverUsername wrote: »

I think there is some posts which could confuse a reader into believe that the PS worker would receive 20k + 10K which is INCORRECT

I and most others , if not all others, I think, understood the above, so do not know which posts you refer to.
Incidentally, the example you take is of a low paid p.s. worker ( "PS Worker earning €40,000" ...the average p.s. renumeration at retirement is a lot more ), but the principle remains the same.

CleverUsername

Idbatterim wrote: »

if reform of the Ps began, would it be in any way feasible, not to pay their pension, and let them opt to sort out their own if they wished?

One difficulty with that is that it would cost the government more in the short term. ie. at the moment pension contributions deducted from state workers are not collected and ringfenced. I believe they are just part of the general coffers. The government would have to pay every new worker circa 13.5% more in hard cash each month, which they cant afford at the moment.

Unfortunately long term gains have a higher short term price.

I would be more in favour of a government backed contribution scheme open to everyone similar to that suggested by the commission for taxation

jimmmy

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why would they not buy shares if they expected a taxpayer bailout?

Some bankers bought bank shares out of their own money at / near the top of the market....if as you say "that they acted in expectation of a taxpayer bailout" they would not have done so, as they would have known shares would have collapsed, which they did.