Question for public sector workers - What % decuctions for your pension - exactly?

_Kooli_

First off if we can keep this thread to only facts that would be great. Only post if you have actual concrete figures to post. ie please dont come on bashing anybody just for the sake of getting your bit in. This thread is not for that.

Its for finding out facts, without arguments popping up all over the place.

I know there are lies, damned lies and statistics going around as usual.

Ive been talking to a few friends who are civil servants and they say they actually pay more than the pension levy towards their pension. Over their 40 year working life this would add up to probably more than a private sector worker would pay for the same pension. I know i prefer my private pension for sure. Given that i will also get the state pension and public servants wont.

I would like public sector workers to post the exact % (not amount, im aware thats private) of their salary that goes towards their pension.
eg 7.5% Pension levy + Pension -grouped etc or whatever they are.

If you feel comfortable posting your payslip then post it but remove personal info etc.

Hopefully we'll get some hard facts in here instead of all the guesses going around.

jimmmy

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Its for finding out facts, without arguments.

One relevant fact which needs to be unearthed is average public sector pension. Get that too. I have tried, without success.

ParkRunner

http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/faq2.pdf

This is for people who started in the civil service post 1995 and does not include the pension levy contribution.

i.e. about 14% including the pension levy. There are also the PRSI and Health Levy contributions of 4% each

_Kooli_

jimmmy wrote: »

One relevant fact which needs to be unearthed is average public sector pension. Get that too. I have tried, without success.

I was specifically thinking about yourself when i asked for no nonsense posts. As i have seen them from you in all the other threads.

Please post in the other threads and leave this one for its purpose. To gather exact percentages of salaries contributed.

eoinbn

http://www.gra.cc/levy_calculator_1st_may_2009.shtml

Basically it is like this. Everyone pays 6.5% towards their pension. Then depending on their wage they pay a pension levy. However depending on what debate you are having that can change from a straight up paycut, to a pension contribution. If you say that nobody in the PS has taken a paycut they will suggest that the PS has taken an average of 7.5%(that's before the tax relief, which really puts the cut at ~4%, just like the 6.5% is closer to 3.5%) of a cut. However if you are debating PS pensions then they will change from a 7.5% paycut to a 7.5% pension contribution and add that to the 6.5% and suggest that they pay 14% of their salary towards their pension.

ei.sdraob

EF wrote: »

http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/faq2.pdf

This is for people who started in the civil service post 1995 and does not include the pension levy contribution.

i.e. about 14% including the pension levy. There are also the PRSI and Health Levy contributions of 4% each

what current % of PS started before 1995? any figures

leeroybrown

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what current % of PS started before 1995? any figures

I'd expect that quite a very percentage did. It's only 14 years ago. I'd also expect that the vast majority of senior public/civil service members are covered by these terms.

eoinbn wrote: »

Basically it is like this. Everyone pays 6.5% towards their pension.

It's not as clear cut as just '6.5%'. There will be very different arrangements for staff who joined pre- and post- April 1995. Those who joined the civil/public service before April 1995, including most of the higher paid staff, have substantially lower pension contributions. Individual pension schemes will have different rules and different contribution measurements although I'd expect most to be at around the 6.5% mark for post-April 1995 employees.

_Kooli_

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what current % of PS started before 1995? any figures

And is there a difference in the pension contributions in pre and post 95 workers.

Just for the sake of argument lets take the pension levy as being a pension payment and not con sider it a wage cut for the purposes of this thread.

What i am trying to find out really is would the PS be better off if they could opt out of the public service pension and start a private pension for themselves instead with the added benefit of the state pension when they retire too. With a refund of the % they have paid into their pensions or the accrued benefit of these up to the point they have opted out.

ilovelamp2000

_Kooli_ wrote: »

And is there a difference in the pension contributions in pre and post 95 workers.

Just for the sake of argument lets take the pension levy as being a pension payment and not con sider it a wage cut for the purposes of this thread.

What i am trying to find out really is would the PS be better off if they could opt out of the public service pension and start a private pension for themselves instead. With a refund of the % they have paid into their pensions or the accrued benefit of these up to the point they have opted out.

You're aware that not everyone that pays the pension levy is entitled to a pension ?

It's a pay cut.

leeroybrown

_Kooli_ wrote: »

And is there a difference in the pension contributions in pre and post 95 workers.

Huge. For example, the GRA document above shows 6.5% post-1995 and 3.5% pre-1995. I think (open to correction on this one) that pre-1995 Civil Service employees are exempt from contributions.

cyclopath2001

Rosco1982 wrote: »

You're aware that not everyone that pays the pension levy is entitled to a pension ? It's a pay cut.

It's also levied on overtime payments even though the overtime is not reckonable for pension entitlement.

It's a special tax on public servants.

ParkRunner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what current % of PS started before 1995? any figures

I have no idea to be honest but they are on a different (lower) payscale to those appointed post 1995

cyclopath2001

leeroybrown wrote: »

I think (open to correction on this one) that pre-1995 Civil Service employees are exempt from contributions.

But they get paid less than post 1995. Also, the post 95's qualify for the Old Age Pension and fringe benefits (same a private sector), pre '95 do not.

ilovelamp2000

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's also levied on overtime payments even though the overtime is not reckonable for pension entitlement.

It's a special tax on public servants.

I wasn't aware of that.

leeroybrown

EF wrote: »

I have no idea to be honest but they are on a different (lower) payscale to those appointed post 1995

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But they get paid less than post 1995. Also, the post 95's qualify for the Old Age Pension and fringe benefits (same a private sector), pre '95 do not.

Thanks for the information. Not having worked for the Civil Service I'm not 100% familiar with all the details.

I'm sorry I mentioned it now as 'certain' posters will now read that and go on a rant using only half the information.

Edit: I checked the Civil Service scales and there appears to be an approx 5% pay difference (for them specifically) between pre- and post- 1995 so that would largely explain the lack of a pension deduction.

leeroybrown

Rosco1982 wrote: »

You're aware that not everyone that pays the pension levy is entitled to a pension ?

It's a pay cut.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's also levied on overtime payments even though the overtime is not reckonable for pension entitlement.
It's a special tax on public servants.

Indeed, it's effectively a pay cut implemented in the only way that wouldn't affect the pensions of those who've already retired (their payments are tied to existing scale points).

What I find very interesting is that Brian Lenihan is on record in the Dáil earlier this year saying that the it was intended that those with no pension entitlement would be exempt from the levy and that those who left the public/civil service with no 'preserved pension' entitlement (ie. they'd just get a refund of their own contributions) would be entitled to a full refund of their payments.

Perhaps (in typical fashion) they fudged the final legislation to maximise revenue.

themusicman

Hi all

A public servant here.

Can I give numbers rather than percentages as it will be clear. I am copying from my last payslip

Salary Gross Pay 2543 fortnight

Pension Deductions (adding them as they are seperated into pension and pension levy) 340.14

If I retired tomorrow gross pension Assuming 40 years service paying pension contributions 1271.50

I am pre 1995 entry. If I was post 1995 my pension would be reduced by the contributary OAP as since 1995 public servants pay the full stamp and get full benefits(dental optical etc.) We dont pay and dont get(D1 contribution class)

Hope that can help others work out the situation. I am not commenting one way or other as op seems to want facts not opinions

BTW the pension levy applies, as said already, to all payments although some of my payment is non pensionable. However my normal pension contribution is not applied to these payments which may explain how the levy(pension) is perceived as a pay cut.

themusicman

Also forgot to mention when comparing public and private sectors, public servants MUST join the pension scheme from day one of their employment. Some of my friends when discussing the issue are comparing a 30 year pay in to their private pensions(obviously these are personal pensions rather than a company scheme.

Also a good friend of mine is on a 2/3 defined pension. All public servants are on 1/2

leeroybrown

In the interest's of helping put this thread on track:

My current position is in the research education (third-level) sector so I'm technically a public sector employee (although my job security is tied to the availability of research funding). I did a quick calculation and my current pension levy deduction and pension payments are 10.5% of gross.

I'll add that I don't have a major objection to the pension levy or a moderate salary adjustment so long as it doesn't tip those who are tight on cash over the edge. FF spent long enough bending over for the Unions while getting absolutely nothing in return resulting in us being in this mess.

P. Breathnach

leeroybrown wrote: »

... I checked the Civil Service scales and there appears to be an approx 5% pay difference (for them specifically) between pre- and post- 1995 so that would largely explain the lack of a pension deduction.

More than largely: it would fully explain it. The sums were done so as to ensure that both groups were in the same position.

_Kooli_

themusicman wrote: »

Hi all

A public servant here.

Can I give numbers rather than percentages as it will be clear. I am copying from my last payslip

Salary Gross Pay 2543 fortnight

Pension Deductions (adding them as they are seperated into pension and pension levy) 340.14

If I retired tomorrow gross pension Assuming 40 years service paying pension contributions 1271.50

I am pre 1995 entry. If I was post 1995 my pension would be reduced by the contributary OAP as since 1995 public servants pay the full stamp and get full benefits(dental optical etc.) We dont pay and dont get(D1 contribution class)

Hope that can help others work out the situation. I am not commenting one way or other as op seems to want facts not opinions

BTW the pension levy applies, as said already, to all payments although some of my payment is non pensionable. However my normal pension contribution is not applied to these payments which may explain how the levy(pension) is perceived as a pay cut.

Thanks.
Thats just the type of info im looking for.
Im starting to feel very sorry for public sector workers, after the research ive done in the last few days. More info guys though please.

Just for the record. Im private sector and pay 8% of my salary yearly. I expect to have a pension of at least 50% of my salary (if i continue paying 8%) when i retire including the state pension of €12,000. I also get tax relief on my payments.

namenotavailablE

Thought I might mention this if anyone wants to accurately calculate their percentages- my spreadsheet calculator [downloadable at taxcalc.eu/monthlyss] has a pie-chart facility which will show the percentages for pension deductions (and any other deductions) applicable to your pay whether you're a public or private sector employee.

Once you enter your pay details, use the 'Other tools' worksheet to create the pie-chart.

At present I pay 14.7% of my gross pay in compulsory superannuation and public sector pension levy deductions. These deductions are tax relievable, however, so the net effect is a lower percentage of my gross.

wicklowmale

Ok i have a few questions and if anyone can provide some REAL answers that would be great.

1) Re: Pensions: I understand in the private sector when you retire we can take one yrs salary tax free, isn't it correct that the Public sector you can take 1.5-2 times your salary tax free? In this case i can understand they should contribute more towards pesions than the private sector

2) Why should the private sector take the brunt of the redundancies in the country? approx. 200,000 so far in the private sector but none in the Public sector

3) Economists in ireland and abroad (IMF) agree that considering the number of ppl employed in the Public sector, the yearly payrole bill is much too high.

4) As the IMF is helping to provide Ireland, and other European countries to get through this recession, If ireland does not do something serious with the Public sector(ie wage cuts, reduced overtime, redundancies etc) the IMF has the power to come in and take control. This is understanding and realistic, it would be like any bank calling in a examiner or creditor to over see the running of any company that is unable to pay its loans.

Can ppl provide real answers to the above?

ParkRunner

wicklowmale wrote: »

Ok i have a few questions and if anyone can provide some REAL answers that would be great.

1) Re: Pensions: I understand in the private sector when you retire we can take one yrs salary tax free, isn't it correct that the Public sector you can take 1.5-2 times your salary tax free? In this case i can understand they should contribute more towards pesions than the private sector

The lump sum is 3/80ths of pensionable remuneration for
each year of service subject to a maximum of 120/80ths. This payment
is currently tax free. i.e. a maximum of 1.5 times pensionable remuneration after 40 years

That is the only fact you asked for in your post, which you have posted in more than one thread.

_Kooli_

wicklowmale wrote: »

Ok i have a few questions and if anyone can provide some REAL answers that would be great.

1) Re: Pensions: I understand in the private sector when you retire we can take one yrs salary tax free, isn't it correct that the Public sector you can take 1.5-2 times your salary tax free? In this case i can understand they should contribute more towards pesions than the private sector

2) Why should the private sector take the brunt of the redundancies in the country? approx. 200,000 so far in the private sector but none in the Public sector

3) Economists in ireland and abroad (IMF) agree that considering the number of ppl employed in the Public sector, the yearly payrole bill is much too high.

4) As the IMF is helping to provide Ireland, and other European countries to get through this recession, If ireland does not do something serious with the Public sector(ie wage cuts, reduced overtime, redundancies etc) the IMF has the power to come in and take control. This is understanding and realistic, it would be like any bank calling in a examiner or creditor to over see the running of any company that is unable to pay its loans.

Can ppl provide real answers to the above?

Lets establish what percentage of their salary they have to pay to get their pension first.

leeroybrown

wicklowmale wrote: »

1) Re: Pensions: I understand in the private sector when you retire we can take one yrs salary tax free, isn't it correct that the Public sector you can take 1.5-2 times your salary tax free? In this case i can understand they should contribute more towards pesions than the private sector

I'm not aware of any taxation difference for public sector or private sector pensions. As EF points out above a typical public sector pension includes a payment towards a lump sum that can reach 1.5 years salary after 40 years of service. If private sector pensions that you have encountered are limited to one year then it's likely due to the rules of the pension scheme itself rather than taxation.

This point is vaguely relevant to this thread the others have no place here.

_Kooli_

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'm not aware of any taxation difference for public sector or private sector pensions. As EF points out above a typical public sector pension includes a payment towards a lump sum that can reach 1.5 years salary after 40 years of service. If private sector pensions that you have encountered are limited to one year then it's likely due to the rules of the pension scheme itself rather than taxation.

This point is vaguely relevant to this thread the others have no place here.

You can choose what the lump sum is paid in a private pension. I think you may even be able to change it just before you retire too. It all depends what suits you at the time.

leeroybrown

_Kooli_ wrote: »

You can choose what the lump sum is paid in a private pension. I think you may even be able to change it just before you retire too. It all depends what suits you at the time.

I'm aware of that. My point was that there is no difference in how public and private sector pension lump sums are taxed. The post by 'wicklowmale' implied that there was a lower limit on private sector lump sums.

HollyB

wicklowmale wrote: »

2) Why should the private sector take the brunt of the redundancies in the country? approx. 200,000 so far in the private sector but none in the Public sector

If a private sector company suffers from a loss of business due to a decrease in demand, it may no longer have work for as many staff or it may not be able to survive at all, and may need to make everybody redundant. In the public sector, demand for services can increase when the economy takes a downturn - social welfare would be one example of this, since there are obviously more people claiming the dole and therefore more people needed to deal with their claims.

With a private sector company, if somebody can't afford to pay for a product, they don't get it. With the public sector, services are not cut off for those who are not working, or who work but earn a salary that is low enough that they receive more from the state than they pay in taxes. If somebody loses their job, they'll have to cut back on spending, particularly where luxury items are concerned, which means less business for private sector companies, but their kids will still need to go to school, they'll still need to have access to healthcare, they'll need social welfare payment, possibly assistance where accommodation is concerned, etc.

They may depend more on public services than they did when they were working.

Cutting the public sector for the sake of mirroring the redundancies in the private sector when the demand on the public services remains as high or higher would be foolish, although I do think that it should be easier to transfer people from sections that may not be as busy to areas like social welfare or redundancies where the demand on services is increasing.

_Kooli_

We seem to have gone off topic again. Me included. Can everybody please refer the the OP before posting.
Thanks.

nesf

_Kooli_ wrote: »

We seem to have gone off topic again. Me included. Can everybody please refer the the OP before posting.
Thanks.

_Kooli_ you're not a moderator. Please don't tell people to get back on topic. Thanks.

_Kooli_

nesf wrote: »

_Kooli_ you're not a moderator. Please don't tell people to get back on topic. Thanks.

Oh i see. Is it not allowed for the OP to ask for the questions he asked to be answered. Sorry about that.

ParkRunner

http://www.civilservant.org.uk/pensions.shtml

As our wages are so often compared to those working in the public sector in other countries, it's no harm having a pension contribution comparison also.

For the United Kingdom employees contribute 3.5% towards their pensions! Some interesting changes came about in 2007 also which might be worth considering here. The arguments on the site pretty much mirror whats is happening here at present.

Pensions will no longer be based on final salaries, but on "career averages" - see further below. In other words, pensions will be based on a proportion of the pay earned in each and every year of service, rather than on a proportion of the pay earned shortly before retirement. Employers will each year calculate an amount of pension based on that year's salary, and then freeze it. They will then increase that figure by inflation each year so that lots of little bits of pension will eventually make up the total pension.

There will be a cap on any future increase in taxpayers' liabilities if costs rise beyond what is at present anticipated. Initially any extra cost would be split 50:50 with employees, but with an absolute cap that might prevent the employers' contribution rising above 20 per cent of salary from the then current 19.4 per cent. Therefore, if the first actuarial valuation suggests that total contribution rates need to rise by 0.8%, employers' average contributions will rise from 19.4% to 19.8%, and employees' contributions will rise from zero to 0.4% (the Classic scheme) and from 3.5% to 3.9% (the Premium and post-2007 schemes). But any rise over 1.2% may fall entirely on employees - depending on negotiation, and possible legal action, at that time. It is not expected that any adjustment to contribution rates will be needed until 2012 at the earliest, and much will then depend upon recent and forecast changes in life expectancy for the over 60s.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/psp/pensch7.htm

7.11 Financing Arrangements

7.11.1 In most countries the public service pension provision is budgeted with benefits being met on a pay-as-you-go basis. Pensions are fully funded in the Netherlands and a fund now operates in Italy also from the beginning of January 1996. In Finland, Portugal and, since October 1996, Sweden, partially funded systems are in operation.


7.11.2 In some countries members are obliged to make contributions (see section 7.6) while in others the contribution is hidden or notional in that salary levels are adjusted downwards.


7.6 Contributions Payable

7.6.1 In Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, members pay a specific percentage of salary as a contribution towards the Scheme. The rate of contribution varies from 1.5% in the United Kingdom (towards survivor's pension only) to 11.75% in Austria. The rate in most countries is in the 7% to 10% range.


7.6.2 Implicit or notional contributions through either a lowering of salary levels, a levy on the pension, or recoupment of part of the employer's contribution apply in Germany, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

7.6.3 In Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden there is an explicit employer's contribution. The rate varies from 17.25% of salary in Sweden to 23.8% of salary in Italy.

_Kooli_

From what im learning im thinking that the public sector must have some sort of discrimination case.

They all signed a contract when they started working. In that contract were certain conditions.
Those conditions are now being changed on them without them agreing to it.

But the worst part is that they are unfairly taxed. Surely everyone in the country must be treated equally under the current tax regime?

Its like taxing those who work in quick-fit more than those who work in Spar, just because those working in quick-fit started their jobs and a pension was one of the benefits.

Fair enough if any worker, who has a pension provided from their employer is made to pay a levy, but thats not the case.

And it also seems that if someone paid 14% of their salary into a private pension fund for 40 years that they would get a better pension than the public sector workers get and they would get the state pension too.

I started out thinking that the public sector actually got a much better pension but ive founf that they actually pay more for that pension than they should.

There are even public sector workers who will get about the same in their pension as they would from the state pension, but for this they have to make monthly payments plus the normal PRSI and health levies etc.

Surely this isnt fair. If i were a public sector worker i would be talking to my union. Telling them to agree to nothing and start into taking a case against the government.

Sit there and take it and you deserve what you get though. I know if anyone in my job was treated like that they would be going to solicitors.

And these are the reasons they are trying to get the public and private sectors bashing each other. To take the spotlight off themselves. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055720181

pmacdot

leeroybrown wrote: »

I'd expect that quite a very percentage did. It's only 14 years ago. I'd also expect that the vast majority of senior public/civil service members are covered by these terms.


It's not as clear cut as just '6.5%'. There will be very different arrangements for staff who joined pre- and post- April 1995. Those who joined the civil/public service before April 1995, including most of the higher paid staff, have substantially lower pension contributions. Individual pension schemes will have different rules and different contribution measurements although I'd expect most to be at around the 6.5% mark for post-April 1995 employees.

6.5% for superannuation,full PRSI post 1995 and reduced PRSI prior to 1995 ( those on reduced PRSI do not qualify for social welfare if unemployed due to ill health or other; salary just stops when sick leave runs out). Pre 1995 can retire on full pension age 60 if they have 40 years; those post 2004 (Maybe 2005) can only collect full pension at age 65.
Pension levy 7.9% plus whatever other levy applies to all workers.
The pension is based on full 40 years. I know ps workers who will not have anything like 40 years who are forced to pay superannuation plus levy plus PRSI etc for what amounts only to a state pension! This is an aspect of the pension issue that is not broadcast. For those with longer service when you deduct the state pension from the payment it is not so great as ps workers do not get a seperate state pension from their stamps.
Many in the public sector are also paying into undefined pension schemes AVCs to supplement their pension as they do not have enough years for full pension.
Some ps workers might start relatively young but many have degrees plus further qualifications and therefore have to make up for years "lost" due to time spent in education.
I believe everyone in a civilised society should have some sort of reliable pension. I do not think it is beneficial for people to be impoverished in old age. The taxpayer will end up paying one way or another.
One last point sick leave in the ps can inlude weekends, bank holidays and holidays, this can distort the sick leave numbers eg ill on Thursday Friday and Monday (certified) it will be counted as 5 days sick leave instead of 3 days.

pmacdot

_Kooli_ wrote: »

From what im learning im thinking that the public sector must have some sort of discrimination case.

They all signed a contract when they started working. In that contract were certain conditions.
Those conditions are now being changed on them without them agreing to it.

But the worst part is that they are unfairly taxed. Surely everyone in the country must be treated equally under the current tax regime?

Its like taxing those who work in quick-fit more than those who work in Spar, just because those working in quick-fit started their jobs and a pension was one of the benefits.

Fair enough if any worker, who has a pension provided from their employer is made to pay a levy, but thats not the case.

And it also seems that if someone paid 14% of their salary into a private pension fund for 40 years that they would get a better pension than the public sector workers get and they would get the state pension too.

I started out thinking that the public sector actually got a much better pension but ive founf that they actually pay more for that pension than they should.

There are even public sector workers who will get about the same in their pension as they would from the state pension, but for this they have to make monthly payments plus the normal PRSI and health levies etc.

Surely this isnt fair. If i were a public sector worker i would be talking to my union. Telling them to agree to nothing and start into taking a case against the government.

Sit there and take it and you deserve what you get though. I know if anyone in my job was treated like that they would be going to solicitors.

And these are the reasons they are trying to get the public and private sectors bashing each other. To take the spotlight off themselves. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055720181

You are right if a Private sector did what the current government have done it would be illegal and seen as breach of contract. However the government can as employer change the law to allow unilateral breach of contract with impunity. Other employers have to obey certain labour laws but not the government. However the law of custom and practice seems to be very sacred when it comes to the government themselves.